Every other marine unit in the indomatus box has gotten threads devoted to why they're OP and how GW makes everything OP. Let's discuss assault intercessors!
Seriously though, I'm curious what everyone thinks of this unit because I'm not seeing them being all that great.
It might just be I’ve been playing low point crusade games, but it seems like a quick trip to the assault doctrine. Turn 4-5 these guys would do a great job batting clean up. They should put out a ton of ap -2 attacks.
I still think they are a little “meh” but not without their merits.
To me, their biggest issue is that they're kitted out for getting up close and personal, but as Troops, you also kinda want them sitting on objectives.
Of course, in a vacuum that makes them look bad but in reality, you can take them alongside other Intercessors or Tacs and have your Assault Intercessors push for further objectives, for instance those missions where you've got some in the enemy deployment zone or damn near to it.
I take 6x5 in my white scars. They're great. They become absolute beasts in T3 and before that I advance them every turn to hold the board and bog the board down with bodies.
I'm thinking of getting some intercessors with auto bolt rifles, but for now I think they're fine. (Fine, unlike the other things in indomitus. They don't need adjusting)
They're definitely a great option for the veteran intersessors stratagem to give them extra punch.
I'm still holding off on making and painting mine until the codex comes out. I want to make sure the veterans strat stays and also see if the sergeants get the full list of melee options which will really give them a lot more punch in CC.
I think they'll be a fun unit, but not exactly OP. Rushing to the assault doctrine will give them a boost, but by the time you get there, they'll either have already reached combat and have lost impetus, or they'll have been held back, at which point you'd have been better with shooty intersessors anyway.
Hey look, another "intercessors are OP thread" *takes shot* (Sorry Brian, had to say it)
They don't really impress me. Once the stat changes for csm infantry and chainswords come into effect Chosen will make them look kind of sad, unless gw prices them through the roof. Same number of wounds and attacks, full selection of every melee weapon in the csm arsenal, plus whatever special weapons you're willing to pay for and better leadership. The only thing assault intercessors will have going on for them will be being troops. If gw had given them the option to take jump packs they could have been a little more impressive, but they didn't.
I'm still holding off on making and painting mine until the codex comes out. I want to make sure the veterans strat stays and also see if the sergeants get the full list of melee options which will really give them a lot more punch in CC..
I built half of mine, but didn’t glue the arms on. For once, the push fit nature worked for me. If there are better options, it would be a simple job to retrofit magnets
The other half are waiting for next time I grab a normal Intercessor box to make them running with the autobolters.
They would be great in any other codex. In the Space Marine codex, they suffer from the fact that Intercessors are better all-rounders, and there are about a bajillion choices that are better for actually killing stuff. So it has to be a pretty particular list for them to be better than taking normal intercessors or specialists.
So basically it's another case of "a good unit in a book full of ridiculous units doesn't look so good any more."
I really really really want to know what adjustments will be made to Tyranid Warriors, if any. At the moment they can get 4 S4 AP-2 Attacks with Boneswords.
I haven't really considered Assault Intercessors nor any lists I want them in yet. That said...
My Space Marines are (almost) exclusively Primaris. I noticed when applying the transfers to my marines in a pretty huge batch that I have a lot of Close Support units. Like more than half the infantry models in my collection. I doesn't help that I have 23 Reivers (12 knife, 11 carbine) in my marine collection. Elite slots aren't that much of an issue for me either in that I have some Aggressors, a Redemptor and an Apothecary. What my collection does have is a lot of Troop slot models. I don't really want to create more than a single Battalion at least initially when crafting my army lists. I am struggling much more with Heavy Support and even Fast Attack slots than I am Elites slots right now.
I'm having a hard time giving up my Auto Bolt Rifle Intercessors, Bolt Rifle Intercessors or my Infiltrators to squeeze in Assault Intercessors. I also only have a single Impulsor so I don't really have good movement options compared to Reivers. I also really like Reiver models and don't like loading up to heavy on any one role type. I like balance, although; I do lean toward infantry and being able to counter infantry with my armies in general. I just don't see what Assault Intercessors bring to the table (pun intended) that can't get out of my favorite 40k model beyond doubling down on lots of med Strength, Low AP/Damage melee weapons.
I mean I like the models and glad they were made. They just don't offer me anything I don't already have covered right now. I suppose it will be up to the new codex any stratagems that might have me changing my tune.
For context, the spoiler has my most current photo of my Space Marines. It's not everything, but it is like 95% of my current collection.
They kind of want mobility they don't have. Or they're White Scars, which helps.
They're good at killing light infantry if they get there, but... the other Intercessors don't have to chase infantry around to kill them. And if close combat does around, the others are.. down an attack, which doesn't matter so much if they've whittled the enemy down with bolter fire.
McMagnus Mindbullets wrote:I take 6x5 in my white scars. They're great. They become absolute beasts in T3 and before that I advance them every turn to hold the board and bog the board down with bodies.
I'm thinking of getting some intercessors with auto bolt rifles, but for now I think they're fine. (Fine, unlike the other things in indomitus. They don't need adjusting)
My Salamanders will be running 2x10(or 4x5) Assaults with 1x10(2x5) Auto Bolt Intercessors in my all Primaris list. I prob wont use any in my mixed(I love rhinos)instead full squads of Tacs or vets mobbing up the board supported by hellblasters & aggressors.
I really like the Assault Intercessor models tho and they give a good variety of poses when mixed into hellblasters or regular intercessors. My goal is to have 30 in total so at least one multipart box to build half and another to sprinkle poses into my hellblasters/intercessors.
I'm a fan of them. As troops that are good in assault with an absolute gak-ton of attacks, they're really good at playing the mission to take or at least deny enemy objectives. Any troop grade unit short of Custodians fears a charge by them, and even like a block of IG or Tyranid infantry can pretty trivially be removed from a point by them.
However, they're mostly targeting troops, not big fancy stuff, so their offensive output isn't raising any red flags, and they're playing the objectives making them pretty "boring but practical".
Also, as of now, regular intercessors can take a thunder hammer sergeant, which assault intercessors can't do [yet] so as an actual general-purpose offensive melee unit regular intercessors are a little better.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I'm a fan of them. As troops that are good in assault with an absolute gak-ton of attacks, they're really good at playing the mission to take or at least deny enemy objectives. Any troop grade unit short of Custodians fears a charge by them, and even like a block of IG or Tyranid infantry can pretty trivially be removed from a point by them.
However, they're mostly targeting troops, not big fancy stuff, so their offensive output isn't raising any red flags, and they're playing the objectives making them pretty "boring but practical".
Also, as of now, regular intercessors can take a thunder hammer sergeant, which assault intercessors can't do [yet] so as an actual general-purpose offensive melee unit regular intercessors are a little better.
The issue I see is that Auto Bolt Rifle Intercessors still seem like a better option for capturing objectives save the times they would have to make long charges to get there. It is easy enough to hose down the defenders with Primaris BARs (like the WWII weapon) then get into melee with them. The big issue being the opponent pulling the closest models making the charge far more difficult/impossible. Even then, nothing saying they have to fire with the rifles when they could switch to pistols or split fire if it is of concern. The defending unit should be crippled and the BAR Intercessors still hit well enough to bully GEQ and out Obsec MEQ Troops. And once defending they can still threaten anything they can see within 24". The only thing that might be of interest is it the extra points cost is worth all that.
But that could all be down to how I field my space marine army.
Super Ready wrote: To me, their biggest issue is that they're kitted out for getting up close and personal, but as Troops, you also kinda want them sitting on objectives.
Of course, in a vacuum that makes them look bad but in reality, you can take them alongside other Intercessors or Tacs and have your Assault Intercessors push for further objectives, for instance those missions where you've got some in the enemy deployment zone or damn near to it.
Midfield objectives are forward and where enemy will come. 9th is about fighting over midfield objectives. go there and if opponent DOESN'T come there(where your assault infiltrators are) he's basically giving up the game.
It's a cqc unit that kinda needs prolonged Engagements.
Both are things that atleast in 8th were worse then shooting.
That said if you play a subfactions with no fallback then they actually could be interesting if you got movement shenanigans.
Unless they get the option to take vet sgts with TH or other power weapons, they seem to be weaker and less well rounded an option then regular intercessors with auto boltguns.
Blackie wrote: Overpowered? I don't know, not much experience against them so far to say so. Definitely extremely solid though.
aye, they are certainly no khorne berzerkers, but they are a threat, especially against better armored units, what with ap-1 /-2 depending on game plan.
I'll admit it I did not have "unable to sate their oppression narrative with existing threads, marine players create their own marine salt thread in order to complain about how people are complaining about marines" on my dakka bingo card.
the_scotsman wrote: I'll admit it I did not have "unable to sate their oppression narrative with existing threads, marine players create their own marine salt thread in order to complain about how people are complaining about marines" on my dakka bingo card.
I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Think you hit the nail on the head with the use of the "oppression". I bet marine players probably do feel a little oppressed and victimised atm.
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
Not gonna lie. The only time I saw them on the table, they got, tanglefoot grenaded so they failed their charge, got shot and then got counter charged by my Custodes, and they all died before they swung back.
They look good on paper, but maybe not quite as impressive as you might think.
iGuy91 wrote: Not gonna lie. The only time I saw them on the table, they got, tanglefoot grenaded so they failed their charge, got shot and then got counter charged by my Custodes, and they all died before they swung back.
They look good on paper, but maybe not quite as impressive as you might think.
like i said, they are good melee units, but they are neither Khorne berzerkers nor designed to actually work with the current paradigms for melee units.
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
I mean the page is right there, I can just click the link and find out that the post actually said "they're better than every other factions TROOPS."
Which is.... maybe an exaggeration? Most troop choices aren't in good spot right now.
Assuming I could either also have their transport, or they could board my factions' transports (like we're imagining that they're some kind of new "Ultra 'Ard Boyz" or "Necron Phase-Reapers" or "Eldar Shock Guardians" unit with identical stats to assault intercessors) I would take my own factions' troops over assault intercessors....pretty much just with Harlequin Troupes and MAYBE rubric marines.
I'd take them over Chaos Marines for sure.
I'd take them over Ork Boyz in my trukk list, I'd probably take boyz still in my ghazzy footslogging list
I'd take them over all the drukhari troops in a heartbeat, lol. Two piddly kabalite warriors or one of those 4A S4 AP-1 chads? Every day. Those things are like 2 wyches stapled together that don't need to be in melee to have a save.
I'd take them over everything eldar no question at all.
I'd take them over GSC acolytes for sure.
Hmmm, guys with W2 and 3+sv or Genstealers with W1 and 5++ save, decisions decisions for Tyranids!
So, not every unit, just every troop. Which I think is very slightly hyperbolic because Custodes and Harlequins exist, and it's tough to compare them to like nurglings because they're that's like saying "what's better a grot squad or a quadlas predator" there's no comparison that makes any sense there.
But seriously?
People are not remembering the Eldar meta?
People are not remembering the claims of "You can take ANY 2000 points of models from the Eldar codex and win against tournament armies from EVERY other faction!!!!"? And people going "But, wait. Storm guardians, dire avengers, autarchs, all the named characters, avatars...?" and people saying they'd stab their firstborn child for a unit as crazy OP as a Dire Avenger?
How quickly we forget. You even have an eldar avatar.
How quickly we forget. You even have an eldar avatar.
She's not an Eldar. She's Governor Elena Derosa from Dawn of War 2.
oh, I just assume any video game female from the 40k universe is an eldar because that's usually where they stick the token woman character. The default farseer has been a helmetless woman in all the DoW games I've played despite there never being a farseer model like that to my knowledge. Or a farseer model that's not wearing a ghosthelm I dont think.
Super Ready wrote: To me, their biggest issue is that they're kitted out for getting up close and personal, but as Troops, you also kinda want them sitting on objectives.
Of course, in a vacuum that makes them look bad but in reality, you can take them alongside other Intercessors or Tacs and have your Assault Intercessors push for further objectives, for instance those missions where you've got some in the enemy deployment zone or damn near to it.
I want them sitting on your objectives. 5 Assault Intercessors and an Apothecary, or Chaplain/Captain/Lieutenant bubble, or Judiciar with their Big Sword of High Strength High AP Death pretending to be a semi-hidden power fist fit inside a Repulsor with a 4++
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
yep each day, every day. And now when SM are good and finaly fun to play in different ways for multiple marine factions, it is somehow breaking the balance of the game and making the game unfun for everyone. Even when marine players make up the majority of all players.
I still haven't built mine yet. Not sure what to do with them. Don't fit my Ravenguard as they are mostly phobos, dark angels don't really benefit from them as much, maybe Deathwatch? Going to wait for codex before doing much of anything with my Indomitus marines.
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
yep each day, every day. And now when SM are good and finaly fun to play in different ways for multiple marine factions, it is somehow breaking the balance of the game and making the game unfun for everyone. Even when marine players make up the majority of all players.
Wasn't the most recent number 28% or 32% or something from the tournament data?
In the middle of a marine dominated meta?
Is 28% a majority now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bullyboy wrote: I still haven't built mine yet. Not sure what to do with them. Don't fit my Ravenguard as they are mostly phobos, dark angels don't really benefit from them as much, maybe Deathwatch? Going to wait for codex before doing much of anything with my Indomitus marines.
I'd love it if Deathwatch got the ability to take them in the mixed kill team squads. There's a lot of potential to make primaris a lot more interesting from a squad setup standpoint if DW got the ability to mix and match.
You could put like aggressors in with them and use aggressors like an actual assault unit.
bullyboy wrote: I still haven't built mine yet. Not sure what to do with them. Don't fit my Ravenguard as they are mostly phobos, dark angels don't really benefit from them as much, maybe Deathwatch? Going to wait for codex before doing much of anything with my Indomitus marines.
They're BP/CCW scouts/marines/Grey Hunters/CSM. Sort of. Most of the same things you would have used them for you'd use these for. They're slightly cheaper than gun intercessors. Fit nicely with a character in an Impulsor. In some ways the tag along character is even better here than in the scouts. In some ways its worse. More temptation to give up 2+ bodies for 1 character.
I agree they're not for your Ravenwing if you're doing a Phobos theme, but I think the Dark Angels could benefit from them replacing one shooty Intercessor or two especially around a chaplain they're known for.
yep each day, every day. And now when SM are good and finaly fun to play in different ways for multiple marine factions, it is somehow breaking the balance of the game and making the game unfun for everyone. Even when marine players make up the majority of all players.
Very few marine players enjoy playing against other SM armies though, I certainly don't. Which is what happens when the most popular faction is also the edition's top tier.
I'd rather have a mediocre SW army that manages to find games against non loyalists than a top tier one that mostly has to fight against other loyalists. In fact despite people considered SW a mediocre-mid tier army at most during 8th I had a lot of fun with it and it was powerful enough to avoid primaris (which I don't like and I'll never buy) or doctrines (which became available to SW during the lockdown).
Now I have mixed feelings since I consider my army really too powerful for many opponents I could actually face and have to tone it down my favorite lists significantly, which I'm willing to do it although I'm not 100% happy about making changes to the lists I prefer to play.
yep each day, every day. And now when SM are good and finaly fun to play in different ways for multiple marine factions, it is somehow breaking the balance of the game and making the game unfun for everyone. Even when marine players make up the majority of all players.
Very few marine players enjoy playing against other SM armies though, I certainly don't. Which is what happens when the most popular faction is also the edition's top tier.
I'd rather have a mediocre SW army that manages to find games against non loyalists than a top tier one that mostly has to fight against other loyalists. In fact despite people considered SW a mediocre-mid tier army at most during 8th I had a lot of fun with it and it was powerful enough to avoid primaris (which I don't like and I'll never buy) or doctrines (which became available to SW during the lockdown).
Now I have mixed feelings since I consider my army really too powerful for many opponents I could actually face and have to tone it down my favorite lists significantly, which I'm willing to do it although I'm not 100% happy about making changes to the lists I prefer to play.
I play marines and don't mind the mirror at all. I actually find those matches rather fun. I would much rather play against another marine list than say a pure knight list that brought two relic guns and proceeds to nuke all my vehicles off the table turn 1.
As a matter of fact in my experience the marine players that whine about the mirror are the ones in the minority.
the_scotsman wrote: Wasn't the most recent number 28% or 32% or something from the tournament data?
In the middle of a marine dominated meta?
Is 28% a majority now?
That's over a quarter, in a game with factions going into double figures. "Majority" doesn't mean over 50%, it just means the most popular in a given set. So yes, absolutely, Marines are currently a majority.
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
Between completely misunderstanding the post about Troops comparison, acting as if Eldar and Tau = all xenos players, suggesting that all xenos (Tyranids, Orks, GSC) have a shot because Harlies and DE are showing up in tournaments, and describing the 70+% win rate of Salamanders as 'slightly better', I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you play Marines.
You know, there are plenty of xenos players who don't defend Alaitoc flyer spam or Triptides, or have meltdowns over Marines dominating the meta at the start of 8th. Not everyone has this spiteful 'feth you, I got mine' attitude. Just something to consider.
I play marines and don't mind the mirror at all. I actually find those matches rather fun. I would much rather play against another marine list than say a pure knight list that brought two relic guns and proceeds to nuke all my vehicles off the table turn 1.
As a matter of fact in my experience the marine players that whine about the mirror are the ones in the minority.
I don't whine about it, but I do enjoy a vs CSM list a lot more than I enjoy a vs SW etc list. Its not the units/style I don't enjoy about a SM v SM/DA/BA/SW/etc list its the narrative/fluff. More stories of Space Marines scrapping with each other over lets say policy disagreements like the Wolves and the Inquisition might help that.
the_scotsman wrote: Wasn't the most recent number 28% or 32% or something from the tournament data?
In the middle of a marine dominated meta?
Is 28% a majority now?
That's over a quarter, in a game with factions going into double figures. "Majority" doesn't mean over 50%, it just means the most popular in a given set. So yes, absolutely, Marines are currently a majority.
Considering that the figure of 28% accounts for the combination of what are currently 5/24 published codexes (Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Dark Angels) given perfectly even representation of all codexes, you would expect 20.8% to be marines.
It's this bizarre dance that marine players do where depending on the question being asked they want to be considered as multiple codexes or the same codex.
Do marines have too many model releases?
Well, we have to consider marines to be 5 codexes! Since they all use the primaris models collectively, it's not an out of whack model release schedule at all!
Are marines overpowered?
Well, we have to consider the win percentages of all the various marine factions together, including the ones that have fewer of the most powerful rules like Deathwatch, who don't get their own psychic power list, only get basic doctrines, don't get Bolter Discipline on their special ammo they pay more points for, etc! Their 30% winrate must be folded in to marines' overall winrate to be "fair"!
Are marines overrepresented in competitive play?
Why, no, marines are five codexes now again! They're just barely over the expected average!
Lets say you had a huge 3 game tournament and 28% of all lists are Marines. Assuming all game allocations were random (to remove any performance related skew, which probably increases the odds at the top end and reduces them at the bottom if Marines overperform.)
The odds of not encountering any Marines would be 0.72*0.72*0.72=37%.
The odds of playing Marines once would be 43%.
The odds of playing Marines twice would be 17%
And finally the odds of playing Marines 3 times would be 2%. (The 1% gap is due to my rounding).
As you can see, that's an awful lot of players playing a lot of marines.
If by contrast Harlequins made up even 10% of the field, the odds of not encountering any would be 0.9*0.9*0.9=72.9%.
the_scotsman wrote: Wasn't the most recent number 28% or 32% or something from the tournament data?
In the middle of a marine dominated meta?
Is 28% a majority now?
That's over a quarter, in a game with factions going into double figures. "Majority" doesn't mean over 50%, it just means the most popular in a given set. So yes, absolutely, Marines are currently a majority.
Considering that the figure of 28% accounts for the combination of what are currently 5/24 published codexes (Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Dark Angels) given perfectly even representation of all codexes, you would expect 20.8% to be marines.
It's this bizarre dance that marine players do where depending on the question being asked they want to be considered as multiple codexes or the same codex.
Do marines have too many model releases?
Well, we have to consider marines to be 5 codexes! Since they all use the primaris models collectively, it's not an out of whack model release schedule at all!
Are marines overpowered?
Well, we have to consider the win percentages of all the various marine factions together, including the ones that have fewer of the most powerful rules like Deathwatch, who don't get their own psychic power list, only get basic doctrines, don't get Bolter Discipline on their special ammo they pay more points for, etc! Their 30% winrate must be folded in to marines' overall winrate to be "fair"!
Are marines overrepresented in competitive play?
Why, no, marines are five codexes now again! They're just barely over the expected average!
It's different arguments with different people, it's not some central body publishing when marines should be considered separate or otherwise.
Personal takes:
Each codex/supplement should be considered separate regards power levels and tourney results. The releases are fair due to the large number of players and codex the models covered, likewise if they wanted a fully fleshed out Primaris line they needed more stuff adding but are pretty much there now.
Again Historically when looking at releases, people kick off about new marine kits that all those various factions can use, but nobody kicked up a massive stink when we had separate kits and releases for tac squads, grey hunters, blood angels tac squad, dark angels vets box etc.
Personally, when the next Space Wolf Codex comes out, I hope GW gives them the option to buy Bolt Rifles too or vice-versus gives regular Intercessors the option to add on an Astartes Chainsword. That way they would be the equivalent to "Primaris Grey Hunters".
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally, when the next Space Wolf Codex comes out, I hope GW gives them the option to buy Bolt Rifles too or vice-versus gives regular Intercessors the option to add on an Astartes Chainsword. That way they would be the equivalent to "Primaris Grey Hunters".
I think these are your Grey Hunters. I think you're going to have to pick between almost a rifle pistols+ chainsword or definitely a rifle.
I'd also guess these will be the Primaris Sword Brethren.
Your supplement will probably have Old Marine Grey Hunters, theirs will probably have old marine Brethren + Optional Neophyte Squads.
I see you guys getting Cents and what all else you didn't have before, and I also see everyone getting some of your stuff especially if it crosses multiple supplements
the_scotsman wrote: Wasn't the most recent number 28% or 32% or something from the tournament data?
In the middle of a marine dominated meta?
Is 28% a majority now?
That's over a quarter, in a game with factions going into double figures. "Majority" doesn't mean over 50%, it just means the most popular in a given set. So yes, absolutely, Marines are currently a majority.
Considering that the figure of 28% accounts for the combination of what are currently 5/24 published codexes (Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Dark Angels) given perfectly even representation of all codexes, you would expect 20.8% to be marines.
It's this bizarre dance that marine players do where depending on the question being asked they want to be considered as multiple codexes or the same codex.
Do marines have too many model releases?
Well, we have to consider marines to be 5 codexes! Since they all use the primaris models collectively, it's not an out of whack model release schedule at all!
Are marines overpowered?
Well, we have to consider the win percentages of all the various marine factions together, including the ones that have fewer of the most powerful rules like Deathwatch, who don't get their own psychic power list, only get basic doctrines, don't get Bolter Discipline on their special ammo they pay more points for, etc! Their 30% winrate must be folded in to marines' overall winrate to be "fair"!
Are marines overrepresented in competitive play?
Why, no, marines are five codexes now again! They're just barely over the expected average!
It's different arguments with different people, it's not some central body publishing when marines should be considered separate or otherwise.
Personal takes:
Each codex/supplement should be considered separate regards power levels and tourney results. The releases are fair due to the large number of players and codex the models covered, likewise if they wanted a fully fleshed out Primaris line they needed more stuff adding but are pretty much there now.
Again Historically when looking at releases, people kick off about new marine kits that all those various factions can use, but nobody kicked up a massive stink when we had separate kits and releases for tac squads, grey hunters, blood angels tac squad, dark angels vets box etc.
Probably because back then, marines were 5 separate codexes that "took their turn" in the model release schedule.
Looking back at 6th/7th, you basically had a codex release, and you'd get 3-4 kits, and GW would cycle thru:
-Marines
-then Chaos Marines
-Then Orks
-Then Blood Angels
-Then Space Wolves
-Then Eldar
-Then Guard
they accounted for the massive popularity of marines by splintering the marine playerbase into the various sub-codexes so that marines "counted as" five (or six) codexes instead of just 1.
The reason for the grumblings and frustration currently is because we're rounding the corner on year 2 of nonstop slathering of attention on just the marine factions. First we got the Shadowspear release, which then got spaced out with the full kit releases for everything+the new vehicles. Then we got supplements, which made Codex: Space Marines 1, the only codex to get a full second revision pass in 8th edition, and 2, that 2.0 release had 6x the rules content of any other codex with the supplements.
Then there was psychic awakening, where the marine factions got MUCH more in-depth updates than the various other factions got. You just have to compare the Drukhari or GSC update for a couple seconds with the GK, BA, SW, etc update to see the difference immediately.
And then after that, marines again with indomitus! Also, marines 3.0 codex incoming! that's right kids it's 40k's first ever BACK TO BACK codex release!
Since the introduction of primaris, marines have not felt like 5 separate codexes following the same release schedule as everyone else. They've felt like one uber-faction getting over 50% of the releases and attention, and to pour salt in the wound they've been the competitive army to beat for the past year with 7th ed eldar level rules.
You absolutely would have seen this level of rage if during the height of the eldar meta in 7th we got back to back to back eldar model releases, keeping anyone from ever forgetting about the existence of eldar for 5 seconds.
the_scotsman wrote: Wasn't the most recent number 28% or 32% or something from the tournament data?
In the middle of a marine dominated meta?
Is 28% a majority now?
That's over a quarter, in a game with factions going into double figures. "Majority" doesn't mean over 50%, it just means the most popular in a given set. So yes, absolutely, Marines are currently a majority.
Considering that the figure of 28% accounts for the combination of what are currently 5/24 published codexes (Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Dark Angels) given perfectly even representation of all codexes, you would expect 20.8% to be marines.
It's this bizarre dance that marine players do where depending on the question being asked they want to be considered as multiple codexes or the same codex.
Do marines have too many model releases?
Well, we have to consider marines to be 5 codexes! Since they all use the primaris models collectively, it's not an out of whack model release schedule at all!
Are marines overpowered?
Well, we have to consider the win percentages of all the various marine factions together, including the ones that have fewer of the most powerful rules like Deathwatch, who don't get their own psychic power list, only get basic doctrines, don't get Bolter Discipline on their special ammo they pay more points for, etc! Their 30% winrate must be folded in to marines' overall winrate to be "fair"!
Are marines overrepresented in competitive play?
Why, no, marines are five codexes now again! They're just barely over the expected average!
This is a pretty circular argument you are making. "Marines" is not an army when speaking from a standpoint of competitive balance. Each supplement is a different army because their rules are vastly different. They share the same units for the most part though so this equates to more people buying those models. Most marine players want less special snowflake chapter rules like supplements. At least I know I would - marines chapters should not differ as much as they do. Maybe it's just because I play "Vanilla" marines that I feel that way.
the_scotsman wrote: Wasn't the most recent number 28% or 32% or something from the tournament data?
In the middle of a marine dominated meta?
Is 28% a majority now?
That's over a quarter, in a game with factions going into double figures. "Majority" doesn't mean over 50%, it just means the most popular in a given set. So yes, absolutely, Marines are currently a majority.
Considering that the figure of 28% accounts for the combination of what are currently 5/24 published codexes (Space Marines, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Deathwatch, Dark Angels) given perfectly even representation of all codexes, you would expect 20.8% to be marines.
It's this bizarre dance that marine players do where depending on the question being asked they want to be considered as multiple codexes or the same codex.
Do marines have too many model releases?
Well, we have to consider marines to be 5 codexes! Since they all use the primaris models collectively, it's not an out of whack model release schedule at all!
Are marines overpowered?
Well, we have to consider the win percentages of all the various marine factions together, including the ones that have fewer of the most powerful rules like Deathwatch, who don't get their own psychic power list, only get basic doctrines, don't get Bolter Discipline on their special ammo they pay more points for, etc! Their 30% winrate must be folded in to marines' overall winrate to be "fair"!
Are marines overrepresented in competitive play?
Why, no, marines are five codexes now again! They're just barely over the expected average!
This is a pretty circular argument you are making. "Marines" is not an army when speaking from a standpoint of competitive balance. Each supplement is a different army because their rules are vastly different. They share the same units for the most part though so this equates to more people buying those models. Most marine players want less special snowflake chapter rules like supplements. At least I know I would - marines chapters should not differ as much as they do. Maybe it's just because I play "Vanilla" marines that I feel that way.
I'm in complete agreement. I would love nothing more than for Marines 3.0 to carve the special snowflake BS back to the level of subfaction distinction that you see between ork clans, eldar craftworlds or guard regiments.
Also, how 'bout they follow the same rules everyone else does for custom subfactions, considering the obvious powergaming potential of getting to tailor your detachment rules?
I'm in complete agreement. I would love nothing more than for Marines 3.0 to carve the special snowflake BS back to the level of subfaction distinction that you see between ork clans, eldar craftworlds or guard regiments.
Also, how 'bout they follow the same rules everyone else does for custom subfactions, considering the obvious powergaming potential of getting to tailor your detachment rules?
I"m not sure where Eldar are right now, but I suspect I'd rather go the other way. I want Deathwing or Ravenwing or Deathwing AND Ravenwing to be able to make armies with Batallions and ObSec that work. White Scar Bikers, or Wild Rider jetbike armies should be a valid functional thing too. I think Tau have a subfaction like this too.. something to do with Firewarriors and Shas'Someone'Or'Other. I don't even know what it is, but make that work too. The more different functional lists a faction can make, the happier I am.
The dangers of taking a simple dictionary definition... ok, I was mistaken on the meaning of "majority".
Let's call it "dominating" or "most popular" instead.
Let's face it, the prevalence of Primaris units in competitive Marine lists means there isn't that much functional difference between the Codex Chapters. The difference between taking Mephiston or Calgar in a list that's otherwise made up of Intercessors, Eliminators, Aggressors and so on is no more a difference than taking an Avatar instead of a Farseer - and most Codexes have an equivalent for the extra Chapter Tactics, like Klans or Septs.
To my mind, that means that really we have 3 Marine 'factions' worth considering as different. Marines, Space Wolves and Deathwatch. I realise that's an individual judgement call, though - and I'd be interested to see how that 28% (or whatever) is broken down when accounting for Wolves, Deathwatch and any non-Primaris lists.
Super Ready wrote: The dangers of taking a simple dictionary definition... ok, I was mistaken on the meaning of "majority".
Let's call it "dominating" or "most popular" instead.
Let's face it, the prevalence of Primaris units in competitive Marine lists means there isn't that much functional difference between the Codex Chapters. The difference between taking Mephiston or Calgar in a list that's otherwise made up of Intercessors, Eliminators, Aggressors and so on is no more a difference than taking an Avatar instead of a Farseer - and most Codexes have an equivalent for the extra Chapter Tactics, like Klans or Septs.
To my mind, that means that really we have 3 Marine 'factions' worth considering as different. Marines, Space Wolves and Deathwatch. I realise that's an individual judgement call, though - and I'd be interested to see how that 28% (or whatever) is broken down when accounting for Wolves, Deathwatch and any non-Primaris lists.
I'd still split out the Big Four. The new Assault Intercessors + Red Thirst could make even Primaris BA run different enough to be their own. On the flip side I just checked out DA, and I don't know what they're doing with them. And entire detachment becomes a Ravenwing Attack Squadron I don't know if I would in 2 months. Or 2 Months + Big Four Supplements. Depends on what they do with Chapter Traits and unit homogeny.
They look good on paper, but maybe not quite as impressive as you might think.
If they weren't troops I don't think they'd be that great. That said, our marine players found they make great insurance policies against having to go second. Reserve a squad or two in impulsors (possibly using a slightly smaller squad in 1 so that you can add a Chaplain or similar) and then use them to charge objectives. Since they have Obsec they have to be dealt with because even if they don't outright claim the objective, they can typically challenge for it so they have to be dealt with. They're also good for counter charging. Get a squad in position to cover one or more objectives you already hold, and they become a threat to counter charge any enemy units that try to get to CC.
They definitely aren't garbage and they're a lot better than a lot of other troops choices (especially given certain strats) but yeah - if you're looking for OP - there are many other things in the Marine arsenal that take that title over these quite easily. I think the key with them (from what I've seen strictly anecdotally), is that unlike other marine units in the current dex, if you take them, you have to actually have a bit of a strategy for them and kind of build around them a bit, but in the right army they can provide some insurance that is very nice to have.
2 Damage, AP-2, Str4 Assault Intercessors threaten pretty much anything. They can also advance and charge, fall back and charge, can get +1 to wound, and their pistols can do some work in a pinch, 3d6 charge out of deep strike strat.
Blood Angels:
+1 to wound, good strats to back them up, 3d6 charge.
The issue with most SM units it that there's a chapter that pushes them well beyond their point cost. Flamestorm Aggressors are probably cute in Ultramarines -- they are outright rat bastards in Salamander successors. It's really hard to balance a unit that can literally fit any upgrade it damn well chooses between 7-8 different codexes / unique stratagems.
I wish UM Aggressor squads weren't as good as they are. I don't have enough dice to roll an average of 100+ bolter shots per turn, from a relatively low cost 6-man unit. Aggressors also perform much better with Ravenguard delivery and Salamanders, but not as well in just about any other chapter.
Thadin wrote: I wish UM Aggressor squads weren't as good as they are. I don't have enough dice to roll an average of 100+ bolter shots per turn, from a relatively low cost 6-man unit. Aggressors also perform much better with Ravenguard delivery and Salamanders, but not as well in just about any other chapter.
At least last edition they were great for Iron Hands (5+ Overwatch with 9 shots meant you were less likely to get picked on) and of course Imperial Fists (exploding shots and ignoring cover)
Blood Angels will be thrilled when they get death company versions, but as of now, if you really want them to perform, fill up a Repulsor with 9 of these bad boys and add a Librarian/Chaplain/Captain to crash into the enemy lines with. Turn 2 charge, if they survive, turn 3 they get even better with -2 ap.
I suspect Death Company Assault Intercessors may well suffer the same issue that old-school Death Company used to have too - they were too damn expensive, especially once you work in the almost-obligatory transport and Chaplain, and they won't be troops either. Mind you, now they've got extra durability to go with.
...that's not gonna stop me taking some, though.
Super Ready wrote: I suspect Death Company Assault Intercessors may well suffer the same issue that old-school Death Company used to have too - they were too damn expensive, especially once you work in the almost-obligatory transport and Chaplain, and they won't be troops either. Mind you, now they've got extra durability to go with.
...that's not gonna stop me taking some, though.
I have playtested Death Company Intercessor's for a few games, they certainly work. 21 or 22 point DC Assault Intercessor's will probably be priced just right to wreck some Xenos scum.
Well the fundamental problem is that Intercessors do the same thing, but with range. This is a problem with melee unit design overall since 8th.
"Here's a unit. It does X damage at range. And here's another version of the unit that also does X damage, but only in melee! Yay!"
Assault Intercessors (or assault marines, or chainsword csm) have 1 more attack in melee than their ranged version, and one less attack at range, but with way worse range. Assuming a 24" starting deployment distance, footslogging melee units will get into combat on turn ~3, and fire their pistol once or twice (depending on ranges and advances). Assuming they stay in combat till turn 5, we're looking at 2 turns of CC. Assuming shock assault every turn, assault intercessors have 4 sword attacks and 1 pistol attack each cc turn, +1 pistol while closing. So 11 attacks. Meanwhile, the ranged intercessors have shot 10 times while standing on a backfield objective, probably in cover, without being hit back in melee and while avoiding close range threats.
Or if the ranged intercessors move up and shoot, then they could easily do 6 shots in the first 3 turns, then still 3 cc attacks each turn in melee for a larger total in the end.
This difference in design philosophy did make sense back in the days when bolter discipline didn't exist, so the ranged guys had to get closer anyway. And when long ranged bolt rifles didn't exist. And when sweeping advance and old powerfists meant that raw melee stats weren't as big of an issue (especially on durable units like marines.) And when transports were cheap and tough.
Melee units like this can still be useful sometimes when you can stack enough buffs or have the right transport, so I'm not saying they'll never show up. But that takes a lot of outside factors.
Overall, this is another example of GW not updating their unit design philosophy to take into account 8th's core rule systems changes. Melee units that follow this design philosophy will remain subpar until they get the memo.
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
not gonna lie I honestly made this thread because I was tired of seeing people claim every new Primaris unit is utterly OP etc, So I figured I'd call the people saying that and force them to eaither make an absurd case that assault intercessors are OP or well.. maybe climb down from their extreme stance
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
not gonna lie I honestly made this thread because I was tired of seeing people claim every new Primaris unit is utterly OP etc, So I figured I'd call the people saying that and force them to eaither make an absurd case that assault intercessors are OP or well.. maybe climb down from their extreme stance
But no one is saying they're OP. It's almost like... people say OP units are OP. :gasp:
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
not gonna lie I honestly made this thread because I was tired of seeing people claim every new Primaris unit is utterly OP etc, So I figured I'd call the people saying that and force them to eaither make an absurd case that assault intercessors are OP or well.. maybe climb down from their extreme stance
And you've proven that if a new unit isn'tOP the majority of posters recognize that and don't call it as such. So maybe, just maybe, could it be that the units that they complain about could, just possibly, be considered a bit overpowered, underpriced, or both? Do you think it might be possible that people aren't overreacting to things like 40 PPM eradicators?
BrianDavion wrote: Or IJ've just proven that the people screaming GW makes every new space marine unit utterly OP are full of gak.
Who exactly, in this thread or elsewhere, has been referring to Assault Intercessors as "utterly OP"? All you've proven is that people can recognize the difference between a unit that is OP and one that is not. Nothing more.
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
not gonna lie I honestly made this thread because I was tired of seeing people claim every new Primaris unit is utterly OP etc, So I figured I'd call the people saying that and force them to eaither make an absurd case that assault intercessors are OP or well.. maybe climb down from their extreme stance
And you've proven that if a new unit isn'tOP the majority of posters recognize that and don't call it as such. So maybe, just maybe, could it be that the units that they complain about could, just possibly, be considered a bit overpowered, underpriced, or both? Do you think it might be possible that people aren't overreacting to things like 40 PPM eradicators?
technically this is all overreacting, ya know since nobody has a codex yet and no one knows what everything else is gonna be. like maybe, no bolter drill, or a massive change to doctrines, or....
point is we dont know anything for sure till then.
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
not gonna lie I honestly made this thread because I was tired of seeing people claim every new Primaris unit is utterly OP etc, So I figured I'd call the people saying that and force them to eaither make an absurd case that assault intercessors are OP or well.. maybe climb down from their extreme stance
And you've proven that if a new unit isn'tOP the majority of posters recognize that and don't call it as such. So maybe, just maybe, could it be that the units that they complain about could, just possibly, be considered a bit overpowered, underpriced, or both? Do you think it might be possible that people aren't overreacting to things like 40 PPM eradicators?
technically this is all overreacting, ya know since nobody has a codex yet and no one knows what everything else is gonna be. like maybe, no bolter drill, or a massive change to doctrines, or....
point is we dont know anything for sure till then.
That's a good point. We've already seen that they've dialed back most of the chapter tactics. Though losing bolter drill would do nothing to eradicators, and losing doctrines would only affect their output against things with a 2+ save and no invul for most chapters. If Salamanders lost their +1 to wound with melta weapons it would definitely help though. For the record, I repeat that my primary problem with them is their price, they're just too cheap for what they do.
Assaulcessors are a great running screen for Ragnar and Murderfang. Not amazing on their own but no slouches either. They work fine as Space Wolves at least, hitting on 2s when charging and rerolling ones when Raggy's around.
BrianDavion wrote: Or IJ've just proven that the people screaming GW makes every new space marine unit utterly OP are full of gak.
Who exactly, in this thread or elsewhere, has been referring to Assault Intercessors as "utterly OP"? All you've proven is that people can recognize the difference between a unit that is OP and one that is not. Nothing more.
Nobody has, but there's a lot of people who scream "but muhreens are the chosen ones, they get 500 releases a year, every model can beat my entire codex, I'm a poor little npc who had gw crap in my cereal".
not gonna lie I honestly made this thread because I was tired of seeing people claim every new Primaris unit is utterly OP etc, So I figured I'd call the people saying that and force them to eaither make an absurd case that assault intercessors are OP or well.. maybe climb down from their extreme stance
People at this point can reasonably complain about the fact that they exist at this point. Marines are at the top of the meta; they were before Eradicators even came out, and they just had enough stuff. They didn't and don't need anything else. I dunno if that stupid crawling turret thing is OP, but I am still annoyed that it exists because it's just more stuff for the Marines. Even Marine players, their paintbrushes, and their wallets, are getting tired of keeping up with the releases.
not gonna lie I honestly made this thread because I was tired of seeing people claim every new Primaris unit is utterly OP etc, So I figured I'd call the people saying that and force them to eaither make an absurd case that assault intercessors are OP or well.. maybe climb down from their extreme stance
People at this point can reasonably complain about the fact that they exist at this point. Marines are at the top of the meta; they were before Eradicators even came out, and they just had enough stuff. They didn't and don't need anything else. I dunno if that stupid crawling turret thing is OP, but I am still annoyed that it exists because it's just more stuff for the Marines. Even Marine players, their paintbrushes, and their wallets, are getting tired of keeping up with the releases.
Marine players don't have to buy every kit that comes out, they aren't forced to use Eradicators, youre describing a lot of problems that are personal choices. Likewise if there are too many options for marines that doesnt really impact you as a none marine player, you just have more months where you don't need to buy anything.
Crusaderobr wrote: Blood Angels will be thrilled when they get death company versions, but as of now, if you really want them to perform, fill up a Repulsor with 9 of these bad boys and add a Librarian/Chaplain/Captain to crash into the enemy lines with. Turn 2 charge, if they survive, turn 3 they get even better with -2 ap.
Two five man’s in two shield dome or Bellicatus repulsors with a captain/chaplain/Libby/lieutenant/apothecary/judiciar/etc or two gets the same transport speed and likely costs about the same depending on how wild you get with the characters, but you get two bubbles/power fists/whatever.
People at this point can reasonably complain about the fact that they exist at this point. Marines are at the top of the meta; they were before Eradicators even came out, and they just had enough stuff. They didn't and don't need anything else.
Marines or Primaris Marines? Between very reasonable theories old Marines are being squatted at some future point, and GW pushing the Indomitus Founding all Primaris Chapters they did need a CCW unit (or more) and a few other unit archetypes. Not all releases are/should be about the Meta, especially with what amounts to an entirely new faction/sub-faction being released.
BrianDavion wrote: Or IJ've just proven that the people screaming GW makes every new space marine unit utterly OP are full of gak.
Who exactly, in this thread or elsewhere, has been referring to Assault Intercessors as "utterly OP"? All you've proven is that people can recognize the difference between a unit that is OP and one that is not. Nothing more.
Nobody has, but there's a lot of people who scream "but muhreens are the chosen ones, they get 500 releases a year, every model can beat my entire codex, I'm a poor little npc who had gw crap in my cereal".
Yes, but there's no reason to answer hyperbole with more hyperbole. Assault Intercessors are a good unit, not OP, just good. Other loyalist units like eradicators and relic contemptors, however, are underpriced. The fact that Assault Intercessors aren't OP doesn't make other loyalist units less so. Just because someone arguing that Assault Intercessors are OP is wrong doesn't mean someone making the same argument about other loyalist units is wrong as well.
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
"slightly" better. Just record breaking level of brokenness. "slightly" better indeed.
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
"slightly" better. Just record breaking level of brokenness. "slightly" better indeed.
Is it though? Pretty sure mid-8th ynnari has that title still.
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
"slightly" better. Just record breaking level of brokenness. "slightly" better indeed.
Is it though? Pretty sure mid-8th ynnari has that title still.
nope, not to my knowledge, release day IH has them beat easily, and even afterwards.
However both don't really come close to scatbikes and taudar .
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
"slightly" better. Just record breaking level of brokenness. "slightly" better indeed.
Is it though? Pretty sure mid-8th ynnari has that title still.
nope, not to my knowledge, release day IH has them beat easily, and even afterwards.
However both don't really come close to scatbikes and taudar .
release day iron hands where (quite rightly) nerfed
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
not gonna lie I honestly made this thread because I was tired of seeing people claim every new Primaris unit is utterly OP etc, So I figured I'd call the people saying that and force them to eaither make an absurd case that assault intercessors are OP or well.. maybe climb down from their extreme stance
And you've proven that if a new unit isn'tOP the majority of posters recognize that and don't call it as such. So maybe, just maybe, could it be that the units that they complain about could, just possibly, be considered a bit overpowered, underpriced, or both? Do you think it might be possible that people aren't overreacting to things like 40 PPM eradicators?
technically this is all overreacting, ya know since nobody has a codex yet and no one knows what everything else is gonna be. like maybe, no bolter drill, or a massive change to doctrines, or....
point is we dont know anything for sure till then.
That's wild, I could have sworn the last game I played my opponent used Eradicators against me as if they were a fully legal unit that exists in warhammer 40,000 right now? And I could swear the complaint was that those are OP RIGHT NOW.
We don't know much at all about the new marine codex. We know about the statline buffs to... most of their weapons, we know about Custodemernators and W2 firstborn. And we know about AFAIK...two nerfs, one to the Salamanders CT (and presumably Master Crafters) and one to put a cap on captains and lieutenants.
Hey, maybe you're right. maybe the marine codex is full of nerfs to core marine stuff rather than reigning in the worst offenders among the supplements. That'd stink for like. Black Templars players.Hope they don't do that. I guess it's possible?
I was looking to find the ynnari win rates at the end of the 2018 season and stumbles across the thread where they got nerfed on Dakka and it was refreshing to see (often the same) people just throwing the same sorts of comments and overreactions about Eldar.
A lot of loudest marine complainers were also very pro-eldar oddly...
Dudeface wrote: I was looking to find the ynnari win rates at the end of the 2018 season and stumbles across the thread where they got nerfed on Dakka and it was refreshing to see (often the same) people just throwing the same sorts of comments and overreactions about Eldar.
A lot of loudest marine complainers were also very pro-eldar oddly...
IIRC my reaction was "Great, they got nerfed, sucks to see them literally nerfed so hard that you'd have to have miraculously survived a railway spike through your brain to think you should use them in any capacity."
Like, I guess they wanted people to feel bad that they'd bought in to the new thing for eldar GW said they were going to try and push in late 7th ed? If there's any earnest ynnari players out there who were really excited about combining the three eldar factions into one, I feel bad for them. They got utterly and completely fethed by GW so many times.
Can you imagine late 7th getting your triumvirate box and then building an army of all the three eldar, getting excited about having cool stuff like incubi in wave serpents and - oh, cool, I've still got my Harlequin painted Falcon from back in the day when they were in the eldar codex, this is awesome! I'm going to build a unit of Reavers and kitbash them with a unit of Windriders, I'm-
....Oh, ok. HQ auras don't cross anymore and you can't board faction transports anymore, OK. Well I guess my army will still work if I buy this, and that, and...
...Oh, separate detachments now? Well....OK....I guess if I field one of each, they still sort of work together, if I just buy...
...Oh, each detachment HAS to be led by one of the three ynarri HQs? I have to field all ~600pts of them every single game I play with my ynnari if I want to mix all three? They have to turn up to every battle the ynnari fight ever, no exceptions, like being forced to field Guilliman Calgar and Tigurius every time you want to play UM?
....Oh, and now they have the worst chapter tactic in the game and all their gak's nerfed. I'd be stupid not to just run them separately. Great. Well I guess I can put my Ynnari HQs that I want to use in a supreme command detachment, and...
....Oh that's gone now.
LIke, feth people who just played "ynnari" with 12 harlequin skyweavers so they have to doubleshoot, I'm not shedding any tears for those guys, and feth old SFD I absolutely hated it in general, I just cant think of anyone who was required to buy more mandatory gak in a shorter period of time to keep their army legal to play, and who got more nerfs in that time period than Ynnari, and if there was any 'fluff based' ynnari players in existence I feel bad for them.
The difference is that you can play any eldar units as anything. There are no enforced rules that to get what ever craftworld is the best at the moment to play it what ever it is painted. If someone paints their DA army the wrong colour of green they have to play a succesor chapter, which by definition is just an inferior version of a DA army.
So even with that eldar players have it better.
And in general in is super hard to impossible to feel any sympathy to the eldar players plight right now. Yes they aren't the best army right now, but comparing to the really bad factions in 9th, they are sitll gods. And they have been bad, which seems to mean not the best army in the meta, for what 9-12 months, out of which 2/3 is covid where no one can play at store anyway. When eldar get 2-3 editions of bad rules and being the most bottom tier of all factions, maybe people will be more sympathetic to what is happening to them. I for one still remember the flyers lists, the Inari reapers and shining spears, double dipping on stratagems etc. And all I know is 8th, from stories from older players, if they are even a bit true, they were even more unfun to play in 7th and prior editions.
Karol wrote: The difference is that you can play any eldar units as anything. There are no enforced rules that to get what ever craftworld is the best at the moment to play it what ever it is painted. If someone paints their DA army the wrong colour of green they have to play a succesor chapter, which by definition is just an inferior version of a DA army.
the_scotsman wrote: LIke, feth people who just played "ynnari" with 12 harlequin skyweavers so they have to doubleshoot, I'm not shedding any tears for those guys, and feth old SFD I absolutely hated it in general, I just cant think of anyone who was required to buy more mandatory gak in a shorter period of time to keep their army legal to play, and who got more nerfs in that time period than Ynnari, and if there was any 'fluff based' ynnari players in existence I feel bad for them.
Yeah, it's sad. It's the same for SM players who had fluffy, codex-only lists, only to see them nerfed again and again because some gitgud types spam 3 leviathans and 3 contemptors (with nerfs not touching actual cancer). Custodes fans who get no love because again, FW spam of broken gak artificially raises winrate making army look good on paper. Chaos renegades, who got their armies ruined thanks to knee jerk reaction to couple OPFW units. Really, GW would do well to go back to writing fluffy, thematic side lists (I still love Tyrant's Legion concept after playing it for years) instead of catering to soulless tournament crowd exclusively. Hopefully Crusade marks return to such thinking...
Not Online!!! wrote: But the most annoying issue with this is, how GW proceeded to just ignore the playtesters that warned them.-......
The playtesters that now claim to have warned them.
I know I've not seen any evidence that they did, and I'm not going to take the word of an "influencer" as evidence.
Yeah.
And to be fair to GW, Iron Hands rules were not that big of a problem when taken with Codex dreadnoughts. Though hard, they were still killable. It's when people started to spam broken FW garbage with them the game crashed. Leviathans, already obscene, became impossible to kill - something the writer playtesting the codex as is could have overlooked, but said playtesters who saw tournaments before missed them as well, and unlike the writer, they had no excuse to. Or they did saw it, but their lists spammed the things too so they choose to stay silent to protect their purchases (which is even worse).
What is really sad, though, is that GW is willing to nerf SM rules 58767 times in a row, almost never touching FW junk. Fixing IH supplement was as simple as ruling trait only applies to codex units, not to third party stuff - but they choose to ruin the rules for people who play weaker plastic units instead, virtually ensuring leviathan/contemptor wombo combo will show up right quick (and surprise, surprise, people spam them again with 9th edition changes). They should just slam the cancer directly, not play around them because last 4 years demonstrated how little it does.
Karol wrote: The difference is that you can play any eldar units as anything. There are no enforced rules that to get what ever craftworld is the best at the moment to play it what ever it is painted. If someone paints their DA army the wrong colour of green they have to play a succesor chapter, which by definition is just an inferior version of a DA army.
So even with that eldar players have it better.
And in general in is super hard to impossible to feel any sympathy to the eldar players plight right now. Yes they aren't the best army right now, but comparing to the really bad factions in 9th, they are sitll gods. And they have been bad, which seems to mean not the best army in the meta, for what 9-12 months, out of which 2/3 is covid where no one can play at store anyway. When eldar get 2-3 editions of bad rules and being the most bottom tier of all factions, maybe people will be more sympathetic to what is happening to them. I for one still remember the flyers lists, the Inari reapers and shining spears, double dipping on stratagems etc. And all I know is 8th, from stories from older players, if they are even a bit true, they were even more unfun to play in 7th and prior editions.
Um.
Where does it say this in the rules, my dude?
Where does it say "Dark Angels MUST be painted DARK ANGELS GREEN and you MUST use them as something else if the green isn't right- oh lololol there's no color scheme for Biel-Tan you can paint those guys whatever you want and run them as whatever you want!!"
Like, what? The craftworlds have established color schemes. They've had them EXACTLY, EXACTLY as long as space marine chapters have had color schemes, right from fething rogue trader on. It's just as legitimate to complain if someone shows up with a blue and yellow eldar army and aren't playing alaitoc as it is if they show up with blue and gold and aren't playing UM. Basically: not at all, it's not anywhere in the rules, you don't have a fething leg to stand on.
What is really sad, though, is that GW is willing to nerf SM rules 58767 times in a row, almost never touching FW junk. Fixing IH supplement was as simple as ruling trait only applies to codex units, not to third party stuff - but they choose to ruin the rules for people who play weaker plastic units instead, virtually ensuring leviathan/contemptor wombo combo will show up right quick (and surprise, surprise, people spam them again with 9th edition changes). They should just slam the cancer directly, not play around them because last 4 years demonstrated how little it does.
FW is not third party, "Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2000 – 2020" at the bottom of the site being a small giveaway.
What is really sad, though, is that GW is willing to nerf SM rules 58767 times in a row, almost never touching FW junk. Fixing IH supplement was as simple as ruling trait only applies to codex units, not to third party stuff - but they choose to ruin the rules for people who play weaker plastic units instead, virtually ensuring leviathan/contemptor wombo combo will show up right quick (and surprise, surprise, people spam them again with 9th edition changes). They should just slam the cancer directly, not play around them because last 4 years demonstrated how little it does.
FW is not third party, "Copyright Games Workshop Limited 2000 – 2020" at the bottom of the site being a small giveaway.
God damn, what the hell is with this dumb star wars and marvel bs, why can't disney focus on incorporating actual DISNEY stuff into their theme parks, GOD!!
IF I PUT MY HANDS OVER MY EARS AND YELL I CANT HEAR CAPITALISM!
Dudeface wrote: I'm enjoying the satirical nature of the thread but also the fact nobody has come in actually screaming about how anything is OP even when baited.
Did you actually read this thread? Because even though OP openly admitted this is bait, SECOND post was from someone who bit hook line and sinker screaming every single SM unit is better than all other books combined
You know, it's funny, Eldar and Tau were broken beyond belief for 2.5 half editions, and the only thing players of both said on repeat was 'game is totes balanced, git gud'. Now that SM are slightly better than either for the first time in forever the sky is suddenly falling and the xeno players turned into children screaming their bottle of milk is too hot, even though in actual reality, not in their imagination, xenos still trounce SM without problems (see harlequins and dark eldar results in tournaments). It would be funny if it wasn't so sad...
not gonna lie I honestly made this thread because I was tired of seeing people claim every new Primaris unit is utterly OP etc, So I figured I'd call the people saying that and force them to eaither make an absurd case that assault intercessors are OP or well.. maybe climb down from their extreme stance
And you've proven that if a new unit isn'tOP the majority of posters recognize that and don't call it as such. So maybe, just maybe, could it be that the units that they complain about could, just possibly, be considered a bit overpowered, underpriced, or both? Do you think it might be possible that people aren't overreacting to things like 40 PPM eradicators?
technically this is all overreacting, ya know since nobody has a codex yet and no one knows what everything else is gonna be. like maybe, no bolter drill, or a massive change to doctrines, or....
point is we dont know anything for sure till then.
That's a good point. We've already seen that they've dialed back most of the chapter tactics. Though losing bolter drill would do nothing to eradicators, and losing doctrines would only affect their output against things with a 2+ save and no invul for most chapters. If Salamanders lost their +1 to wound with melta weapons it would definitely help though. For the record, I repeat that my primary problem with them is their price, they're just too cheap for what they do.
Yeah that is not even debatable. They should be 50 points. They only thing that is great about them is their price though. While they might be durable to trash weapons...It is just baffling to me that any of you encounter weapons that dont mulch t5 3+. I wonder how you kill knights and custodians if you struggle with no invune save units in a max 3 unit that isn't worth spending cp to protect.
With indomidus release I have started building a cron army. Literally every unit in my army is good at killing gravis armor. I've got quantum sheilding everywhere so LOL at your melta weapons anyways. I think I'll just walk my triarch stalker up to a unit and smash them in melee with my flat 3 damage attacks and shoot them in the face the next turn if I don't kill them. That was kinda a joke...I don't expect the triarch to be doing a lot of melee it is a pretty hard counter to eradicators though with heavy gauss 6 shots str 7 ap-3 d1-3 with flat 3 in melee and quantum shielding + if buffs. The point is marines are so easy to build against and if you can kill a marine - you will will be good at killing almost anything on the table. The crys get old when the answers are so easy. It's not like ynnari when people complained....what do I do? This super Spears unit kills 2 units a turn and locks up another unit in melee a turn and is basically indestructible with 3++ saves and 5+++ - next turn moves 3 times and kills my warlord and I can't even deny the psychic powers because the units melee engagement range is higher than 24"...Like seriously guys...There are some under costed units in every army and there are super combos which can be set off practically automatically with list building that make a unit like assault intercessors completely obsolete.
Not Online!!! wrote: But the most annoying issue with this is, how GW proceeded to just ignore the playtesters that warned them.-......
The playtesters that now claim to have warned them.
I know I've not seen any evidence that they did, and I'm not going to take the word of an "influencer" as evidence.
if i have to chose someone to believe to, i do look at their track record on the matter in question.
GW has progressively gotten worse from 5th to 7th. In some cases drastically.
alot of the playtesters were on board for the first time.
Not saying that you are incorect, i am just pointing to a certain wraithknight comment from an actual designer and go with GW done goofed.
Mallicious or non mallicious doesn't matter
What is really sad, though, is that GW is willing to nerf SM rules 58767 times in a row, almost never touching FW junk. Fixing IH supplement was as simple as ruling trait only applies to codex units, not to third party stuff - but they choose to ruin the rules for people who play weaker plastic units instead, virtually ensuring leviathan/contemptor wombo combo will show up right quick (and surprise, surprise, people spam them again with 9th edition changes). They should just slam the cancer directly, not play around them because last 4 years demonstrated how little it does.
40k rules for FW stuff are written entirely by the core studio, this has been the case for several years, and FW is absolutely not a "third party", FW is a subdivision of GW (like Accounting or IT), located at GWHQ and staffed by GW employees, that do things that aren't profitable in plastic or that's too niche for the primary design team but that otherwise has consumer interest. The SM Supplements were (and in many ways still are) plenty busted on their own and in need of adjustment regardless of the existence of FW. Out of all the stuff FW makes, we see almost none of it used competitively, and a far lower proportion of FW units have issues being problems than main studio units and abilities. GW already effectively eviscerated the functionality and playability of the overwhelmingly vast majority of FW stuff at the start of 8E, one is really having to go out of their way to see FW as the problem and paint them as some sort of "third party", neither of which is true.
Dudeface wrote: I was looking to find the ynnari win rates at the end of the 2018 season and stumbles across the thread where they got nerfed on Dakka and it was refreshing to see (often the same) people just throwing the same sorts of comments and overreactions about Eldar.
A lot of loudest marine complainers were also very pro-eldar oddly...
Hence why all the complaints about comparing them to Fire Dragons are silly: it's a bad unit so get over it. Nerfing Eliminators to the ground won't fix your Fire Dragons, as they'll still be gak at their jobs.
the_scotsman wrote: LIke, feth people who just played "ynnari" with 12 harlequin skyweavers so they have to doubleshoot, I'm not shedding any tears for those guys, and feth old SFD I absolutely hated it in general, I just cant think of anyone who was required to buy more mandatory gak in a shorter period of time to keep their army legal to play, and who got more nerfs in that time period than Ynnari, and if there was any 'fluff based' ynnari players in existence I feel bad for them.
Yeah, it's sad. It's the same for SM players who had fluffy, codex-only lists, only to see them nerfed again and again because some gitgud types spam 3 leviathans and 3 contemptors (with nerfs not touching actual cancer). Custodes fans who get no love because again, FW spam of broken gak artificially raises winrate making army look good on paper. Chaos renegades, who got their armies ruined thanks to knee jerk reaction to couple OPFW units. Really, GW would do well to go back to writing fluffy, thematic side lists (I still love Tyrant's Legion concept after playing it for years) instead of catering to soulless tournament crowd exclusively. Hopefully Crusade marks return to such thinking...
Not Online!!! wrote: But the most annoying issue with this is, how GW proceeded to just ignore the playtesters that warned them.-......
The playtesters that now claim to have warned them.
I know I've not seen any evidence that they did, and I'm not going to take the word of an "influencer" as evidence.
Yeah.
And to be fair to GW, Iron Hands rules were not that big of a problem when taken with Codex dreadnoughts. Though hard, they were still killable. It's when people started to spam broken FW garbage with them the game crashed. Leviathans, already obscene, became impossible to kill - something the writer playtesting the codex as is could have overlooked, but said playtesters who saw tournaments before missed them as well, and unlike the writer, they had no excuse to. Or they did saw it, but their lists spammed the things too so they choose to stay silent to protect their purchases (which is even worse).
What is really sad, though, is that GW is willing to nerf SM rules 58767 times in a row, almost never touching FW junk. Fixing IH supplement was as simple as ruling trait only applies to codex units, not to third party stuff - but they choose to ruin the rules for people who play weaker plastic units instead, virtually ensuring leviathan/contemptor wombo combo will show up right quick (and surprise, surprise, people spam them again with 9th edition changes). They should just slam the cancer directly, not play around them because last 4 years demonstrated how little it does.
Oh look complaints about FW without actually knowing whats OP haven't seen that before.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and for the record the problem was Iron Hands, not the Leviathans themselves. Keep telling yourself otherwise though I'm sure it'll help.
Karol wrote: The difference is that you can play any eldar units as anything. There are no enforced rules that to get what ever craftworld is the best at the moment to play it what ever it is painted. If someone paints their DA army the wrong colour of green they have to play a succesor chapter, which by definition is just an inferior version of a DA army.
So even with that eldar players have it better.
And in general in is super hard to impossible to feel any sympathy to the eldar players plight right now. Yes they aren't the best army right now, but comparing to the really bad factions in 9th, they are sitll gods. And they have been bad, which seems to mean not the best army in the meta, for what 9-12 months, out of which 2/3 is covid where no one can play at store anyway. When eldar get 2-3 editions of bad rules and being the most bottom tier of all factions, maybe people will be more sympathetic to what is happening to them. I for one still remember the flyers lists, the Inari reapers and shining spears, double dipping on stratagems etc. And all I know is 8th, from stories from older players, if they are even a bit true, they were even more unfun to play in 7th and prior editions.
Um.
Where does it say this in the rules, my dude?
Where does it say "Dark Angels MUST be painted DARK ANGELS GREEN and you MUST use them as something else if the green isn't right- oh lololol there's no color scheme for Biel-Tan you can paint those guys whatever you want and run them as whatever you want!!"
Like, what? The craftworlds have established color schemes. They've had them EXACTLY, EXACTLY as long as space marine chapters have had color schemes, right from fething rogue trader on. It's just as legitimate to complain if someone shows up with a blue and yellow eldar army and aren't playing alaitoc as it is if they show up with blue and gold and aren't playing UM. Basically: not at all, it's not anywhere in the rules, you don't have a fething leg to stand on.
I'm guessing Karol's toxic community strikes again. I mean he's not entirely wrong that more people know the cannon schemes of Marines and thus you're more likely to get stink eyed if you show up with green ultramarines. but that's not GW that's just community. IIRC last I checked for GW held events all armies must be painted to their proper faction. not just marines. and that's pretty much only an issue for warhammer world events.
Dudeface wrote: I was looking to find the ynnari win rates at the end of the 2018 season and stumbles across the thread where they got nerfed on Dakka and it was refreshing to see (often the same) people just throwing the same sorts of comments and overreactions about Eldar.
A lot of loudest marine complainers were also very pro-eldar oddly...
Hence why all the complaints about comparing them to Fire Dragons are silly: it's a bad unit so get over it. Nerfing Eliminators to the ground won't fix your Fire Dragons, as they'll still be gak at their jobs.
agreed. it's like I've been saying since the whole eradicator fiasco started, comparing a unit to a bad unit no one takes is silly.
If someone doesn’t want to play my blood ravens as counts as ultramarines, I’ll count myself lucky I didn’t end up in a game with someone like that unknowingly.
I do think it’s rather iffy to use detachments that have different chapter traits but are painted the same though. That seems too confusing.
It makes no sense why they(people claiming X) resort to being disingenuous. I mean really, you can make anything look good/bad with the right comparison.
argonak wrote: If someone doesn’t want to play my blood ravens as counts as ultramarines, I’ll count myself lucky I didn’t end up in a game with someone like that unknowingly.
Blood Ravens should be able to count as any Chapter they want, anyway. It's not like they wouldn't nick the Chapter Tactics along with all the relics.
Hence why all the complaints about comparing them to Fire Dragons are silly: it's a bad unit so get over it. Nerfing Eliminators to the ground won't fix your Fire Dragons, as they'll still be gak at their jobs.
agreed. it's like I've been saying since the whole eradicator fiasco started, comparing a unit to a bad unit no one takes is silly.
Both units are reportedly supposed to perform the same function of elite-melta-anti-armor-specialists. One of these units vastly outperforms that function better than the other one, and surprise! Its the NuMarine one. Gosh, why would anyone take issue with that?
Hence why all the complaints about comparing them to Fire Dragons are silly: it's a bad unit so get over it. Nerfing Eliminators to the ground won't fix your Fire Dragons, as they'll still be gak at their jobs.
agreed. it's like I've been saying since the whole eradicator fiasco started, comparing a unit to a bad unit no one takes is silly.
Both units are reportedly supposed to perform the same function of elite-melta-anti-armor-specialists. One of these units vastly outperforms that function better than the other one, and surprise! Its the NuMarine one. Gosh, why would anyone take issue with that?
Hence why all the complaints about comparing them to Fire Dragons are silly: it's a bad unit so get over it. Nerfing Eliminators to the ground won't fix your Fire Dragons, as they'll still be gak at their jobs.
agreed. it's like I've been saying since the whole eradicator fiasco started, comparing a unit to a bad unit no one takes is silly.
Both units are reportedly supposed to perform the same function of elite-melta-anti-armor-specialists. One of these units vastly outperforms that function better than the other one, and surprise! Its the NuMarine one. Gosh, why would anyone take issue with that?
Hence why all the complaints about comparing them to Fire Dragons are silly: it's a bad unit so get over it. Nerfing Eliminators to the ground won't fix your Fire Dragons, as they'll still be gak at their jobs.
agreed. it's like I've been saying since the whole eradicator fiasco started, comparing a unit to a bad unit no one takes is silly.
Both units are reportedly supposed to perform the same function of elite-melta-anti-armor-specialists. One of these units vastly outperforms that function better than the other one, and surprise! Its the NuMarine one. Gosh, why would anyone take issue with that?
It's pretty eye-rolling.
so you've seen the new eldar codex?
The current state of things is the current state of things, and until the new Eldar book arrives this is the situation we're in.
Have you seen the Eldar codex? Can you prove Fire Dragons will be substantially upgraded? Are the "art-of-the-Melta-specialists" all going to get increased range and Fast Shot, for example?
If we're wanting to compare Fire Dragons to Eradicators, I don't think that's unfair, just dismissing Fire Dragons as inherently bad so as to not be comparable to the Primaris unit I don't think is accurate in this case, they're certainly no Railgun Hammerhead or Russ Vanquisher. They're ostensibly designed to fill the same niche and are armed with weapons of similar design and operation as Eradicators, the Eradicators just do it better in every way. The Fire dragon has remained identical in terms of stats, cost, and weapons since 6E, and before that it was nearly identical except was a bit cheaper and had a 4+ save instead of a 3+ going back to 1998. In fact, the Fire Dragon is arguably more capable than it ever was before, getting to reroll 1's against vehicles and MC's. Their delivery mechanisms (primarily Wave Serpents, sometimes Falcons), are about as capable as they've ever been and remain roughly the same cost as they have been in previous editions. A unit of 5 Fire Dragons will generally kill most common vehicles in a single round of fire unsupported if allowed to attack from close enough range, same as they have in most editions. If that's a unit that's so underwhelming as to be considered to be incomparable to Eradicators, methinks it speaks more to the bloat of the system and powercreep of such newer units, than it does to the inherent awfulness of an older unit like Fire Dragons.
Hence why all the complaints about comparing them to Fire Dragons are silly: it's a bad unit so get over it. Nerfing Eliminators to the ground won't fix your Fire Dragons, as they'll still be gak at their jobs.
agreed. it's like I've been saying since the whole eradicator fiasco started, comparing a unit to a bad unit no one takes is silly.
Both units are reportedly supposed to perform the same function of melta
See im stopping you right there because nobody has dared yet to say which Melta units actually functioned beforehand.
so you admit that you dont have all the data and are drawing a conclusion from an incomplete data set?
By that very admission, your conclusion is only part of the whole. so when someone says that x is better than y, without knowing what y is(cuz indomitus stuff isnt the final & ZERO 9th ed codex are available), that doesnt mean anything? huh, never woulda guessed.
Hence why all the complaints about comparing them to Fire Dragons are silly: it's a bad unit so get over it. Nerfing Eliminators to the ground won't fix your Fire Dragons, as they'll still be gak at their jobs.
agreed. it's like I've been saying since the whole eradicator fiasco started, comparing a unit to a bad unit no one takes is silly.
Both units are reportedly supposed to perform the same function of melta
See im stopping you right there because nobody has dared yet to say which Melta units actually functioned beforehand.
Doesn't matter. Is the way to address Melta to create a new super-melta unit? Or is the solution to address all Melta units accross the board? Multimeltas were addressed, so thats something, but that doesnt help Fire Dragons.
Vaktathi wrote: If we're wanting to compare Fire Dragons to Eradicators, I don't think that's unfair, just dismissing Fire Dragons as inherently bad so as to not be comparable to the Primaris unit I don't think is accurate in this case, they're certainly no Railgun Hammerhead or Russ Vanquisher. They're ostensibly designed to fill the same niche and are armed with weapons of similar design and operation as Eradicators, the Eradicators just do it better in every way. The Fire dragon has remained identical in terms of stats, cost, and weapons since 6E, and before that it was nearly identical except was a bit cheaper and had a 4+ save instead of a 3+ going back to 1998. In fact, the Fire Dragon is arguably more capable than it ever was before, getting to reroll 1's against vehicles and MC's. Their delivery mechanisms (primarily Wave Serpents, sometimes Falcons), are about as capable as they've ever been and remain roughly the same cost as they have been in previous editions. A unit of 5 Fire Dragons will generally kill most common vehicles in a single round of fire unsupported if allowed to attack from close enough range, same as they have in most editions. If that's a unit that's so underwhelming as to be considered to be incomparable to Eradicators, methinks it speaks more to the bloat of the system and powercreep of such newer units, than it does to the inherent awfulness of an older unit like Fire Dragons.
No the problem is the core rules of the game changed and if anything fire dragons are significantly weaker than they were in older editions. Their fusion guns use to be able to one shot vehicles making a unit of them extremely scary to vehicles. You could also use their melta bombs in melee when now you can't.
Fire dragons were a dumb unit back in older editions like 5th or 6th and made a mockery of any vehicle.
Fire Dragons were in a good place in 5th. Well, they felt right at least. They'd wreck pretty much any vehicle they got near, but tended to be overkill, and thus often inefficient. And they weren't too hard to kill. So they could accomplish a lot and were a scary unit, but could also be dealt with if you knew what you were doing.
Their performance on the tabletop matched what they were supposed to be like.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: Fire Dragons were in a good place in 5th. Well, they felt right at least. They'd wreck pretty much any vehicle they got near, but tended to be overkill, and thus often inefficient. And they weren't too hard to kill. So they could accomplish a lot and were a scary unit, but could also be dealt with if you knew what you were doing.
Their performance on the tabletop matched what they were supposed to be like.
Yep. Hell if fire dragons could charge tanks and use their melta bombs like they used to in 9th, they would be out damaging eradicators.
Hell the melta bombs may be problem now. They will never use them and without them they would be cheaper.
I mean, overall, I felt like Meltas of most sorts were in a good place in 5th. The exception being Sternguard and Chaos terminator suicide combi deepstrikes, which were a bit silly (but wouldn't be a problem under new DS rules.)
The problem is that we're not going to get that old dynamic back with the changes to vehicle armor.
Vaktathi wrote: If we're wanting to compare Fire Dragons to Eradicators, I don't think that's unfair, just dismissing Fire Dragons as inherently bad so as to not be comparable to the Primaris unit I don't think is accurate in this case, they're certainly no Railgun Hammerhead or Russ Vanquisher. They're ostensibly designed to fill the same niche and are armed with weapons of similar design and operation as Eradicators, the Eradicators just do it better in every way. The Fire dragon has remained identical in terms of stats, cost, and weapons since 6E, and before that it was nearly identical except was a bit cheaper and had a 4+ save instead of a 3+ going back to 1998. In fact, the Fire Dragon is arguably more capable than it ever was before, getting to reroll 1's against vehicles and MC's. Their delivery mechanisms (primarily Wave Serpents, sometimes Falcons), are about as capable as they've ever been and remain roughly the same cost as they have been in previous editions. A unit of 5 Fire Dragons will generally kill most common vehicles in a single round of fire unsupported if allowed to attack from close enough range, same as they have in most editions. If that's a unit that's so underwhelming as to be considered to be incomparable to Eradicators, methinks it speaks more to the bloat of the system and powercreep of such newer units, than it does to the inherent awfulness of an older unit like Fire Dragons.
No the problem is the core rules of the game changed and if anything fire dragons are significantly weaker than they were in older editions. Their fusion guns use to be able to one shot vehicles making a unit of them extremely scary to vehicles. You could also use their melta bombs in melee when now you can't.
Fire dragons were a dumb unit back in older editions like 5th or 6th and made a mockery of any vehicle.
Yes, melta is less efficient in general now, through the previous editions, those Meltas also waxed and waned in value, all that AP1 and damage table bonuses in 7E looked real cool until you realized that by the time you ever really got to take advantage of it, the target was already dead through HP loss either way, and other platforms just carried straight up D weapons to begin with While Fire Dragons won't pop a Land Raider like they used to, against most vehicles a unit of Fire Dragons is still going to end them typically, but more importantly the units we're comparing them (Eradicators) to also have Meltas, that total package however is just substantially better than the Fire Dragons for almost the same cost. That's not saying that Fire Dragons (more accurately, the fundamental statline of the basic Meltagun in general) couldn't use some help, but the comparison to Eradicators is a useful illustration of bloat at its finest.
Vaktathi wrote: If we're wanting to compare Fire Dragons to Eradicators, I don't think that's unfair, just dismissing Fire Dragons as inherently bad so as to not be comparable to the Primaris unit I don't think is accurate in this case, they're certainly no Railgun Hammerhead or Russ Vanquisher. They're ostensibly designed to fill the same niche and are armed with weapons of similar design and operation as Eradicators, the Eradicators just do it better in every way. The Fire dragon has remained identical in terms of stats, cost, and weapons since 6E, and before that it was nearly identical except was a bit cheaper and had a 4+ save instead of a 3+ going back to 1998. In fact, the Fire Dragon is arguably more capable than it ever was before, getting to reroll 1's against vehicles and MC's. Their delivery mechanisms (primarily Wave Serpents, sometimes Falcons), are about as capable as they've ever been and remain roughly the same cost as they have been in previous editions. A unit of 5 Fire Dragons will generally kill most common vehicles in a single round of fire unsupported if allowed to attack from close enough range, same as they have in most editions. If that's a unit that's so underwhelming as to be considered to be incomparable to Eradicators, methinks it speaks more to the bloat of the system and powercreep of such newer units, than it does to the inherent awfulness of an older unit like Fire Dragons.
No the problem is the core rules of the game changed and if anything fire dragons are significantly weaker than they were in older editions. Their fusion guns use to be able to one shot vehicles making a unit of them extremely scary to vehicles. You could also use their melta bombs in melee when now you can't.
Fire dragons were a dumb unit back in older editions like 5th or 6th and made a mockery of any vehicle.
Yes, melta is less efficient in general now, through the previous editions, those Meltas also waxed and waned in value, all that AP1 and damage table bonuses in 7E looked real cool until you realized that by the time you ever really got to take advantage of it, the target was already dead through HP loss either way, and other platforms just carried straight up D weapons to begin with While Fire Dragons won't pop a Land Raider like they used to, against most vehicles a unit of Fire Dragons is still going to end them typically, but more importantly the units we're comparing them (Eradicators) to also have Meltas, that total package however is just substantially better than the Fire Dragons for almost the same cost. That's not saying that Fire Dragons (more accurately, the fundamental statline of the basic Meltagun in general) couldn't use some help, but the comparison to Eradicators is a useful illustration of bloat at its finest.
Kinda. As I pointed out in a later post if you could melee tanks with melta bombs like you used to be able to Fire Dragons would out damage eradicators. It isn't bloat per say but just the core rules have changed.
Racerguy180 wrote: so you admit that you dont have all the data and are drawing a conclusion from an incomplete data set?
Are you admitting to a huge power disparity between the two units as is?
If that's what the stats are AS OF RIGHT NOW, then yes. But to then go say that they're broken(or whatever) when we havent seen what the actual codex says is kinda shortsighted. Cuz what is OP today, is tomorrow's hot garbage. All with the turn of a page in a CODEX.
I guess what I'm trying to say is chill the feth out and maybe, just maybe if they're too powerful....dont take them(gasp) or dont play with someone who uses them. Cuz funnily enuff, you, yes YOU have the power to to say no. To quote Salt n Pepa "no means no!" GW isnt holding a splinter rifle to your head forcing you to play something you dont/aren't interested in playing. Wow imagine that, you had the power all along Dorothy.
Hence why all the complaints about comparing them to Fire Dragons are silly: it's a bad unit so get over it. Nerfing Eliminators to the ground won't fix your Fire Dragons, as they'll still be gak at their jobs.
agreed. it's like I've been saying since the whole eradicator fiasco started, comparing a unit to a bad unit no one takes is silly.
Both units are reportedly supposed to perform the same function of melta
See im stopping you right there because nobody has dared yet to say which Melta units actually functioned beforehand.
Doesn't matter. Is the way to address Melta to create a new super-melta unit? Or is the solution to address all Melta units accross the board? Multimeltas were addressed, so thats something, but that doesnt help Fire Dragons.
the problem is right now Meltaguns as they stand just aren't that great. whereas a single melta gun in the past used to be a solid eneugh threat that it was reasonably common to see marine squads deploying with a Multa gun as a anti tank deterrant. now a single melta gun is a mild inconveniance to most vehicles.
thing is, WE KNOW GW reckongizes this and is BUFFING Melta. We however lack sufficant information about melta guns etc to fully say how it'll all work. we know Multimelta are going to be 2 shots, with +2 added to damage at closer ranges. That is what we KNOW. we also know that eradicators have a 24 inc assault 1 melta rifle that allows you to roll twice and drop the lowest at half range.
what we don't have, as far as I know, is what the rules for a Meltagun will be. will it be just "roll 2d6 discard lowest, at half range" or will it be something differant? we also don't know, what, if any thing, GW does to fire dragons (for all we know GW fully intends to give Fire dragons the same special rule eradicators right now have) yes eradicators are powerful, no doubt there, but it's pretty clear to me that GW is rethinking Meltaguns in 9th edition.
I don't think I've ever seen the "just wait" crowd say it's time to assess. There's always a new codex, CA, Campaign book or edition that will have everything fall into place.
My personal favourite was the 7th book making Eldar even more egregious. The whole lead up was "don't worry y'all, they know it's a problem..."
This new Marine book will be most interesting to follow.
BrianDavion wrote: the problem is right now Meltaguns as they stand just aren't that great. whereas a single melta gun in the past used to be a solid eneugh threat that it was reasonably common to see marine squads deploying with a Multa gun as a anti tank deterrant. now a single melta gun is a mild inconveniance to most vehicles.
thing is, WE KNOW GW reckongizes this and is BUFFING Melta. We however lack sufficant information about melta guns etc to fully say how it'll all work. we know Multimelta are going to be 2 shots, with +2 added to damage at closer ranges. That is what we KNOW. we also know that eradicators have a 24 inc assault 1 melta rifle that allows you to roll twice and drop the lowest at half range.
what we don't have, as far as I know, is what the rules for a Meltagun will be. will it be just "roll 2d6 discard lowest, at half range" or will it be something differant? we also don't know, what, if any thing, GW does to fire dragons (for all we know GW fully intends to give Fire dragons the same special rule eradicators right now have) yes eradicators are powerful, no doubt there, but it's pretty clear to me that GW is rethinking Meltaguns in 9th edition.
Single melta gun of the past? When? The only time I remember is when 5E came about and it was Melta simply because it a very vehicle heavy edition and you needed to try to break them rather then glance them constantly with plasma.
argonak wrote: If someone doesn’t want to play my blood ravens as counts as ultramarines, I’ll count myself lucky I didn’t end up in a game with someone like that unknowingly.
I do think it’s rather iffy to use detachments that have different chapter traits but are painted the same though. That seems too confusing.
I get a little of not wanting to play against Blood Ravens playing as UM. Blood Ravens have their own rules and they show up a lot less often. The Pink and Purple Submarine Marines don't have their own rules, so I don't mind those counts-as.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: I mean, overall, I felt like Meltas of most sorts were in a good place in 5th. The exception being Sternguard and Chaos terminator suicide combi deepstrikes, which were a bit silly (but wouldn't be a problem under new DS rules.)
The problem is that we're not going to get that old dynamic back with the changes to vehicle armor.
I would guess Melta was the flavor of the month during 5th. I'd say Plasma was the Flavor of the Month in 8th. When did Grav come out? 6th? I'm not sure if GW knows they do it, if they do it intentionally or subconciously, but just about every edition makes a different one of the Elements into a favored choice.
argonak wrote: If someone doesn’t want to play my blood ravens as counts as ultramarines, I’ll count myself lucky I didn’t end up in a game with someone like that unknowingly.
I do think it’s rather iffy to use detachments that have different chapter traits but are painted the same though. That seems too confusing.
I get a little of not wanting to play against Blood Ravens playing as UM. Blood Ravens have their own rules and they show up a lot less often. The Pink and Purple Submarine Marines don't have their own rules, so I don't mind those counts-as.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: I mean, overall, I felt like Meltas of most sorts were in a good place in 5th. The exception being Sternguard and Chaos terminator suicide combi deepstrikes, which were a bit silly (but wouldn't be a problem under new DS rules.)
The problem is that we're not going to get that old dynamic back with the changes to vehicle armor.
I would guess Melta was the flavor of the month during 5th. I'd say Plasma was the Flavor of the Month in 8th. When did Grav come out? 6th? I'm not sure if GW knows they do it, if they do it intentionally or subconciously, but just about every edition makes a different one of the Elements into a favored choice.
Melta's were slightly favored as the go-to special weapon, but others got plenty of use. It wasn't anywhere near as skewed as plasma in 8th. Plasma had plenty of uses in 5th, and flamers would show up too. It wasn't uncommon for Loyalists to run their mandatory Tacs as flamer+heavy bolter due to the points discounts. And of course, CSM tended to run 2x melta +powerfist or 2x plasma for ranged squads.
Melta's were slightly favored as the go-to special weapon, but others got plenty of use. It wasn't anywhere near as skewed as plasma in 8th. Plasma had plenty of uses in 5th, and flamers would show up too. It wasn't uncommon for Loyalists to run their mandatory Tacs as flamer+heavy bolter due to the points discounts. And of course, CSM tended to run 2x melta +powerfist or 2x plasma for ranged squads.
Hence why all the complaints about comparing them to Fire Dragons are silly: it's a bad unit so get over it. Nerfing Eliminators to the ground won't fix your Fire Dragons, as they'll still be gak at their jobs.
agreed. it's like I've been saying since the whole eradicator fiasco started, comparing a unit to a bad unit no one takes is silly.
Both units are reportedly supposed to perform the same function of melta
See im stopping you right there because nobody has dared yet to say which Melta units actually functioned beforehand.
Doesn't matter. Is the way to address Melta to create a new super-melta unit? Or is the solution to address all Melta units accross the board? Multimeltas were addressed, so thats something, but that doesnt help Fire Dragons.
They have to start somewhere, if all specialist melta units are getting a decent buff, something has to be first. It's a new edition hence it's no surprise it's marines who get the first pass.
If Eradicators didn't exist, I dare say all these complaints about fire dragons wouldn't exist. But likewise, gotta ask why tempestus melta drop squads aren't complaining, nor fusion tau suit units, nor chaos chosen melta units etc. Just firedragon owners.
If Eradicators didn't exist, I dare say all these complaints about fire dragons wouldn't exist. But likewise, gotta ask why tempestus melta drop squads aren't complaining, nor fusion tau suit units, nor chaos chosen melta units etc. Just firedragon owners.
Well, speaking for Chaos, I'm not aware of a time when melta chosen were ever viable. Hard to miss something that you've never had. Fire dragons are mentioned because they've actually been useful in the past, and they're one of the most iconic melta specialist units.
Dudeface wrote: If Eradicators didn't exist, I dare say all these complaints about fire dragons wouldn't exist. But likewise, gotta ask why tempestus melta drop squads aren't complaining, nor fusion tau suit units, nor chaos chosen melta units etc. Just firedragon owners.
Don't assume that T'au, etc aren't pissed about eradicators, thanks.
But when we point out that fusion crisis suits are incredibly poor we get told 'STFU, you have quad fusion commanders and Triptides'.
P.S. we don't want to have to continue to rely on the same 3 odd units (especially considering how incredibly boring the Triptide playstyle is)...
If Eradicators didn't exist, I dare say all these complaints about fire dragons wouldn't exist. But likewise, gotta ask why tempestus melta drop squads aren't complaining, nor fusion tau suit units, nor chaos chosen melta units etc. Just firedragon owners.
Well, speaking for Chaos, I'm not aware of a time when melta chosen were ever viable. Hard to miss something that you've never had. Fire dragons are mentioned because they've actually been useful in the past, and they're one of the most iconic melta specialist units.
Well, there is the comparison to a single obliterator, which under new rules is 15 pts cheaper and worse .....
If Eradicators didn't exist, I dare say all these complaints about fire dragons wouldn't exist. But likewise, gotta ask why tempestus melta drop squads aren't complaining, nor fusion tau suit units, nor chaos chosen melta units etc. Just firedragon owners.
Well, speaking for Chaos, I'm not aware of a time when melta chosen were ever viable. Hard to miss something that you've never had. Fire dragons are mentioned because they've actually been useful in the past, and they're one of the most iconic melta specialist units.
But it's not OK to complain only because a historically good unit has direct competition. I get melta chosen were never super popular (maybe back in 3.5?), but people in here aren't really complaining about "melta units" they're just complaining about fire dragons mostly.
sanguine40k wrote:
Dudeface wrote: If Eradicators didn't exist, I dare say all these complaints about fire dragons wouldn't exist. But likewise, gotta ask why tempestus melta drop squads aren't complaining, nor fusion tau suit units, nor chaos chosen melta units etc. Just firedragon owners.
Don't assume that T'au, etc aren't pissed about eradicators, thanks.
But when we point out that fusion crisis suits are incredibly poor we get told 'STFU, you have quad fusion commanders and Triptides'.
P.S. we don't want to have to continue to rely on the same 3 odd units (especially considering how incredibly boring the Triptide playstyle is)...
I agree entirely, but I'm thankful there aren't threads full of tau players whining about how fusion suits are now outclassed. It doesn't make it right but hopefully when the time comes round fusion will get a little bump as well.
Later 2021: "wait for CA 2021, your dataset is incomplete"
Later 2022: "wait for (box set), your dataset is incomplete."
Later 2023: "wait for codex V2, your dataset is incomplete."
Later 2024: "wait for 10th edition, your dataset is incomplete..."
Later 999.M41: "wait for the Blackstone Fortress to smash Cadis, your dataset is incomplete)
Later 2021: "wait for CA 2021, your dataset is incomplete"
Later 2022: "wait for (box set), your dataset is incomplete."
Later 2023: "wait for codex V2, your dataset is incomplete."
Later 2024: "wait for 10th edition, your dataset is incomplete..."
Later 999.M41: "wait for the Blackstone Fortress to smash Cadis, your dataset is incomplete)
Likewise the "AARRGGGHHH unit x is too good, let's pretend everyone but me has max of them and whine endlessly even though I know for a fact it might be adjusted next month" is tiresome.
Dudeface wrote: Likewise the "AARRGGGHHH unit x is too good, let's pretend everyone but me has max of them and whine endlessly even though I know for a fact it might be adjusted next month" is tiresome.
Bolding is mine.
Not sure how you can put those two comments in the same sentence given comment no.2 directly contradicts comment no.1...
But also, in the competitive environment, it seems like a large proportion of the space marine armies are running max eradicators.
Dudeface wrote: Likewise the "AARRGGGHHH unit x is too good, let's pretend everyone but me has max of them and whine endlessly even though I know for a fact it might be adjusted next month" is tiresome.
Bolding is mine.
Not sure how you can put those two comments in the same sentence given comment no.2 directly contradicts comment no.1...
But also, in the competitive environment, it seems like a large proportion of the space marine armies are running max eradicators.
Not really, I know for a fact that there is a window/opportunity for it to change. I know for a fact new games consoles come out this winter, which might have record preorders. Other examples etc.
Lots of them maybe are but how many people whining on here about them are facing 9 eradicators regularly?
Eradicators are too good, even if it is 3, and they cause feelsbadman moments when a 120 pt unit is so utterly destructive you have to pivot your deployment and battleplan around it, because if you don't they will just delete one of your assets no questions asked.
If Eradicators didn't exist, I dare say all these complaints about fire dragons wouldn't exist. But likewise, gotta ask why tempestus melta drop squads aren't complaining, nor fusion tau suit units, nor chaos chosen melta units etc. Just firedragon owners.
Well, speaking for Chaos, I'm not aware of a time when melta chosen were ever viable. Hard to miss something that you've never had. Fire dragons are mentioned because they've actually been useful in the past, and they're one of the most iconic melta specialist units.
Eradicators are too good, even if it is 3, and they cause feelsbadman moments when a 120 pt unit is so utterly destructive you have to pivot your deployment and battleplan around it, because if you don't they will just delete one of your assets no questions asked.
What are they worth as someone asked in the other thread? Thats the real question, also don't assume they'll always be 27" master artisans salamanders when weighing up the cost.
Believe it or not, I'm finding Intercessors of any kind... underpowered for their cost...
I literally just swapped my Chimeras for Tauroxes and stuck an Autocannon in each squad... When a 10 point squad upgrade can blast 38 points of units a turn that's a great investment, hell even if it only hits 1 of those attacks, it still stands a great chance of killing 19 points - almost double its cost!
The difference happens when the opponent takes 3W Primaris models to backup the Intercessors. Then the autocannons aren't so flash, but then again they were picked to slaughter the inevitable Intercessors to begin with...
Eradicators are too good, even if it is 3, and they cause feelsbadman moments when a 120 pt unit is so utterly destructive you have to pivot your deployment and battleplan around it, because if you don't they will just delete one of your assets no questions asked.
What are they worth as someone asked in the other thread? Thats the real question, also don't assume they'll always be 27" master artisans salamanders when weighing up the cost.
That will inpart depend if heavy intercessors are gravis ie T5 3w models as well.
But right now compaired to dev squads retributors etc they have to hit 50ppm(that's acceptijg that GW has just sacrificed any concept of heavy armour being an effective army composition).
But if you wanted to try and keep monsters and vehicals relevent they would probably need to be more like 60ppm.
Later 2021: "wait for CA 2021, your dataset is incomplete"
Later 2022: "wait for (box set), your dataset is incomplete."
Later 2023: "wait for codex V2, your dataset is incomplete."
Later 2024: "wait for 10th edition, your dataset is incomplete..."
Later 999.M41: "wait for the Blackstone Fortress to smash Cadis, your dataset is incomplete)
If 9th is anything like 8th I fully expect this. I set myself for fun till marine codex comes out, and then I will see. 2 years of witing to get few months of fun with my army, maybe isn't fun for some, but it is fun to me. I don't really care what happens after that. Aside for phasing out my army, GW can't do anything worse to my dudes then they did for most of 8th. Right now I am having fun.
Eradicators are too good, even if it is 3, and they cause feelsbadman moments when a 120 pt unit is so utterly destructive you have to pivot your deployment and battleplan around it, because if you don't they will just delete one of your assets no questions asked.
What are they worth as someone asked in the other thread? Thats the real question, also don't assume they'll always be 27" master artisans salamanders when weighing up the cost.
That will inpart depend if heavy intercessors are gravis ie T5 3w models as well.
But right now compaired to dev squads retributors etc they have to hit 50ppm(that's acceptijg that GW has just sacrificed any concept of heavy armour being an effective army composition).
But if you wanted to try and keep monsters and vehicals relevent they would probably need to be more like 60ppm.
Or prices on those vehicles and monsters would have to come down. Eradicators aren't the only problem those units face. Two shot multi-meltas and whatever xenos equivalents are in the works threaten them as well. Particularly those without invuls.
If Eradicators didn't exist, I dare say all these complaints about fire dragons wouldn't exist. But likewise, gotta ask why tempestus melta drop squads aren't complaining, nor fusion tau suit units, nor chaos chosen melta units etc. Just firedragon owners.
Well, speaking for Chaos, I'm not aware of a time when melta chosen were ever viable. Hard to miss something that you've never had. Fire dragons are mentioned because they've actually been useful in the past, and they're one of the most iconic melta specialist units.
7th once the Legion supplement was released.
They were also good in 5th. They were pretty much only taken for Melta/Plasma spam in rhino's as a more alternate vehicle for it then potentially losing a deepstriking Terminator squad since Chaos didn't have Deepstrike beacons or Drop Pods like SM!
Eradicators are too good, even if it is 3, and they cause feelsbadman moments when a 120 pt unit is so utterly destructive you have to pivot your deployment and battleplan around it, because if you don't they will just delete one of your assets no questions asked.
What are they worth as someone asked in the other thread? Thats the real question, also don't assume they'll always be 27" master artisans salamanders when weighing up the cost.
That will inpart depend if heavy intercessors are gravis ie T5 3w models as well.
But right now compaired to dev squads retributors etc they have to hit 50ppm(that's acceptijg that GW has just sacrificed any concept of heavy armour being an effective army composition).
But if you wanted to try and keep monsters and vehicals relevent they would probably need to be more like 60ppm.
Or prices on those vehicles and monsters would have to come down. Eradicators aren't the only problem those units face. Two shot multi-meltas and whatever xenos equivalents are in the works threaten them as well. Particularly those without invuls.
100% agree, to be honest even those with invulnerable saves are probably going to be in need of significantly smalller points cuts but will still need points cuts so non invulnerable save vehicals will need big cuts.
That or GW has to start handing out T9+ way more than currently.
If Eradicators didn't exist, I dare say all these complaints about fire dragons wouldn't exist. But likewise, gotta ask why tempestus melta drop squads aren't complaining, nor fusion tau suit units, nor chaos chosen melta units etc. Just firedragon owners.
Well, speaking for Chaos, I'm not aware of a time when melta chosen were ever viable. Hard to miss something that you've never had. Fire dragons are mentioned because they've actually been useful in the past, and they're one of the most iconic melta specialist units.
7th once the Legion supplement was released.
They were also good in 5th. They were pretty much only taken for Melta/Plasma spam in rhino's as a more alternate vehicle for it then potentially losing a deepstriking Terminator squad since Chaos didn't have Deepstrike beacons or Drop Pods like SM!
Thats why I opted for Combi-Plasma to the rear armor for CSM Terminators. Sure there's a chance of blowing up but it isn't THAT high.
I don't know if I would in 2 months. Or 2 Months + Big Four Supplements. Depends on what they do with Chapter Traits and unit homogeny.
