So, from this thread (which is a bit of a trainwreck), it was said that Marines, as they are now, have basically every playstyle available to them, and not just "technically"-they can do it well.
I'm curious as to what everyone here thinks is a playstyle Marines CANNOT do-or at least, cannot do well.
I guess they're just sort of mediocre at smite spam and mortal wound spam in general? Aside from that they're...
* About as good as (better than?) GSC at ambushing.
* Primaris vehicles are better at doing the fast mechanized force thing than drukhari, eldar, and tau.
* They gunline about as well as tau and guard. Do they have the edge here too?
* They melee about as hard as anyone. A single assault intercessor in the assault doctrine is about as lethal in melee as an autarch and not far from being as lethal as most phoenix lords.
* They maybe don't do the horde thing quite as well as hordes? Then again, spamming 18 point 2W tactical marines, you can get a decent number of bodies if you really lean into it, and you'll have a lot more bodies than a green tide after the first couple turns of shooting have done their work.
I'm not really bothered by marines being able to pull off pretty much any playstyle. I'm bothered when they seem to do it better than factions that are less versatile. An optimized marine gunline should not be markedly better at shooting than an optimized IG gunline.
JNAProductions wrote: You can do 94 bodies (90 Tacs, 4 HQs) in a 2k list. That's a horde to me.
MW Spam, true! Though who does that better?
sure you can run 90 tac marines and some HQs but that lists proably going to have some serious issues, Orks meanwhile can run more guys and have eneugh points left over to take heavy support, fast attack etc back up.
you can do Hoard with Marines, depending on how you define it, I suppose, but I'd argue you can't do it WELL.
JNAProductions wrote: You can do 94 bodies (90 Tacs, 4 HQs) in a 2k list. That's a horde to me.
MW Spam, true! Though who does that better?
Surely Thousand Sons do it better by virtue of having more more mortal wound powers and easier access to psykers (albeit with the default smite of most psykers being weaker than the norm). I feel like craftworlders probably do it better too. Executioner, smite, Mind War, and crushing orb give you a decent amount of MW generation. Granted, a couple of those are only able to target characters. If you really want to lean into MW generation with aeldari, you can do an executioner + smite farseer, a phantasm launcher drukhari unit, a witchfire shadowseer with phantasm launcher, and then throw in mandrakes (baleblast) for flavor. It's easy to run out of points quickly taking that approach, but you can put out a lot of mortals. Especially if you go for some of the more gimmicky Psychic Awakening custom traits.
Although weirdly, giving the firstborn an extra wound for only about 3 points each kind of lowers the value of mortal wounds. Especially in a marine-heavy meta. Smite is only killing 1 guy on average. Executioner is only averaging one guy on the first die roll, and you now have a 1 in 3 chance of not killing a firstborn with the first die roll meaning you don't get a second.
But yeah. I think it's safe to say that marines don't do psyker-heavy armies all that well even when they lean into it. Unless you count GK of course. The best "psyker marines" other than GK are probably BA, and that's more about buffing their own mobility and melee power.
JNAProductions wrote: You can do 94 bodies (90 Tacs, 4 HQs) in a 2k list. That's a horde to me.
MW Spam, true! Though who does that better?
sure you can run 90 tac marines and some HQs but that lists proably going to have some serious issues, Orks meanwhile can run more guys and have eneugh points left over to take heavy support, fast attack etc back up.
you can do Hoard with Marines, depending on how you define it, I suppose, but I'd argue you can't do it WELL.
Well, 90 Tac Marines, Turn 1 kill 50ish Ork boyz without rerolls or buffs of any kind. ATM that is 400pts dead, or about a 25-30% return on investment. In CC right now those Tac Marines are punching above their weight class, being able to kill the equivalent of 50 Ork boyz in CC as well, again, no buffs. Ironically, a Space Marine Tac Horde would do really well Vs. Ork hordes.
I believe the Ork "horde" right now is only about 120ish Boyz or 960pts, once you add in the required buffs like a warboss, painboy, weirdboy etc you have about 700-800pts left over for other things, but this is usually made up of specialists, either Kommandos/stormboyz etc rather than fast attack buggies or even heavy support, mostly due to 9th editions tournament requirements as far as scoring is concerned.
JNAProductions wrote: You can do 94 bodies (90 Tacs, 4 HQs) in a 2k list. That's a horde to me.
MW Spam, true! Though who does that better?
sure you can run 90 tac marines and some HQs but that lists proably going to have some serious issues, Orks meanwhile can run more guys and have eneugh points left over to take heavy support, fast attack etc back up.
you can do Hoard with Marines, depending on how you define it, I suppose, but I'd argue you can't do it WELL.
Well, 90 Tac Marines, Turn 1 kill 50ish Ork boyz without rerolls or buffs of any kind. ATM that is 400pts dead, or about a 25-30% return on investment. In CC right now those Tac Marines are punching above their weight class, being able to kill the equivalent of 50 Ork boyz in CC as well, again, no buffs. Ironically, a Space Marine Tac Horde would do really well Vs. Ork hordes.
I believe the Ork "horde" right now is only about 120ish Boyz or 960pts, once you add in the required buffs like a warboss, painboy, weirdboy etc you have about 700-800pts left over for other things, but this is usually made up of specialists, either Kommandos/stormboyz etc rather than fast attack buggies or even heavy support, mostly due to 9th editions tournament requirements as far as scoring is concerned.
so what you're saying is a list with nothing but anti-infantry weapons is highly effective against an infantry army?!
Big MW output and cheap screens are the two things they don't have. Everything else, they've got covered, and often better than armies that specialize.
JNAProductions wrote: You can do 94 bodies (90 Tacs, 4 HQs) in a 2k list. That's a horde to me.
MW Spam, true! Though who does that better?
sure you can run 90 tac marines and some HQs but that lists proably going to have some serious issues, Orks meanwhile can run more guys and have eneugh points left over to take heavy support, fast attack etc back up.
you can do Hoard with Marines, depending on how you define it, I suppose, but I'd argue you can't do it WELL.
Well, 90 Tac Marines, Turn 1 kill 50ish Ork boyz without rerolls or buffs of any kind. ATM that is 400pts dead, or about a 25-30% return on investment. In CC right now those Tac Marines are punching above their weight class, being able to kill the equivalent of 50 Ork boyz in CC as well, again, no buffs. Ironically, a Space Marine Tac Horde would do really well Vs. Ork hordes.
I believe the Ork "horde" right now is only about 120ish Boyz or 960pts, once you add in the required buffs like a warboss, painboy, weirdboy etc you have about 700-800pts left over for other things, but this is usually made up of specialists, either Kommandos/stormboyz etc rather than fast attack buggies or even heavy support, mostly due to 9th editions tournament requirements as far as scoring is concerned.
so what you're saying is a list with nothing but anti-infantry weapons is highly effective against an infantry army?!
NO WAY!?!
And that ork horde is doing ok in tournaments thanks to being counter meta. A SM player should give it a shot see if it works as well as ork hordes do.
JNAProductions wrote: You can do 94 bodies (90 Tacs, 4 HQs) in a 2k list. That's a horde to me.
MW Spam, true! Though who does that better?
sure you can run 90 tac marines and some HQs but that lists proably going to have some serious issues, Orks meanwhile can run more guys and have eneugh points left over to take heavy support, fast attack etc back up.
you can do Hoard with Marines, depending on how you define it, I suppose, but I'd argue you can't do it WELL.
Well, 90 Tac Marines, Turn 1 kill 50ish Ork boyz without rerolls or buffs of any kind. ATM that is 400pts dead, or about a 25-30% return on investment. In CC right now those Tac Marines are punching above their weight class, being able to kill the equivalent of 50 Ork boyz in CC as well, again, no buffs. Ironically, a Space Marine Tac Horde would do really well Vs. Ork hordes.
I believe the Ork "horde" right now is only about 120ish Boyz or 960pts, once you add in the required buffs like a warboss, painboy, weirdboy etc you have about 700-800pts left over for other things, but this is usually made up of specialists, either Kommandos/stormboyz etc rather than fast attack buggies or even heavy support, mostly due to 9th editions tournament requirements as far as scoring is concerned.
so what you're saying is a list with nothing but anti-infantry weapons is highly effective against an infantry army?!
NO WAY!?!
And that ork horde is doing ok in tournaments thanks to being counter meta. A SM player should give it a shot see if it works as well as ork hordes do.
I doubt it would. part of the curse of playing space marines is you ARE the meta, so counter meta builds from you are hard to do. By that I mean take a look at your average tactics conversation, people tend to build their lists to be capable of handling armies that are, largely, MEQ.
JNAProductions wrote: So, from this thread (which is a bit of a trainwreck), it was said that Marines, as they are now, have basically every playstyle available to them, and not just "technically"-they can do it well.
I'm curious as to what everyone here thinks is a playstyle Marines CANNOT do-or at least, cannot do well.
Well there's the obvious two -
They can't do horde, and they can't do the Super Heavy Detachment as well as bugs/orks or Knights. Pretty sure they can't do the super elite everything invulnerable Harli/Custodes thing. So given how easy it was to come up with both extremes, I'd say they also can't cash a check written by hyperbole.
when's the last time an army that was strong at the START of an edition was ruling the edition by it's end?
Let's assume the new codexes are equivalent or better in power as a best case scenario. The requisite power levels for the game to wind up appreciably balanced will be so utterly ludicrous that if you aren't one of the ones to get a codex right off, the game is going to be increasingly awful until you do. We've already sat through 15 months of recently escalating garbage that isn't even completely over, apparently and I'm not looking forward to sitting through another 12 hoping for a game that doesn't make me feel like a second-class citizen for finding the game's poster children increasingly obnoxious as GW tries to lodge them in my trachea.
when's the last time an army that was strong at the START of an edition was ruling the edition by it's end?
The trainwreck could easily be produced by GW's usual approach of breaking everyone else to compensate instead of fixing the things they screwed up in one book. If they apply the kind of buffs they're handing out to Marines more broadly the game is going to turn into the rocket tag edition.
when's the last time an army that was strong at the START of an edition was ruling the edition by it's end?
8th edition ring any bells.
But seriously how do they increase the lethality of every other faction by the required amount to compete without the game decending into go first table opponent GG after half a battle round.
when's the last time an army that was strong at the START of an edition was ruling the edition by it's end?
8th edition ring any bells.
But seriously how do they increase the lethality of every other faction by the required amount to compete without the game decending into go first table opponent GG after half a battle round.
we allready have a massive First turn problem with the new missions... further expanding lethality to such a degree would be absolutely devastating.
60 Tacs, 30 Devs, and 30 Assault Marines with ZERO Upgrades, and ZERO Caps or Lt's are 2160 points. Oh wait. You're that guy who has a problem with honesty.
JNAProductions wrote: You can do 94 bodies (90 Tacs, 4 HQs) in a 2k list. That's a horde to me.
MW Spam, true! Though who does that better?
90 bodies hasn't been a horde for a while now. The closest marines have to a horde unit are BT crusader squads.
Considering my RCCSM spam list contained "only " 60 CSM but still significantly outhorded hordes in regards to durability and combat ability overall even during 8th yes i do think that 90 tacs can quite easily qualify as a "horde"-type playstyle... allbeit, i prefer the more accurate term of Blobbing for it.
when's the last time an army that was strong at the START of an edition was ruling the edition by it's end?
8th edition ring any bells.
But seriously how do they increase the lethality of every other faction by the required amount to compete without the game decending into go first table opponent GG after half a battle round.
Let's reword that: which codex that was strong at the start of an edition remained strong at the end?
CSM and cult blobs are actual horde units, unlike tacticals. It was also clarified that this is about Codex Space Marines only.
I also doubt that these hypothetical hordes translate into actual lists that can win stuff. Being able to bring lots of bodies is not the same as being good at hordes. Orks can bring way more than 120 boyz, but the point is that they don't need to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Let's reword that: which codex that was strong at the start of an edition remained strong at the end?
I mean on paper no, Marines can't run hordes because a tactical marine is 18 points, while a boy is 8 points and a termagaunt or something is 5 points. So by definition, you can't bring as many.
But you can get up to 70-80 bodies without too much difficulty, and if they all have 2+ wounds, I feel this is going to feel very much like a horde for you and your opponent. I hope you have some AP3 2 damage weapons, or this is probably going to go badly.
But then I philosophically disagree with the premise. All factions should be able to do anything. Its bad design if you go "marines are a castle shooting list, and sure there will be combat units, but we'll have to make them suck to be fair to this faction, which can *only* run assault, because we'll make their shooting units suck". Make everything viable at least in its own context.
Jidmah wrote: CSM and cult blobs are actual horde units, unlike tacticals. It was also clarified that this is about Codex Space Marines only.
I also doubt that these hypothetical hordes translate into actual lists that can win stuff. Being able to bring lots of bodies is not the same as being good at hordes.
CSM is 1:1 the same unit as a tac sans doctrines and with worse traits but it IS 1:1 a tac profile and even pricewise (no the 1 pts less doesn't turn it into a horde unit and neither does the 20 man limit instead of 10 because you'd never ever go above 10), stating that he is supposed to be a horde unit and the other not is a bit wierd.
Jidmah wrote: Tacs are 2 wounds and 18 pts/model now.
Which assuming the codex hasn't dones something utterly crazy can still take 60 tacs and 30 devistators plus HQ plus Assualt squad for around 100 2 wound models.
Though thinking about it I'm sure actually 90 dudes plus Chief Apocothory is probably going to be harder for most people to kill.
Jidmah wrote: But yeah, that's probably the only one in history
7e Craftworlds, mechanicus and marines, 6e taudar spring to mind. And the second and third books of 5e were 'leafblower' guard and the marine++ space wolves - sometimes GW do overdo it early and then fall into a mid-edition damage control phase.
Jidmah wrote: But yeah, that's probably the only one in history
7e Craftworlds, mechanicus and marines, 6e taudar spring to mind. And the second and third books of 5e were 'leafblower' guard and the marine++ space wolves - sometimes GW do overdo it early and then fall into a mid-edition damage control phase.
Jidmah wrote: But yeah, that's probably the only one in history
7e Craftworlds, mechanicus and marines, 6e taudar spring to mind. And the second and third books of 5e were 'leafblower' guard and the marine++ space wolves - sometimes GW do overdo it early and then fall into a mid-edition damage control phase.
I feel Marines, Eldar and Tau were good from 6th to 8th, with at most 6-12 month periods of weakness that almost always prompted GW to bring in a new codex, supplement or something to bring them back up.
Its why I'd remain reasonably optimistic as a Tau player, and pessimistic as say a Tyranid player.
Jidmah wrote: Tacs are 2 wounds and 18 pts/model now.
Which assuming the codex hasn't dones something utterly crazy can still take 60 tacs and 30 devistators plus HQ plus Assualt squad for around 100 2 wound models.
Though thinking about it I'm sure actually 90 dudes plus Chief Apocothory is probably going to be harder for most people to kill.
As I said before, hypothetically being able to drop a pile of guys is not the same as being good at hordes. In 8th facing 70+ primaris was rather normal for me and nothing about that felt like a horde.
All of them were released within a year of the start of the edition. If you set aside the various early marine books guard and wolves were 1&2 in 5th, taudar were 2&3 in 6th (the first non-marine book was the also powerful 6e daemons). Craftwords/admech/marines/crons were all year 1 in 8th ahead of their various super detachments.
To be fair though codex power is all over the place, timing is no guarantee of success (unless you are a sisters player, then your codex is a sure indication of the end of an edition).
when's the last time an army that was strong at the START of an edition was ruling the edition by it's end?
That's easy. It was Marines. In 8th. Even when the over-all book wasn't as good, they still had 2 or 3 builds that were oppressive enough that Alessio C felt compelled to personally shame the people using them. Who can forget the Stormraven spam, or Bobby G and his amazing Razorbacks?
As far as what Marines can't do - I was going to agree with Psychic/Smite spam, but are we counting Blood Angels in this, and can they still take half a dozen psychic dreadnaughts? I've lost touch with that faction a bit.
Other than that, like someone else said, they don't really do mortal wounds well. Both DG and TSons can do it better. On the horde front - actually 96 3+ 2w bodies playing the mission is going to be tough to beat ... yikes ...
JNAProductions wrote: So, from this thread (which is a bit of a trainwreck), it was said that Marines, as they are now, have basically every playstyle available to them, and not just "technically"-they can do it well.
I'm curious as to what everyone here thinks is a playstyle Marines CANNOT do-or at least, cannot do well.
Well there's the obvious two -
They can't do horde, and they can't do the Super Heavy Detachment as well as bugs/orks or Knights. Pretty sure they can't do the super elite everything invulnerable Harli/Custodes thing. So given how easy it was to come up with both extremes, I'd say they also can't cash a check written by hyperbole.
What do you consider a horde? How many models is a horse army, in a 2k list?
And I’d argue that invulnerable saves are not a playstyle. They’re a defensive tool, not an entire playstyle.
Xenomancers wrote: My gosh. Another space marine bashing thread. You ever here the phrase "if you can't beat them - join them"?
Did you ever learn that when injecting in a conversation you should typically have something useful to add? Let us know your thoughts on what Marines Can't Do!
I agree they are a strong book, but I think there is a bit of exaggeration on their capabilities.
I play Harlequins and Space Wolves. Definitely taken more interest in the former than the later due to a lot of marines in my club. Though, I always love throwing my wolves on the table.
Played a couple of games vs Space Marines with my Ynnari-Quins on the weekend, and they certainly have some tricks, but not as much as the Aledari!
They are definitely an army which can be built towards a variety of roles. Either to do many well, or one very well, at the expense of others.
I have found them to be weaker in melee, especially if they don't take enough combat specalists, and they are not very mobile (for the most part). I was able to control board space a lot better then my opponents were.
They tend to have a smaller army too, so less units, or models. Especially when taking some of the fancy toys.
The nerf to aggressors, and the removal of fly from their Primaris tanks definitely took some of the sting out of them.
The rely a lot on the 3+ saves for resiliency, but there are a lot of weapons which can chew through them pretty fast.
I need to play more games, against some more diverse builds (played against Dark Angels, and Iron Hands so far, but I think they are far from unbeatable. I also favour my Harlequins ATM in a fight vs them.
I'm more worried about Necrons, I'll be honest. The C'tan and Nightbringer in particular are things I just don't know how I'll deal with. But, this is from a Harlequin/Ynnari perspective.
jaredb wrote: I agree they are a strong book, but I think there is a bit of exaggeration on their capabilities.
I play Harlequins and Space Wolves. Definitely taken more interest in the former than the later due to a lot of marines in my club. Though, I always love throwing my wolves on the table.
Played a couple of games vs Space Marines with my Ynnari-Quins on the weekend, and they certainly have some tricks, but not as much as the Aledari!
They are definitely an army which can be built towards a variety of roles. Either to do many well, or one very well, at the expense of others.
I have found them to be weaker in melee, especially if they don't take enough combat specalists, and they are not very mobile (for the most part). I was able to control board space a lot better then my opponents were.
They tend to have a smaller army too, so less units, or models. Especially when taking some of the fancy toys.
The nerf to aggressors, and the removal of fly from their Primaris tanks definitely took some of the sting out of them.
The rely a lot on the 3+ saves for resiliency, but there are a lot of weapons which can chew through them pretty fast.
I need to play more games, against some more diverse builds (played against Dark Angels, and Iron Hands so far, but I think they are far from unbeatable. I also favour my Harlequins ATM in a fight vs them.
I'm more worried about Necrons, I'll be honest. The C'tan and Nightbringer in particular are things I just don't know how I'll deal with. But, this is from a Harlequin/Ynnari perspective.
...smite it in the psychic phase, then run a troupe in, hit it with a couple of fusion pistols, and then smack it in melee.
Harlequins are pretty damn good at taking down a ctan in a single turn.
Tyel wrote:But then I philosophically disagree with the premise. All factions should be able to do anything. Its bad design if you go "marines are a castle shooting list, and sure there will be combat units, but we'll have to make them suck to be fair to this faction, which can *only* run assault, because we'll make their shooting units suck". Make everything viable at least in its own context.
I don't think it's wrong to have factions lend themselves to particular archetypes. Tau shouldn't be doing all-melee, Death Guard shouldn't be doing high-mobility hit-and-run, World Eaters shouldn't be doing gunlines.
That doesn't mean Tau shouldn't have any melee, but even a melee Tau list should still be shootier than a non-Tau melee list, because it's a core part of their design. It doesn't mean Tau melee units should suck either; it means they'll be things like Kroot that are both shooting and melee, so not as optimized at melee as specialists like Bloodletters.
IMO, each faction should have a baseline for what a 'typical' army for that faction looks like which defines their identity, and then be able to lean in other build directions. Put another way, if two army builds of the same archetype meet, the respective strengths and weaknesses should reflect the differences between the factions. A Tau melee army should be better at shooting and worse at melee than a Khorne melee army. A Guard mechanized army should be slower but more durable than an Eldar mechanized army. But there are still some builds that actually should just be not available- Khorne should not have psychic spam as a list archetype, and Tyranids should not have mechanized as an archetype.
The main problem right now- and why this thread exists- is that Marines don't just lean in the direction of particular builds archetypes; they tend to do those builds better than the factions that specialize in those to begin with. It's like if Tau could build a melee list that could both out-shoot and out-fight Khorne Daemons.
Xenomancers wrote: My gosh. Another space marine bashing thread. You ever here the phrase "if you can't beat them - join them"?
I did! Why try to continue to make 1ksons work when the entire 9th ed rule set is stacked against them. Better to just get an army that requires a fraction of the effort. Also I've yet to play in an edition where marines were not broken at one point or another in the edition. Hell even when they were "bad" in 8th they were still better than most armies lol.
Xenomancers wrote: My gosh. Another space marine bashing thread. You ever here the phrase "if you can't beat them - join them"?
Did you ever learn that when injecting in a conversation you should typically have something useful to add? Let us know your thoughts on what Marines Can't Do!
There is a specific chapter that does everything. Not all at once though. Outside of Greyknights no marines are particularly great in the psychic phase. Marines don't have practically any units that work unsupported. Like a Jetbike captain/hive tyrant/or lord discordant. Marines building to optimize what they are best at (shooting) they aren't at all mobile or able to spread out ether due to needing to ball up to use auras.
Marines are particularly vulnerable to snipers if you guys are looking for an area to attack...that's not what this thread is about though. It's just more petulant whining about marines being the top tier army for what will amount to a brief stent in the scheme of things. Good thing it's happening during a pandemic an no one is actually playing the game.
Xenomancers wrote: My gosh. Another space marine bashing thread. You ever here the phrase "if you can't beat them - join them"?
I did! Why try to continue to make 1ksons work when the entire 9th ed rule set is stacked against them. Better to just get an army that requires a fraction of the effort. Also I've yet to play in an edition where marines were not broken at one point or another in the edition. Hell even when they were "bad" in 8th they were still better than most armies lol.
TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.
TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.
You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.
EDIT: and i just checked 40kstats and they have a single top 4 that dates back to august. and it was a soup list
TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.
You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.
40k stats. For years TS were at the top of the charts for win rates. Virtually every choas army was taking a TS detachment.
Marines are generalists and meant to do at least every playstyle a little bit. That being said, sheer SKU creep and their nature as an aura-based faction means there isn't a lot they can't do.
The one hole is indirect fire. Its kind of funny, but there's very little indirect fire in marines and its all mounted on hard to hide vehicles with low wounds for such a big target.
In the implicit question of 'how do I beat marines?', its harder to answer. They are heavily built around that T4/3+ statline and getting enough fire to saturate them can be hard. Generally you'd need a bunch of D2 weapons with a minimum of -1 AP. You can also try drowning the objectives in bodies, but that means you need to get to the objectives first and if you don't all you can do is roll dice to the end.
TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.
You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.
40k stats. For years TS were at the top of the charts for win rates. Virtually every choas army was taking a TS detachment.
Lol, take x detachment and suddendly the whole dex performs well that is a non argument and just shows the lackluster state of most chaos dexes needing to soup to be relevant....
TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.
You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.
EDIT: and i just checked 40kstats and they have a single top 4 that dates back to august. and it was a soup list
Xeno just says gak. They never have a source, so, don't hold your breath.
TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.
You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.
40k stats. For years TS were at the top of the charts for win rates. Virtually every choas army was taking a TS detachment.
Lol, take x detachment and suddendly the whole dex performs well that is a non argument and just shows the lackluster state of most chaos dexes needing to soup to be relevant....
This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.
TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.
You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.
EDIT: and i just checked 40kstats and they have a single top 4 that dates back to august. and it was a soup list
Xeno just says gak. They never have a source, so, don't hold your breath.
Nvm, just saw he was talking about 8th edition, not 9th.
Still, i think everyone agrees that thousand sons weren't top tier, their supreme command detachment was (when backed with plaguebearers pre-nerf.)
TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.
You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.
EDIT: and i just checked 40kstats and they have a single top 4 that dates back to august. and it was a soup list
Xeno just says gak. They never have a source, so, don't hold your breath.
Nvm, just saw he was talking about 8th edition, not 9th.
Still, i think everyone agrees that thousand sons weren't top tier, their supreme command detachment was (when backed with plaguebearers pre-nerf.)
Nonsense. These units would have been included in any capacity if necessary. Just because there is a detachment that allows them to be taken with no tax. ALL THE BETTER for them.
catbarf wrote: I don't think it's wrong to have factions lend themselves to particular archetypes. Tau shouldn't be doing all-melee, Death Guard shouldn't be doing high-mobility hit-and-run, World Eaters shouldn't be doing gunlines.
That doesn't mean Tau shouldn't have any melee, but even a melee Tau list should still be shootier than a non-Tau melee list, because it's a core part of their design. It doesn't mean Tau melee units should suck either; it means they'll be things like Kroot that are both shooting and melee, so not as optimized at melee as specialists like Bloodletters.
IMO, each faction should have a baseline for what a 'typical' army for that faction looks like which defines their identity, and then be able to lean in other build directions. Put another way, if two army builds of the same archetype meet, the respective strengths and weaknesses should reflect the differences between the factions. A Tau melee army should be better at shooting and worse at melee than a Khorne melee army. A Guard mechanized army should be slower but more durable than an Eldar mechanized army. But there are still some builds that actually should just be not available- Khorne should not have psychic spam as a list archetype, and Tyranids should not have mechanized as an archetype.
The main problem right now- and why this thread exists- is that Marines don't just lean in the direction of particular builds archetypes; they tend to do those builds better than the factions that specialize in those to begin with. It's like if Tau could build a melee list that could both out-shoot and out-fight Khorne Daemons.
But... why though?
I mean I guess my criticism here is that what a "typical" army is, often ends up hamstringing the faction.
So for example, something I disagree about - is venom spam. And to an extent raider spam. There is a strong feeling that any Dark Eldar unit deigning to touch the earth at the start of a game is unfluffy - so the mechanics should make you not want to do it. But this just results in most DE armies looking and playing much the same, because if you have to take transports, there are limited points left for other things.
But the response goes "but the Dark Eldar are fast (cos transports) and fragile (cos T3 and T5 Transports) and... and I guess Talos exist but that's just how its meant to be".
The result is you have a sort of mutilated faction. It can't really *do anything* but fast transport/vehicle spam or loads of Talos - and we are meant to believe its fundamentally unfluffy so the rules shouldn't allow anything else anyway. So no new models for you. But Dark Eldar could have so much more.
In the same way, I don't really see how it hurts the game if Tau were to get the "combat Tau update" and those units were "good". There are issues of synergies - but "you can't just run just these combat units, you must take triptide" doesn't seem like good or necessary design. I don't think World Eaters should be running sorcerers - but there's no reason they can't have "magic priests" who on the table do essentially the same thing. The limit is the imagination.
By way of examples - where I feel GW have done well - is new Sisters and new Necrons. There are inevitably more and less optimal ways to play - but I feel you can do whatever you like with those factions. You can play horde (or at least massed infantry). You can play mechanised. You can play with an assault focus, or a defensive shooting focus or a hybrid. There isn't (at least for me) an obvious A-list build encompassing how the faction *is meant to play*, and then a range of units which GW would prefer you just didn't use.
(the_scotsman sometimes talks about using Marine rules for Eldar - I think there is a real case for using Sisters rules for DE.)
To me a thousand sons army isnt JUST the HQs and it certainly isnt the HQs + Nurgle demons.
Yes , the army has a good winrate but where were the rubrics and scarab occult pre-PA?
Anyway, this conversation is pretty moot since in 9th they got multiple nerfs already that make them low tier, and now their "8th edition top tier list" is unplayable because of the loss of supreme commands and the CP cost for extra detachments.
I originally asked you for a source because i was legitimately curious as to what lists were "top tier" in 9th, because i missread.
Faction identity via playstyle and distinctiveness. If a new player wants to play foot Eldar, then Drukhari aren't the best choice. And that's fine, because there are (or should be) alternative choices.
It's cool to be "the faction that does X" in the lore. Like Dark Eldar are fast raiders who succeed by speed and stealth, like the Rogue from DND. Conversely, Sororitas are more like the Cleric from DND, who through sheer prayer and faithfulness can pull off superhuman feats, and Imperial Guard are the combined-arms mixed force army. Each faction has an identity.
Asking "why should that faction have an identity" is like asking "why shouldn't fighters cast spells like Wizards do? Why shouldn't Wizards get a D12 hit die like Barbarians? Why are Barbarians the only class that can Rage?" It's for flavor and playstyle distinction. That doesn't mean those other forces/characters can't tweak a bit (for example, the Fighter can have some spellcasting through Eldritch Knight, but it'll always be worse than the Wizard; or in our example, Sororitas can still function if you personally build your army around melee instead of the Faith mechanics, but you still will be worse (or should be) than Khorne Berzerkers). But it does mean, as the examples demonstrate, that those tweaks shouldn't ever be as good as the dedicated specialist.
In DND, having a Barbarian's cool abilities only work when he isn't wearing armor isn't "hamstringing" the Barbarian, it's giving players the option to play a tough, fighty character who isn't forced to wear heavy armor (and therefore fits a certain fantasy archetype). If, suddenly, there became a class of Fighter who was way tougher, way fightier, and also didn't wear armor, it'd be reasonable for players who liked the Barbarian class to feel a bit jipped - they might as well all swap to playing Fighter, especially in a competitive PVP game like Warhammer where "building a character" takes huge amounts of emotional and temporal and financial investment.
Faction identity via playstyle and distinctiveness. If a new player wants to play foot Eldar, then Drukhari aren't the best choice. And that's fine, because there are (or should be) alternative choices.
It's cool to be "the faction that does X" in the lore. Like Dark Eldar are fast raiders who succeed by speed and stealth, like the Rogue from DND. Conversely, Sororitas are more like the Cleric from DND, who through sheer prayer and faithfulness can pull off superhuman feats, and Imperial Guard are the combined-arms mixed force army. Each faction has an identity.
Asking "why should that faction have an identity" is like asking "why shouldn't fighters cast spells like Wizards do? Why shouldn't Wizards get a D12 hit die like Barbarians? Why are Barbarians the only class that can Rage?" It's for flavor and playstyle distinction. That doesn't mean those other forces/characters can't tweak a bit (for example, the Fighter can have some spellcasting through Eldritch Knight, but it'll always be worse than the Wizard; or in our example, Sororitas can still function if you personally build your army around melee instead of the Faith mechanics, but you still will be worse (or should be) than Khorne Berzerkers). But it does mean, as the examples demonstrate, that those tweaks shouldn't ever be as good as the dedicated specialist.
Thats exactly how i view it too.
Every army should have the option to play every role but they should be mediocre in their non-preferred way to fight.
To me a thousand sons army isnt JUST the HQs and it certainly isnt the HQs + Nurgle demons.
Yes , the army has a good winrate but where were the rubrics and scarab occult pre-PA?
Anyway, this conversation is pretty moot since in 9th they got multiple nerfs already that make them low tier, and now their "8th edition top tier list" is unplayable because of the loss of supreme commands and the CP cost for extra detachments.
I originally asked you for a source because i was legitimately curious as to what lists were "top tier" in 9th, because i missread.
9th is a new eddition and we don't even have a TS codex. It's too early to make these claims. I don't think anyone disagrees that marines are better than all the other armies right now. It's already been old the marine whining since 8.5 fiasco. It is beyond tiresome now.
Agreed that TS are currently weak. If they get 2 wound rubrics though - they will be top tier AF. 3wound SOT. DG coming soon - it will be a hint at what TS will look like.
TS win rate for 1ksons is a bit misleading because a lot of chaos players would just take a supreme command of Ahriman and Daemon princes. You could make one your warlord and all of the sudden your a 1ksons army. If by this logic that is what makes 1ksons great then marines where great all of 8th because they had smash captains. Either way its 100% irrelevant to what I said because I mentioned 9th ed not 8th.
To me a thousand sons army isnt JUST the HQs and it certainly isnt the HQs + Nurgle demons.
Yes , the army has a good winrate but where were the rubrics and scarab occult pre-PA?
Anyway, this conversation is pretty moot since in 9th they got multiple nerfs already that make them low tier, and now their "8th edition top tier list" is unplayable because of the loss of supreme commands and the CP cost for extra detachments.
I originally asked you for a source because i was legitimately curious as to what lists were "top tier" in 9th, because i missread.
9th is a new eddition and we don't even have a TS codex. It's too early to make these claims. I don't think anyone disagrees that marines are better than all the other armies right now. It's already been old the marine whining since 8.5 fiasco. It is beyond tiresome now.
Agreed that TS are currently weak. If they get 2 wound rubrics though - they will be top tier AF. 3wound SOT. DG coming soon - it will be a hint at what TS will look like.
i disagree that its too early to make these claims. We can say that as it stands with the new edition the army got worse and still know that they still don't have a codex.
Time doesnt just freeze between codex releases, i can still play my thousand sons right now. And notice i havnt said anything about marines, solely about how 9ths ruleset affected TS.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the "armies as DND characters" is actually a good metaphor for how I think about the game....
I feel getting into the vagaries of D&D is a minefield - but these days, can't just about all the archetypes be built to serve any of the desired rolls in the party? Yes some may be more or less optimal depending on circumstance, but that's not really what we are talking about here.
I mean I don't mind if in isolation Khorne Berserkers "beat" say Repentia, Incubi or whatever.
But I have a problem if X is good for its points, and Y is bad for its points. Because all this does is reduce the game to "bring the S tier stuff, don't bother with the rest."
Basically I don't think faction identity should be reduced down to spamming 2-3 units out of 20. Orks for example are still Orks whether they go all the boyz, all the buggies, all the dreads or a mix. I don't see why the response should be "right, goff green tide only, nerf the rest, we don't want these models ever shooting anyone."
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the "armies as DND characters" is actually a good metaphor for how I think about the game....
I feel getting into the vagaries of D&D is a minefield - but these days, can't just about all the archetypes be built to serve any of the desired rolls in the party? Yes some may be more or less optimal depending on circumstance, but that's not really what we are talking about here.
I mean I don't mind if in isolation Khorne Berserkers "beat" say Repentia, Incubi or whatever.
But I have a problem if X is good for its points, and Y is bad for its points. Because all this does is reduce the game to "bring the S tier stuff, don't bother with the rest."
Basically I don't think faction identity should be reduced down to spamming 2-3 units out of 20. Orks for example are still Orks whether they go all the boyz, all the buggies, all the dreads or a mix. I don't see why the response should be "right, goff green tide only, nerf the rest, we don't want these models ever shooting anyone."
Yes, they mostly CAN but theyre gonna be innefficient at it. And were talking on an army wide basis. Sure World eaters are best at fighting but if you bring the shooty aspects of CSM, they can do decent.
I mean I guess my criticism here is that what a "typical" army is, often ends up hamstringing the faction.
So for example, something I disagree about - is venom spam. And to an extent raider spam. There is a strong feeling that any Dark Eldar unit deigning to touch the earth at the start of a game is unfluffy - so the mechanics should make you not want to do it. But this just results in most DE armies looking and playing much the same, because if you have to take transports, there are limited points left for other things.
But the response goes "but the Dark Eldar are fast (cos transports) and fragile (cos T3 and T5 Transports) and... and I guess Talos exist but that's just how its meant to be".
The result is you have a sort of mutilated faction. It can't really *do anything* but fast transport/vehicle spam or loads of Talos - and we are meant to believe its fundamentally unfluffy so the rules shouldn't allow anything else anyway. So no new models for you. But Dark Eldar could have so much more.
Can I take this opportunity to point out that this probably wouldn't be an issue if even a 10th of the thought given to SM armies was given to DE.
Personally, I'd be happy to see DE get other playstyles. But that would involve some thought and effort on GW's part - not least new releases.
Back in 7th edition, I loved Corsairs. In fact, I referred to them as "Codex Dark Eldar: Good Version".
Want to know why?
Because even if I ignored near enough all the Eldar units (along with all the D-weapons and other nonsense), there were just so many more ways to play them.
As an example, every Corsair infantry unit - and I mean every single unit - could have a Jet Pack. So I could literally have an entire army with no vehicles, and it would still feel fast and mobile. Why? Because the rules emphasised speed and mobility. Regardless of whether I was playing vehicle-heavy or vehicle-light, it still felt like I was playing a fast, mobile army. In addition to extra movement from Jetbikes (where available), units also got an extra move if they shot the enemy at close range, plus the JSJ move from Jetpacks.
Now lets try the same thing with Dark Eldar. Oh, wait, they have 0 mobility options for HQs, 0 Elites with mobility options, 0 troops with mobility options, and their only mobility option in Heavy Support is a vehicle.
I guess we could run them on foot, but they're barely faster than normal Marines (they don't even have a version of Fleet like Harlequins and Eldar got), whilst dying to a stiff breeze.
Hell, let's look back at older versions of the DE codex. In 5th, they had a playstyle that involved putting down permanent webway portals, from which DE units could then emerge from for the remainder of the battle. In 7th this was knocked down to HQs being able to teleport just a single attached unit (though also a transport). And then in 8th this was knocked back to a Stratagem, which doesn't even give you a free use on HQs. So if you want to teleport both an HQ and a squad (what a concept!), then you have to pay 3CPs and you still forfeit the ability to webway in any other units in this manner.
My point is, having an emphasis on speed and stealth, coming at the enemy from unexpected angles etc. does not mean DE have to be limited to a mechanised army and nothing else. That should certainly be something they do well, but there's no reason why they can't also be good at fielding armies of beasts, hellions, scourges, reavers etc., or at pouring en masse though sudden webway portals.
The reason they can't do those things is not because of any central design philosophy but because of a decade of neglect, dismemberment, and stagnation. Other armies are allowed to have Jetbikes or similarly fast units as troops, but DE are stuck with 3 units that are all variations on footslogging infantry. Other armies are allowed to have fast HQs. DE have had all such options systematically removed, whilst getting absolutely nothing in return. Other armies are allowed to have fast Elites (or upgrades for Elites to make them fast). But once again, the only option available is transports.
Corsairs showed in 7th that fast armies could have playstyles other than mech spam. But instead of embracing and learning from that, GW simply killed Corsairs and buried the body. And no, of course I'm not still bitter about them being removed, why do you ask?
R&H also showed that in 7th humble troop units could be good...
but guess what corsairs and R/H had in common, yes FW and the GW rulesteam couldn't let that slide that the other supposedly only creating OP rulessets did manage to make 7th work in a non broken non formation way..... with actual customisation.
JNAProductions wrote: Marines aren’t vulnerable to snipers-their characters are good, but not essential. They’re also decently durable.
Daemons are vulnerable to snipers.
Nah - marines literally can't win without their characters. Take out their chapter master and its game over. Donezo. Decently durable yes - but low T. Theres a reason I am bringing 20-30 deathmarks. 20 deathmarks 1 shots a chapter master, 10 1 shots an apoth. Sure all characters are vunerable in this way but not all characters are paying extra for these powerful auras.
I mean I guess my criticism here is that what a "typical" army is, often ends up hamstringing the faction.
So for example, something I disagree about - is venom spam. And to an extent raider spam. There is a strong feeling that any Dark Eldar unit deigning to touch the earth at the start of a game is unfluffy - so the mechanics should make you not want to do it. But this just results in most DE armies looking and playing much the same, because if you have to take transports, there are limited points left for other things.
But the response goes "but the Dark Eldar are fast (cos transports) and fragile (cos T3 and T5 Transports) and... and I guess Talos exist but that's just how its meant to be".
The result is you have a sort of mutilated faction. It can't really *do anything* but fast transport/vehicle spam or loads of Talos - and we are meant to believe its fundamentally unfluffy so the rules shouldn't allow anything else anyway. So no new models for you. But Dark Eldar could have so much more.
Can I take this opportunity to point out that this probably wouldn't be an issue if even a 10th of the thought given to SM armies was given to DE.
Personally, I'd be happy to see DE get other playstyles. But that would involve some thought and effort on GW's part - not least new releases.
Back in 7th edition, I loved Corsairs. In fact, I referred to them as "Codex Dark Eldar: Good Version".
Want to know why?
Because even if I ignored near enough all the Eldar units (along with all the D-weapons and other nonsense), there were just so many more ways to play them.
As an example, every Corsair infantry unit - and I mean every single unit - could have a Jet Pack. So I could literally have an entire army with no vehicles, and it would still feel fast and mobile. Why? Because the rules emphasised speed and mobility. Regardless of whether I was playing vehicle-heavy or vehicle-light, it still felt like I was playing a fast, mobile army. In addition to extra movement from Jetbikes (where available), units also got an extra move if they shot the enemy at close range, plus the JSJ move from Jetpacks.
Now lets try the same thing with Dark Eldar. Oh, wait, they have 0 mobility options for HQs, 0 Elites with mobility options, 0 troops with mobility options, and their only mobility option in Heavy Support is a vehicle.
I guess we could run them on foot, but they're barely faster than normal Marines (they don't even have a version of Fleet like Harlequins and Eldar got), whilst dying to a stiff breeze.
Hell, let's look back at older versions of the DE codex. In 5th, they had a playstyle that involved putting down permanent webway portals, from which DE units could then emerge from for the remainder of the battle. In 7th this was knocked down to HQs being able to teleport just a single attached unit (though also a transport). And then in 8th this was knocked back to a Stratagem, which doesn't even give you a free use on HQs. So if you want to teleport both an HQ and a squad (what a concept!), then you have to pay 3CPs and you still forfeit the ability to webway in any other units in this manner.
My point is, having an emphasis on speed and stealth, coming at the enemy from unexpected angles etc. does not mean DE have to be limited to a mechanised army and nothing else. That should certainly be something they do well, but there's no reason why they can't also be good at fielding armies of beasts, hellions, scourges, reavers etc., or at pouring en masse though sudden webway portals.
The reason they can't do those things is not because of any central design philosophy but because of a decade of neglect, dismemberment, and stagnation. Other armies are allowed to have Jetbikes or similarly fast units as troops, but DE are stuck with 3 units that are all variations on footslogging infantry. Other armies are allowed to have fast HQs. DE have had all such options systematically removed, whilst getting absolutely nothing in return. Other armies are allowed to have fast Elites (or upgrades for Elites to make them fast). But once again, the only option available is transports.
Corsairs showed in 7th that fast armies could have playstyles other than mech spam. But instead of embracing and learning from that, GW simply killed Corsairs and buried the body. And no, of course I'm not still bitter about them being removed, why do you ask?
/rant
That is a sad story, I never saw Corsairs in action but they sound cool. In addition, the fact that DE can't do their webway portal thing anymore is pretty tragic.
But hey? Did you want to play an army with an elite, quick hitting, fast and mobile playstyle? I've got the thing for you! Check out marine chapter 347 and their new rules to represent their love of fast, stealthy attacks!!
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the "armies as DND characters" is actually a good metaphor for how I think about the game....
I feel getting into the vagaries of D&D is a minefield - but these days, can't just about all the archetypes be built to serve any of the desired rolls in the party? Yes some may be more or less optimal depending on circumstance, but that's not really what we are talking about here.
That's exactly what we're talking about. A Warlock can be the guy who sits up front and tanks damage, but if that's that players preferred playstyle, he's deliberately made a suboptimal choice. More or less optimal is exactly what we're talking about.
Tyel wrote: I mean I don't mind if in isolation Khorne Berserkers "beat" say Repentia, Incubi or whatever. But I have a problem if X is good for its points, and Y is bad for its points. Because all this does is reduce the game to "bring the S tier stuff, don't bother with the rest."
Which is fine, because presumably there is an army that fits your playstyle and for whom the S-tier stuff is exactly what you wanted out of the army. That's the way things should be, it's how people get invested. "Hmm, I like bikes. Wow, Eldar bikes are pretty terrifying in the lore; swooping and diving. I loved that ebook story where they befuddled a Baneblade and killed all the other guardsman. Oh, they're good in the rules as well, which match the lore? Got all kinds of stratagems and rules that help them out? Cool, I like this faction!"
Someone who likes being the slow, tanky, durable type who holds up his shield in a spot and says "This Is Defended!" probably should pick up Death Guard and not, say, well, Eldar bikes.
The only room that would leave are people who's playstyle is literally "pick something off the beaten path and roll with it" and they typically know they're trying to do something fun and unique and suboptimal, just like a Warlock who builds to be the party tank.
Tyel wrote: Basically I don't think faction identity should be reduced down to spamming 2-3 units out of 20. Orks for example are still Orks whether they go all the boyz, all the buggies, all the dreads or a mix. I don't see why the response should be "right, goff green tide only, nerf the rest, we don't want these models ever shooting anyone."
Where did I say they should only be 2-3 units out of 20? If a faction's playstyle is defined only by 2-3 units possessed by that faction, then perhaps the faction isn't built very well, and they could use more units. Including, for example, Buggies, who allow Orks to flavor their lists with a bit of speed and shooting without becoming Dark Eldar, in the same manner a Fighter can flavor their character with some spellcasting without becoming Wizards.
JNAProductions wrote: Marines aren’t vulnerable to snipers-their characters are good, but not essential. They’re also decently durable.
Daemons are vulnerable to snipers.
Nah - marines literally can't win without their characters. Take out their chapter master and its game over. Donezo. Decently durable yes - but low T. Theres a reason I am bringing 20-30 deathmarks. 20 deathmarks 1 shots a chapter master, 10 1 shots an apoth. Sure all characters are vunerable in this way but not all characters are paying extra for these powerful auras.
Intercessors outshoot Fire Warriors and outfight Genestealers Without buffs.
Whereas 30 Plaguebearers, Without buffs, kill one Gravis Marine.
The same need +1 Strength, +1 to-hit, RR1s to-hit, 7s to-hit get an extra attack, and 2 damage on 6s to-wound to kill 5 Ordinary MEQ.
That’s close to 300 points, buffed by three separate characters, to kill a min squad.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's exactly what we're talking about. A Warlock can be the guy who sits up front and tanks damage, but if that's that players preferred playstyle, he's deliberately made a suboptimal choice. More or less optimal is exactly what we're talking about.
Yes. I guess what I'm saying is that everything should move relatively close together - and factions should gain new units where they are missing obvious gaps - because this is likely to give all factions multiple viable builds. I think (perhaps incorrectly) that you are saying this will dilute faction identity too much.
That's exactly what we're talking about. A Warlock can be the guy who sits up front and tanks damage, but if that's that players preferred playstyle, he's deliberately made a suboptimal choice.
I know this isn't your point. But a tank warlock is an incredibly optimal build with the right choices in 5th XD... Tank Sorcs and Warlocks are OPlol (to be fair you need to throw in at least 3 levels of fighter to really make them pop).
Now saying that, and getting more on topic...
Sometimes I like to take the less optimal build if it feels fluffier to me.
Hence sometimes playing with my webway gates and playing pretty exclusively with FB marines... even if it isn't always exactly "cannon" fluff but rather if it feels fluffier to my "brain" fluff, that's my preferred choice... I take the same approach in DnD, my tank Sorc was born that way... and holy damn,,, by level 15 that was by far the tankiest guy in the party, including a Pali and a Fighter... Sometimes we are even plesently surprised (but of course, dnd is a leveling system which is a lot harder to predict in terms of late campaign builds) .
I am just saying, I can't be the only person in the hobby who loves to see thematic or fluffy style rules on the table regardless of power level ? ... again acknowledging that, even if I think some things are fluffy, I can see how frustrating "the marinening" is and how frustrating their constant power creep can be.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's exactly what we're talking about. A Warlock can be the guy who sits up front and tanks damage, but if that's that players preferred playstyle, he's deliberately made a suboptimal choice. More or less optimal is exactly what we're talking about.
Yes. I guess what I'm saying is that everything should move relatively close together - and factions should gain new units where they are missing obvious gaps - because this is likely to give all factions multiple viable builds. I think (perhaps incorrectly) that you are saying this will dilute faction identity too much.
It depends on the manner in which it is done and how close together you mean, which is fuzzy. I think there is a degree of closeness that is unacceptable, and I think we've reached that with Marines, which is the topic of this thread. Although, rather than the factions being too close together in this case, the real problem is that the Marines currently include every playstyle except superheavy spam and hordes of >100 models, which leaves very little space for other armies who aren't Imperial or Chaos Knights to have a playstyle in which they excel.
JNAProductions wrote: Marines aren’t vulnerable to snipers-their characters are good, but not essential. They’re also decently durable.
Daemons are vulnerable to snipers.
Nah - marines literally can't win without their characters. Take out their chapter master and its game over. Donezo. Decently durable yes - but low T. Theres a reason I am bringing 20-30 deathmarks. 20 deathmarks 1 shots a chapter master, 10 1 shots an apoth. Sure all characters are vunerable in this way but not all characters are paying extra for these powerful auras.
Intercessors outshoot Fire Warriors and outfight Genestealers Without buffs.
Whereas 30 Plaguebearers, Without buffs, kill one Gravis Marine.
The same need +1 Strength, +1 to-hit, RR1s to-hit, 7s to-hit get an extra attack, and 2 damage on 6s to-wound to kill 5 Ordinary MEQ.
That’s close to 300 points, buffed by three separate characters, to kill a min squad.
That's exactly what we're talking about. A Warlock can be the guy who sits up front and tanks damage, but if that's that players preferred playstyle, he's deliberately made a suboptimal choice.
I know this isn't your point. But a tank warlock is an incredibly optimal build with the right choices in 5th XD... Tank Sorcs and Warlocks are OPlol (to be fair you need to throw in at least 3 levels of fighter to really make them pop).
Now saying that, and getting more on topic... Sometimes I like to take the less optimal build if it feels fluffier to me.
Hence sometimes playing with my webway gates and playing pretty exclusively with FB marines... even if it isn't always exactly "cannon" fluff but rather if it feels fluffier to my "brain" fluff, that's my preferred choice... I take the same approach in DnD, my tank Sorc was born that way... and holy damn,,, by level 15 that was by far the tankiest guy in the party, including a Pali and a Fighter... Sometimes we are even plesently surprised (but of course, dnd is a leveling system which is a lot harder to predict in terms of late campaign builds) .
I am just saying, I can't be the only person in the hobby who loves to see thematic or fluffy style rules on the table regardless of power level ? ... again acknowledging that, even if I think some things are fluffy, I can see how frustrating "the marinening" is and how frustrating their constant power creep can be.
I'm not really talking about power-levels here, except in the ways in which factions are specifically powerful. For example, if you like the slow and tanky playstyle, you can take Iron Hands with dreadnoughts and Heavy Intercessors, who for the moment are much more fun to play on the table with that playstyle than mixed Nurgle, even if mixed Nurgle is technically more powerful in tournament terms because you can bog everything down with Nurglings.
Fundamentally, if someone wants the slow and tanky playstyle, they don't want to bog everyone down with Nurglings. They want to be able to trade blow for blow in a titanic struggle and come out on top through sheer brute durability. It doesn't matter that Nurgle is technically more powerful than Iron Hands in the tournament meta - what matters is Iron Hands play that style than Death Guard.
Gimmicks are not playstyles, but tournament armies are built for gimmicks.
That's exactly what we're talking about. A Warlock can be the guy who sits up front and tanks damage, but if that's that players preferred playstyle, he's deliberately made a suboptimal choice.
I know this isn't your point. But a tank warlock is an incredibly optimal build with the right choices in 5th XD... Tank Sorcs and Warlocks are OPlol (to be fair you need to throw in at least 3 levels of fighter to really make them pop).
Now saying that, and getting more on topic...
Sometimes I like to take the less optimal build if it feels fluffier to me.
Hence sometimes playing with my webway gates and playing pretty exclusively with FB marines... even if it isn't always exactly "cannon" fluff but rather if it feels fluffier to my "brain" fluff, that's my preferred choice... I take the same approach in DnD, my tank Sorc was born that way... and holy damn,,, by level 15 that was by far the tankiest guy in the party, including a Pali and a Fighter... Sometimes we are even plesently surprised (but of course, dnd is a leveling system which is a lot harder to predict in terms of late campaign builds) .
I am just saying, I can't be the only person in the hobby who loves to see thematic or fluffy style rules on the table regardless of power level ? ... again acknowledging that, even if I think some things are fluffy, I can see how frustrating "the marinening" is and how frustrating their constant power creep can be.
I'm not really talking about power-levels here, except in the ways in which factions are specifically powerful. For example, if you like the slow and tanky playstyle, you can take Iron Hands with dreadnoughts and Heavy Intercessors, who for the moment are much more fun to play on the table with that playstyle than mixed Nurgle, even if mixed Nurgle is technically more powerful in tournament terms because you can bog everything down with Nurglings.
Fundamentally, if someone wants the slow and tanky playstyle, they don't want to bog everyone down with Nurglings. They want to be able to trade blow for blow in a titanic struggle and come out on top through sheer brute durability. It doesn't matter that Nurgle is technically more powerful than Iron Hands in the tournament meta - what matters is Iron Hands play that style than Death Guard.
Gimmicks are not playstyles, but tournament armies are built for gimmicks.
I totally see where your coming from...
I personally think iron hands SHOULD feel like they are good at being the slow and tanky playstyle... but your right,,, they should never feel like they are a better slow tanky playstyle then nurgle/DG. They should feel like a jack of all trades master of none army with a slow tanky tilt. The subfactions and their unique rules, I feel, should still be fluffy, but mechanically should be at most a tilt from the "jack of all trades master of none" not a full out mastering + well rounded in everything else type of thing.
JNAProductions wrote: Marines aren’t vulnerable to snipers-their characters are good, but not essential. They’re also decently durable.
Daemons are vulnerable to snipers.
Nah - marines literally can't win without their characters. Take out their chapter master and its game over. Donezo. Decently durable yes - but low T. Theres a reason I am bringing 20-30 deathmarks. 20 deathmarks 1 shots a chapter master, 10 1 shots an apoth. Sure all characters are vunerable in this way but not all characters are paying extra for these powerful auras.
Intercessors outshoot Fire Warriors and outfight Genestealers Without buffs.
Whereas 30 Plaguebearers, Without buffs, kill one Gravis Marine.
The same need +1 Strength, +1 to-hit, RR1s to-hit, 7s to-hit get an extra attack, and 2 damage on 6s to-wound to kill 5 Ordinary MEQ.
That’s close to 300 points, buffed by three separate characters, to kill a min squad.
Jesus. Is that right?
Yes , has show this multiple times, it also showed up when banshees got a new KIT.
Type40 wrote: I totally see where your coming from...
I personally think iron hands SHOULD feel like they are good at being the slow and tanky playstyle... but your right,,, they should never feel like they are a better slow tanky playstyle then nurgle/DG. They should feel like a jack of all trades master of none army with a slow tanky tilt. The subfactions and their unique rules, I feel, should still be fluffy, but mechanically should be at most a tilt from the "jack of all trades master of none" not a full out mastering + well rounded in everything else type of thing.
Exactly. Iron Hands should be slowish and tankyishwhen compared with other Marines, but not moreso than Death Guard. Though Marines also have a problem with proliferation of subfactions - if Iron Hands are slow and tanky, what are Salamanders? If BT are aggressive and fighty, what are Blood Angels and SW?
That's why I say some folding together of the "marine family" rather than increased uniqueness is vital for the health of the game. Marines have cannibalized each other almost totally, so now they're moving out and devouring everyone else's shtick as well.
Yes , has show this multiple times, it also showed up when banshees got a new KIT.
I should have clarified, I knew about the Firewarriors and Genestealers thing, but the idea that 30 Plaguebearers only killed one marine is totally shocking to me. (and ridiculously stupid)
Type40 wrote: I totally see where your coming from...
I personally think iron hands SHOULD feel like they are good at being the slow and tanky playstyle... but your right,,, they should never feel like they are a better slow tanky playstyle then nurgle/DG. They should feel like a jack of all trades master of none army with a slow tanky tilt. The subfactions and their unique rules, I feel, should still be fluffy, but mechanically should be at most a tilt from the "jack of all trades master of none" not a full out mastering + well rounded in everything else type of thing.
Exactly. Iron Hands should be slowish and tankyishFor Marines, but not moreso than Death Guard. Though Marines also have a problem with proliferation of subfactions - if Iron Hands are slow and tanky, what are Salamanders? If BT are aggressive and fighty, what are Blood Angels and SW?
That's why I say some folding together of the "marine family" rather than increased uniqueness is vital for the health of the game. Marines have cannibalized each other almost totally, so now they're moving out and devouring everyone else's shtick as well.
100%. Which is why all the supplement stuff is really terrible. For the supplement to even have reason to exist means that it's encouraged to deviate pretty hard towards that Chapters "specialty flavor", and if Marines are starting out being "pretty good but not excellent" in any particular area, the supplement will push already decent stats well into "excellent" territory, and conflict with the areas of expertise of other factions.
Yes , has show this multiple times, it also showed up when banshees got a new KIT.
I should have clarified, I knew about the Firewarriors and Genestealers thing, but the idea that 30 Plaguebearers only killed one marine is totally shocking to me. (and ridiculously stupid)
Why is that surprising, ignoring melee limitations at best 30 pb 31 a.
15.5 Hits, 7.75 wounds 1 rerolls so count that upwards as a hit because we are benevolent.
8.75 wounds 3 wounds.
1 dead primaris 1 wounded.
Yes , has show this multiple times, it also showed up when banshees got a new KIT.
I should have clarified, I knew about the Firewarriors and Genestealers thing, but the idea that 30 Plaguebearers only killed one marine is totally shocking to me. (and ridiculously stupid)
Why is that surprising, ignoring melee limitations at best 30 pb 31 a.
15.5 Hits, 7.75 wounds 1 rerolls so count that upwards as a hit because we are benevolent.
8.75 wounds 3 wounds.
1 dead primaris 1 wounded.
It's probably surprising since I haven't seen plagubearers on the table in a long time, and my memory is shaped by a time when the lesser daemons were still decent/good.
I hope they tank hits ok (but I'm guessing they don't really)
Type40 wrote: I totally see where your coming from...
I personally think iron hands SHOULD feel like they are good at being the slow and tanky playstyle... but your right,,, they should never feel like they are a better slow tanky playstyle then nurgle/DG. They should feel like a jack of all trades master of none army with a slow tanky tilt. The subfactions and their unique rules, I feel, should still be fluffy, but mechanically should be at most a tilt from the "jack of all trades master of none" not a full out mastering + well rounded in everything else type of thing.
Exactly. Iron Hands should be slowish and tankyishwhen compared with other Marines, but not moreso than Death Guard. Though Marines also have a problem with proliferation of subfactions - if Iron Hands are slow and tanky, what are Salamanders? If BT are aggressive and fighty, what are Blood Angels and SW?
That's why I say some folding together of the "marine family" rather than increased uniqueness is vital for the health of the game. Marines have cannibalized each other almost totally, so now they're moving out and devouring everyone else's shtick as well.
See I just don't want to see the rules flavor removed. I would have prefered that SWs went the way of GK... easily could of been explained in the lore/fluff that SWs wouldnt want primaris... in terms of model range,,, SWs certainly have enough unique kits already. To be honest, I personally do not see primaris as "real" SW kits... they are just vanilla marines XD... but I know that is a silly way to look at it these days.
I guess the big problem is... GW wanted to sell the primaris kits to the SW players... and then GW ended up in a situation with two types of SW players. The ones like me who are like, "damn i love these unique units that my army uses and don't want to play this vanilla bloat" and the other players who went "Oh i love primaris, SW colours, and their chapter tactic." and they are frantically trying to appease both.
I am sure this is true with some of the other power armor factions as well...
TS are literally one of the best performing factions in 8th eddition.
You have a source for that? i havnt checked into it but pretty much everyone ive seen in battle reports seems to think theyre a pretty below average army right now.
40k stats. For years TS were at the top of the charts for win rates. Virtually every choas army was taking a TS detachment.
Lol, take x detachment and suddendly the whole dex performs well that is a non argument and just shows the lackluster state of most chaos dexes needing to soup to be relevant....
This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.
Sisters.
Actually, nobody, because space marines give up ONE of their special rules to take allies. Not all.
When they take allies. they ONLY give up doctrines. Other armies lose their doctrines if they take allies as well - they just don't get them in the first place, because GW hasn't fething added them to 75% of the rest of the armies in the game, because apparently it wasn't important that people just had to continuously play games against opponents who get to have a special blanket rule on their whole army they didn't get.
How 'bout this: we play a game, but I get an extra 100pts. That's not much! Just 100pts! NBD - I mean it's like 1 unit in a 2000pt game.
Would that 2100pts not just bug the absolute hell out of you every time you lost against me? Would it not frustrate you, any time that extra unit that I get that you don't get for no good reason killed something, or scored an objective? Especially in close games, wouldn't it just drive you crazy when you think about the fact that if I hadn't had that extra unit, you would have won that game?
That's how playing against doctrines has felt as anybody that's not a marine. every time you roll an armor save, get a six, and your opponent goes "shoot - sorry, that was actually AP-4, i'm in devastator" and then rolls a 5 or 6 for damage it just makes you wish you were playing against any other person there playing any other army.
Yes , has show this multiple times, it also showed up when banshees got a new KIT.
I should have clarified, I knew about the Firewarriors and Genestealers thing, but the idea that 30 Plaguebearers only killed one marine is totally shocking to me. (and ridiculously stupid)
Why is that surprising, ignoring melee limitations at best 30 pb 31 a.
15.5 Hits, 7.75 wounds 1 rerolls so count that upwards as a hit because we are benevolent.
8.75 wounds 3 wounds.
1 dead primaris 1 wounded.
It's probably surprising since I haven't seen plagubearers on the table in a long time, and my memory is shaped by a time when the lesser daemons were still decent/good.
I hope they tank hits ok (but I'm guessing they don't really)
5+++ and sv6+ -1 isn't stackable anymore ...
For most enemies still steep with t4 but against the intercessors in the exemple....
Yeah ,no.
This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.
The majority of what you are talking about is imperial soup.
While some effective hero hammer type armies could really do well and even dominate the game. That really has nothing to do with the space marine codex. Invisibility was a spell that every army had access too and pretty much every winning army was abusing it in some way shape or form...Just some broken forge world option let you pick your power...(also...not in the space marine codex) ofc.
Bark star...thunder star...Cent star...Super friends? Space marines right? Actually no...we call that hero hammer for a reason. It was a broken game.
Xenomancers wrote:This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
Xenomancers wrote: For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies.
Xenomancers wrote: Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%.
So to summarize, Thousand Sons are in a great place in 8th and 9th because they can soup with Chaos and do well. But Space Marines, while winning tournaments and placing extremely well in LVO and Adepticon, were trash because they had to soup, and had a low W/L rate. Also, SM's were only the best in 8th edition for "15%" of the time. Just ignore the index phase, change the definition of "Worst" from meaning the most terrible option to "Not the best" and than ignore Tournament results and assume that SM 2.0 was only 15% of the game
Type40 wrote: See I just don't want to see the rules flavor removed.
Unfortunately, this is necessary right now, at least if there is going to be anything left for anyone else flavorwise. The game does not have infinite capacity for expansion, so there is a finite amount of "things which can be done" to give an army a unique identity. SW and BT especially are autocannibalizing each other. Which army has "Abhor the Witch!" as a battlecry? BT Which army got the anti-Psyker unit? SW Which army is known for their righteous godly fury? BT Which army gets rules to represent righteous fury? SW Which army is famous for grit and fighting through pain? SW. Which army gets more of the FNP style rule? BT.
Yes , has show this multiple times, it also showed up when banshees got a new KIT.
I should have clarified, I knew about the Firewarriors and Genestealers thing, but the idea that 30 Plaguebearers only killed one marine is totally shocking to me. (and ridiculously stupid)
Why is that surprising, ignoring melee limitations at best 30 pb 31 a.
15.5 Hits, 7.75 wounds 1 rerolls so count that upwards as a hit because we are benevolent.
8.75 wounds 3 wounds.
1 dead primaris 1 wounded.
It's probably surprising since I haven't seen plagubearers on the table in a long time, and my memory is shaped by a time when the lesser daemons were still decent/good.
I hope they tank hits ok (but I'm guessing they don't really)
5+++ and sv6+ -1 isn't stackable anymore ...
For most enemies still steep with t4 but against the intercessors in the exemple....
Yeah ,no.
Yeah, see I'm looking at a time when Plaguebearers were T5, were 2A each and always wounded on a 4+, in an era where marines were 1W.
Sigh. Man, lesser daemons have taken a huge tumble.
This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.
The majority of what you are talking about is imperial soup.
While some effective hero hammer type armies could really do well and even dominate the game. That really has nothing to do with the space marine codex. Invisibility was a spell that every army had access too and pretty much every winning army was abusing it in some way shape or form...Just some broken forge world option let you pick your power...(also...not in the space marine codex) ofc.
Bark star...thunder star...Cent star...Super friends? Space marines right? Actually no...we call that hero hammer for a reason. It was a broken game.
Xenomancers wrote:This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
Xenomancers wrote: For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies.
Xenomancers wrote: Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%.
So to summarize, Thousand Sons are in a great place in 8th and 9th because they can soup with Chaos and do well. But Space Marines, while winning tournaments and placing extremely well in LVO and Adepticon, were trash because they had to soup, and had a low W/L rate. Also, SM's were only the best in 8th edition for "15%" of the time. Just ignore the index phase, change the definition of "Worst" from meaning the most terrible option to "Not the best" and than ignore Tournament results and assume that SM 2.0 was only 15% of the game
Type40 wrote: See I just don't want to see the rules flavor removed.
Unfortunately, this is necessary right now, at least if there is going to be anything left for anyone else flavorwise. The game does not have infinite capacity for expansion, so there is a finite amount of "things which can be done" to give an army a unique identity. SW and BT especially are autocannibalizing each other. Which army has "Abhor the Witch!" as a battlecry? BT Which army got the anti-Psyker unit? SW Which army is known for their righteous godly fury? BT Which army gets rules to represent righteous fury? SW Which army is famous for grit and fighting through pain? SW. Which army gets more of the FNP style rule? BT.
See I disagree.
I agree the game doesn't have infinite capacity for expansion... the solution is to stop expanding.
SWs do not need expansion, SMs do not need expansion... the solution is to stop focusing on the power armor factions not too remove one... removing one doesnt leave more room for future expansion, the expansion has already happened. Putting in more work to remove an unique subfaction that has been a flavour twist/divergent from mainline marines in different capacities since 2nd edition is not going to solve the fact that GW is only focusing on power/armor and primaris marines... What solves the problem is to just leave the power armor alone and start giving attention to everyone else...
Removing stuff doesn't fix anything.
Let the SWs and marines feel like craftworlds for a while, leave em alone, give them some slow minor updates for a year or two. tweak them later when necissary... why remove what's already there ? that feels like more work, they ll have to figure out what to do with all the rules for the current unique kits that exist, they arn't just going to throw those kits out. Even if that means replacing the SW datasheets with generic marine ones,,, that is extra work for the design team... Leave it alone for a long while and stop expanding them...
Nah - marines literally can't win without their characters. Take out their chapter master and its game over. Donezo. Decently durable yes - but low T. Theres a reason I am bringing 20-30 deathmarks. 20 deathmarks 1 shots a chapter master, 10 1 shots an apoth. Sure all characters are vunerable in this way but not all characters are paying extra for these powerful auras.
??
Marines have the best "standalone" units in the game, they don't need the character support to function, thats why CM were at the center of many complaints, because they were overkill.
You saying that marines are MORE character dependent then demons is quite telling. Slaanesh demons with no character lose 1 strength and cannot advance and charge, THATS a meaningful buff considering their fragility.
Minus the fluff what is ACTUALLY unique about them? Mechanically thunderwolves being calvery isn't really different from a bike. Wolfkin arn't really that different from jump infantry with claws. Frost weapons are just another version of power weapons.
Are they the melee army? Well so are the blood angles, parts of the deathwing, and the raven guard.
Do they hate psykers? So do the black templar except the black templar don't use them by a different name. Or do they now?
As has been mentioned, SM are so bloated they step on their own toes let alone everyone elses.
Type40 wrote: See I just don't want to see the rules flavor removed.
Unfortunately, this is necessary right now, at least if there is going to be anything left for anyone else flavorwise. The game does not have infinite capacity for expansion, so there is a finite amount of "things which can be done" to give an army a unique identity. SW and BT especially are autocannibalizing each other. Which army has "Abhor the Witch!" as a battlecry? BT Which army got the anti-Psyker unit? SW Which army is known for their righteous godly fury? BT Which army gets rules to represent righteous fury? SW Which army is famous for grit and fighting through pain? SW. Which army gets more of the FNP style rule? BT.
See I disagree. I agree the game doesn't have infinite capacity for expansion... the solution is to stop expanding. SWs do not need expansion, SMs do not need expansion... the solution is to stop focusing on the power armor factions not too remove one... removing one doesnt leave more room for future expansion, the expansion has already happened. Putting in more work to remove an unique subfaction that has been a flavour twist/divergent from mainline marines in different capacities since 2nd edition is not going to solve the fact that GW is only focusing on power/armor and primaris marines... What solves the problem is to just leave the power armor alone and start giving attention to everyone else... Removing stuff doesn't fix anything. Let the SWs and marines feel like craftworlds for a while, leave em alone, give them some slow minor updates for a year or two. tweak them later when necissary... why remove what's already there ? that feels like more work, they ll have to figure out what to do with all the rules for the current unique kits that exist, they arn't just going to throw those kits out. Even if that means replacing the SW datasheets with generic marine ones,,, that is extra work for the design team... Leave it alone for a long while and stop expanding them...
The problem with "stopping focus" is that it simply can't work. GWhas to update Space Marines - and reasonably so, they're the most popular faction - but if you leave the rest of the Space Marines (e.g SW/BA/whomever) unupdated, you end up with pretty extreme feelbads [e.g. black templars end up better than wolves]. So GW has to update ALL of the Space Marines at once. GW can't just shout "STASIS BOMB" and never update Marines again. The process of these updates consumes a gakload of GW's time - both in terms of actual time and energy of the workers, and in terms of the time and energy building and creating new model kits and the limited amount of release slots in a year. Perhaps they could have before Primaris, but now the genie is out of the bottle, and they've got a whole second Space Marine range to finish up and release.
There are 52 release slots in a year, provided GW releases something every Saturday...
Firewrriors aren't there to outshoot intercessors. They are there to keep your riptides killing intercessors at a massive rate.
Tyranids are fething bad. One of my favorite armies too it is disgraceful. Though - with advance and charge - geensteelers ALWAYS hit intercessors first and pretty much maul the unit for a weak reprisal and then fight again and wipe them out.
Plaugebearers aren't intended to kill things. They are a tarpit unit. If they locked in with intercessors they would be there the whole game.
I mean nothing you are saying is wrong but not sure what the point is. Intercessors can't do a lot of things firewarriors can...like put a reroll 1's to hit buff on any unit within 36". Give supporting fire for units being charged within 6" of them for free. Plus with a str 5 weapon they aren't bad for chipping wounds off 3+ save t8 tanks. Intercessors might as well be guardsmen vs t8 tanks.
Go ahead and try it. Pay 600 points for your 30 intercessors that have no ability to engage tanks and remove infantry at a "decent" clip unless they can with a 6 inch move and without advancing if they want to shoot with a bolt rifle make it into melee without being destroyed (unlikely).
It's like you guys play in metas where ap-2/3/4 weapons with multiple shots and multi damage aren't the norm. Like...the legit norm.
I mean I guess my criticism here is that what a "typical" army is, often ends up hamstringing the faction.
So for example, something I disagree about - is venom spam. And to an extent raider spam. There is a strong feeling that any Dark Eldar unit deigning to touch the earth at the start of a game is unfluffy - so the mechanics should make you not want to do it. But this just results in most DE armies looking and playing much the same, because if you have to take transports, there are limited points left for other things.
But the response goes "but the Dark Eldar are fast (cos transports) and fragile (cos T3 and T5 Transports) and... and I guess Talos exist but that's just how its meant to be".
The result is you have a sort of mutilated faction. It can't really *do anything* but fast transport/vehicle spam or loads of Talos - and we are meant to believe its fundamentally unfluffy so the rules shouldn't allow anything else anyway. So no new models for you. But Dark Eldar could have so much more.
In the same way, I don't really see how it hurts the game if Tau were to get the "combat Tau update" and those units were "good". There are issues of synergies - but "you can't just run just these combat units, you must take triptide" doesn't seem like good or necessary design. I don't think World Eaters should be running sorcerers - but there's no reason they can't have "magic priests" who on the table do essentially the same thing. The limit is the imagination.
By way of examples - where I feel GW have done well - is new Sisters and new Necrons. There are inevitably more and less optimal ways to play - but I feel you can do whatever you like with those factions. You can play horde (or at least massed infantry). You can play mechanised. You can play with an assault focus, or a defensive shooting focus or a hybrid. There isn't (at least for me) an obvious A-list build encompassing how the faction *is meant to play*, and then a range of units which GW would prefer you just didn't use.
(the_scotsman sometimes talks about using Marine rules for Eldar - I think there is a real case for using Sisters rules for DE.)
I think your example with DE highlights bad design: The way to characterize DE as the mobile, aggressive, transport-based army isn't to make taking troops on foot not useful for their points. It's to give you lots of options to take transports, and options to take other mobility upgrades, and if you really want you can run an army on foot... in which case your infantry will still be faster and made of glass relative to other factions' infantry, because that's a core part of your faction identity.
Does that make sense? I'm saying sure, every army should be able to do a foot infantry horde- and then the DE one will be fast and glass hammery, the Tau one will be shooty but suck at melee, the Death Guard one will be tough but slow, and so on. None of them should be bad because you're 'doing it wrong', just that they should each play in line with their faction identity.
If you want to make a DE gunline you should be able to do that- but you won't be able to outshoot a Tau gunline directly, since you'll still be paying for the higher mobility that is emblematic to the faction, and you'll need to use that mobility to make them effective. And Tau should be able to make a melee army that out-fights a generalist Marine army, but not one that out-fights Berserkers, because shooting is a core part of the Tau identity so you can't lean into melee quite as hard as the faction for whom that's their identity. You'll have to leverage your short-ranged support shooting (eg Farsight Enclaves) to tip the scale.
Taking Necrons as an example, no matter what kind of build you spec into you will still have durability and regeneration as key army traits. You can make a skimmer-borne infantry army like DE, but it won't be as fast or glass hammer-y as the DE equivalent.
Should you be able to build glass hammer Necrons that don't actually feel 'Necron' in any meaningful way, and can do the glass hammer thing in exactly the same way as DE? I'd argue no. If each of the different factions doesn't convey a distinct feel and distinct specialization- even while having the ability to build into a variety of archetypes that leverage that specialization in different ways- then what's the point of having different factions?
This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.
The majority of what you are talking about is imperial soup.
While some effective hero hammer type armies could really do well and even dominate the game. That really has nothing to do with the space marine codex. Invisibility was a spell that every army had access too and pretty much every winning army was abusing it in some way shape or form...Just some broken forge world option let you pick your power...(also...not in the space marine codex) ofc.
Bark star...thunder star...Cent star...Super friends? Space marines right? Actually no...we call that hero hammer for a reason. It was a broken game.
Xenomancers wrote:This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
Xenomancers wrote: For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies.
Xenomancers wrote: Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%.
So to summarize, Thousand Sons are in a great place in 8th and 9th because they can soup with Chaos and do well. But Space Marines, while winning tournaments and placing extremely well in LVO and Adepticon, were trash because they had to soup, and had a low W/L rate. Also, SM's were only the best in 8th edition for "15%" of the time. Just ignore the index phase, change the definition of "Worst" from meaning the most terrible option to "Not the best" and than ignore Tournament results and assume that SM 2.0 was only 15% of the game
Semper's smack down has a damage characteristic of 3d6
Nah - marines literally can't win without their characters. Take out their chapter master and its game over. Donezo. Decently durable yes - but low T. Theres a reason I am bringing 20-30 deathmarks. 20 deathmarks 1 shots a chapter master, 10 1 shots an apoth. Sure all characters are vunerable in this way but not all characters are paying extra for these powerful auras.
??
Marines have the best "standalone" units in the game, they don't need the character support to function, thats why CM were at the center of many complaints, because they were overkill.
You saying that marines are MORE character dependent then demons is quite telling. Slaanesh demons with no character lose 1 strength and cannot advance and charge, THATS a meaningful buff considering their fragility.
Example of best stand alone units in the game pls. You can't say eradicators...they are going to be heavily nerfed. They are a mistake unit and everyone knows it.
Xenomancers wrote: Firewrriors aren't there to outshoot intercessors. They are there to keep your riptides killing intercessors at a massive rate.
Tyranids are fething bad. One of my favorite armies too it is disgraceful. Though - with advance and charge - geensteelers ALWAYS hit intercessors first and pretty much maul the unit for a weak reprisal and then fight again and wipe them out.
Plaugebearers aren't intended to kill things. They are a tarpit unit. If they locked in with intercessors they would be there the whole game.
I mean nothing you are saying is wrong but not sure what the point is. Intercessors can't do a lot of things firewarriors can...like put a reroll 1's to hit buff on any unit within 36". Give supporting fire for units being charged within 6" of them for free. Plus with a str 5 weapon they aren't bad for chipping wounds off 3+ save t8 tanks. Intercessors might as well be guardsmen vs t8 tanks.
Go ahead and try it. Pay 600 points for your 30 intercessors that have no ability to engage tanks and remove infantry at a "decent" clip unless they can with a 6 inch move and without advancing if they want to shoot with a bolt rifle make it into melee without being destroyed (unlikely).
It's like you guys play in metas where ap-2/3/4 weapons with multiple shots and multi damage aren't the norm. Like...the legit norm.
Except Firewarriors can't do half the stuff you just said.
Also take breachers or kroot as they are also Tau Troops and guess what both get convincingly trounced by marine troops.
Xenomancers wrote: Firewrriors aren't there to outshoot intercessors. They are there to keep your riptides killing intercessors at a massive rate.
Exactly, a SMtac unit should absolutely out perform a dedicated troop choice in its role, point for point.
Xenomancers wrote: Tyranids are fething bad. One of my favorite armies too it is disgraceful. Though - with advance and charge - geensteelers ALWAYS hit intercessors first and pretty much maul the unit for a weak reprisal and then fight again and wipe them out.
Exactly, don't worry about doing the math, just trust me, and also, always give the advantage to the Nids because reasons. Oh, and ignore anyone who shows you the math that Genestealers actually LOSE to Intercessors if the intercessors go first.
Xenomancers wrote: Plaugebearers aren't intended to kill things. They are a tarpit unit. If they locked in with intercessors they would be there the whole game.
I'll actually give you this one, that is in fact their purpose...however, they aren't locked in combat thanks to GW's new rules So you are wrong in that regard.
Xenomancers wrote: I mean nothing you are saying is wrong but not sure what the point is. Intercessors can't do a lot of things firewarriors can...like put a reroll 1's to hit buff on any unit within 36". Give supporting fire for units being charged within 6" of them for free. Plus with a str 5 weapon they aren't bad for chipping wounds off 3+ save t8 tanks. Intercessors might as well be guardsmen vs t8 tanks.
Yeah i'm lost on your 1st part here, Firewarriors can not give a hit buff to other units. Unless you are talking about the buff to the Sgt and than giving him a markerlight...but even than its only a 50/50. Atm Firewarriors are 9pts or basically half of what intercessors are. 20 Firewarriors = 9 Intercessors. At Max range 20 firewarriors get 10 hits, 5 wounds and 1.66 dmg. At Max range 9 Intercessors get 18 shots, 12 hits, 4 wounds and 2 Dmg. So yet again, Intercessors out perform Tau Firewarriors LMAO! Dude you keep trying to make these arguments but never do the math.
Xenomancers wrote: Go ahead and try it. Pay 600 points for your 30 intercessors that have no ability to engage tanks and remove infantry at a "decent" clip unless they can with a 6 inch move and without advancing if they want to shoot with a bolt rifle make it into melee without being destroyed (unlikely).
Just proved that they are BETTER vs T8 3+ vehicles than those firewarriors, and proved before that they are better at killing infantry than those firewarriors. They also are ridiculously better in CC. And since 9th relies on you taking and holding an objective...
Xenomancers wrote: It's like you guys play in metas where ap-2/3/4 weapons with multiple shots and multi damage aren't the norm. Like...the legit norm.
I think basically everyone plays in that meta now because the biggest part of the meta right now is...Space Marines. And Space Marines gear themselves to take on....space marines.
Type40 wrote: See I just don't want to see the rules flavor removed.
Unfortunately, this is necessary right now, at least if there is going to be anything left for anyone else flavorwise. The game does not have infinite capacity for expansion, so there is a finite amount of "things which can be done" to give an army a unique identity. SW and BT especially are autocannibalizing each other. Which army has "Abhor the Witch!" as a battlecry? BT Which army got the anti-Psyker unit? SW Which army is known for their righteous godly fury? BT Which army gets rules to represent righteous fury? SW Which army is famous for grit and fighting through pain? SW. Which army gets more of the FNP style rule? BT.
See I disagree.
I agree the game doesn't have infinite capacity for expansion... the solution is to stop expanding.
SWs do not need expansion, SMs do not need expansion... the solution is to stop focusing on the power armor factions not too remove one... removing one doesnt leave more room for future expansion, the expansion has already happened. Putting in more work to remove an unique subfaction that has been a flavour twist/divergent from mainline marines in different capacities since 2nd edition is not going to solve the fact that GW is only focusing on power/armor and primaris marines... What solves the problem is to just leave the power armor alone and start giving attention to everyone else...
Removing stuff doesn't fix anything.
Let the SWs and marines feel like craftworlds for a while, leave em alone, give them some slow minor updates for a year or two. tweak them later when necissary... why remove what's already there ? that feels like more work, they ll have to figure out what to do with all the rules for the current unique kits that exist, they arn't just going to throw those kits out. Even if that means replacing the SW datasheets with generic marine ones,,, that is extra work for the design team... Leave it alone for a long while and stop expanding them...
The problem with "stopping focus" is that it simply can't work. GWhas to update Space Marines - and reasonably so, they're the most popular faction - but if you leave the rest of the Space Marines (e.g SW/BA/whomever) unupdated, you end up with pretty extreme feelbads [e.g. black templars end up better than wolves]. So GW has to update ALL of the Space Marines at once. GW can't just shout "STASIS BOMB" and never update Marines again. The process of these updates consumes a gakload of GW's time - both in terms of actual time and energy of the workers, and in terms of the time and energy building and creating new model kits and the limited amount of release slots in a year. Perhaps they could have before Primaris, but now the genie is out of the bottle, and they've got a whole second Space Marine range to finish up and release.
There are 52 release slots in a year, provided GW releases something every Saturday...
honestly, the backlash from pausing updates v.s. squating the unique rules ...
If the argument is the extreme "feelbads" is why they have to update all the marine factions at once... your solution is 100% the wrong one compared to, you know, focusing on other factions for a while... Sure the marine players will complain that everyone else is getting kits... but they had their turn...
v.s. the backlash of telling people "oh,,, your stuff is simply a clone of this other faction now and everything that made your faction unique ruleswise is no longer existence anymore,,, btw this is to stop you from feeling bad that a few other similar factions are better then yours when they get updated before you."
Honestly, if we ant to use that logic... why bother having multiple factions at all (i know this is extreme, but really, removing a sub faction is not going to solve people being upset that their faction isn't "as good" it would make people so much more upset... Imagine telling that to xenos faction... "we know you are upset marines are so good, soooo, now your just going to be a clone of them."
I know the argument is that wolves "arn't different enough." well, if that's the case they don't take a lot of effort to maintain compared to the completely different factions and as a SWs player, I will 100% prefer to wait my turn then to just have the rules squatted completely... 100% I think the non-power armor factions need attention and need it now,,, in fact they needed it 6 months ago. But squating SW rules is not going to fix the attention that is on SMs. I don't even want the SM releases, let me have my unique stuff, stop releasing vanilla marines that I don't want, and let me play with my faction. Then when its the SW turn, put a little time into tweaking them, shouldn't take to long because 60% of their stuff will get tweaked with SM tweaks...
The problem is 100% too much attention on power armor, so lets focus on solving that...
Squatting a faction because people feel bad they have to wait their turn is definitely not the way to make the "feelbads" go away XD. That is how you make the feelbads 1000% worse.
catbarf wrote: Should you be able to build glass hammer Necrons that don't actually feel 'Necron' in any meaningful way, and can do the glass hammer thing in exactly the same way as DE? I'd argue no. If each of the different factions doesn't convey a distinct feel and distinct specialization- even while having the ability to build into a variety of archetypes that leverage that specialization in different ways- then what's the point of having different factions?
I don't think we are miles apart.
I guess my issue is that if say "Tau melee" was "bad for its points" (or at least worse than "fighty factions") - then the reality is it will never get used. Which makes it a dead unit, and bad game design. It doesn't necessarily have to be "Khorne Berzerker 2.0" - it can be different - but it shouldn't be objectively *bad*.
I mean to go with the example - Tomb Blades exist. Nothing stops you bringing 27 of them if you want, making up about 40%~ of a 2k points army.
They are tougher than say Eldar bikes (base stats and rules) - and not quite as fast. But the combination is still reasonable in itself.
Is this fluffy/not fluffy?
I guess my point is Necron's "core identity" - is in RP, Living Metal and the various empowerment synergies. I.E. their core rules, semi-regardless of what units they take.
Theoretically Dark Eldar's "core identity" should be in Power From Pain. But it isn't really, its in transport/vehicle/talos spam (and the artificial PA Wrack synergy etc.) Which fair enough, is just because DE are done badly - but I'm trying to show the point. Tau's identity is not meant to be codex triptide and shield drone.
Xenomancers wrote: Plaugebearers aren't intended to kill things. They are a tarpit unit. If they locked in with intercessors they would be there the whole game.
If I spend 295 points (30 Plaguebearers, Instrument and Icon) on a unit, manage to get all 30 into close combat and actually swing with all of them, while buffing them with my locus, a Scrivener, a Poxbringer, AND a Daemon Prince, I kill 90-100 points of MEQ. One minimum squad. A third of points I spent on the unit alone, not even counting the buffers.
If I don't buff them up a ton, and just manage to get all 30 in combat and swinging without any casualties, I kill one Heavy Intercessor. Right about 10% of their cost.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that Bloodletters and Daemonettes are killier. As they should be. But to say "Your unit isn't allowed to kill anything" is infuriating to hear.
Not to mention, what SHOULD I kill Intercessors or Tac Marines with? Or should nothing I have be allowed to kill anything?
Xenomancers wrote: Plaugebearers aren't intended to kill things. They are a tarpit unit. If they locked in with intercessors they would be there the whole game.
If I spend 295 points (30 Plaguebearers, Instrument and Icon) on a unit, manage to get all 30 into close combat and actually swing with all of them, while buffing them with my locus, a Scrivener, a Poxbringer, AND a Daemon Prince, I kill 90-100 points of MEQ. One minimum squad. A third of points I spent on the unit alone, not even counting the buffers.
If I don't buff them up a ton, and just manage to get all 30 in combat and swinging without any casualties, I kill one Heavy Intercessor. Right about 10% of their cost.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that Bloodletters and Daemonettes are killier. As they should be. But to say "Your unit isn't allowed to kill anything" is infuriating to hear.
Not to mention, what SHOULD I kill Intercessors or Tac Marines with? Or should nothing I have be allowed to kill anything?
They are a tarpit unit though, but I understand the frustration, especially when they can be buffed up pretty dramatically.
As far as what should kill intercessors and Heavy intercessors in your army? according to a few marine players here...nothing Marines R'da Bestest and needz more durability than anyone else.
Xenomancers wrote: Firewrriors aren't there to outshoot intercessors. They are there to keep your riptides killing intercessors at a massive rate.
Exactly, a SMtac unit should absolutely out perform a dedicated troop choice in its role, point for point.
Xenomancers wrote: Tyranids are fething bad. One of my favorite armies too it is disgraceful. Though - with advance and charge - geensteelers ALWAYS hit intercessors first and pretty much maul the unit for a weak reprisal and then fight again and wipe them out.
Exactly, don't worry about doing the math, just trust me, and also, always give the advantage to the Nids because reasons. Oh, and ignore anyone who shows you the math that Genestealers actually LOSE to Intercessors if the intercessors go first.
Xenomancers wrote: Plaugebearers aren't intended to kill things. They are a tarpit unit. If they locked in with intercessors they would be there the whole game.
I'll actually give you this one, that is in fact their purpose...however, they aren't locked in combat thanks to GW's new rules So you are wrong in that regard.
Xenomancers wrote: I mean nothing you are saying is wrong but not sure what the point is. Intercessors can't do a lot of things firewarriors can...like put a reroll 1's to hit buff on any unit within 36". Give supporting fire for units being charged within 6" of them for free. Plus with a str 5 weapon they aren't bad for chipping wounds off 3+ save t8 tanks. Intercessors might as well be guardsmen vs t8 tanks.
Yeah i'm lost on your 1st part here, Firewarriors can not give a hit buff to other units. Unless you are talking about the buff to the Sgt and than giving him a markerlight...but even than its only a 50/50. Atm Firewarriors are 9pts or basically half of what intercessors are. 20 Firewarriors = 9 Intercessors. At Max range 20 firewarriors get 10 hits, 5 wounds and 1.66 dmg. At Max range 9 Intercessors get 18 shots, 12 hits, 4 wounds and 2 Dmg. So yet again, Intercessors out perform Tau Firewarriors LMAO! Dude you keep trying to make these arguments but never do the math.
Xenomancers wrote: Go ahead and try it. Pay 600 points for your 30 intercessors that have no ability to engage tanks and remove infantry at a "decent" clip unless they can with a 6 inch move and without advancing if they want to shoot with a bolt rifle make it into melee without being destroyed (unlikely).
Just proved that they are BETTER vs T8 3+ vehicles than those firewarriors, and proved before that they are better at killing infantry than those firewarriors. They also are ridiculously better in CC. And since 9th relies on you taking and holding an objective...
Xenomancers wrote: It's like you guys play in metas where ap-2/3/4 weapons with multiple shots and multi damage aren't the norm. Like...the legit norm.
I think basically everyone plays in that meta now because the biggest part of the meta right now is...Space Marines. And Space Marines gear themselves to take on....space marines.
It helps to actually be right when making claims.
A space marine - is designed to kill light troops and ignore small arms fire (firewarriors). A firewarrior is designed to be a front line screening unit with decent armor and provide supporting fire. Not sure how a unit with ap-0 is designated to kill heavy infantry. It's really not.
Firewarriors can take a marker light....it give a reroll 1s buff to your whole army on a 4+ against that target. Extremely valuable...for a support unit...which fire warriors are...stop me if I am blowing your mind K.
You are 100% wrong its common sense. When you have double the number of shots per point and wound twice as much with those double shots its easy to know the firewarrior wins. Firewarriors vs intersessors vs and imperial knight. I don't even need to do that math to know the firewarriors are better. 18 points of firewarriors average .22 wounds vs an imperial knight. An intercessor (20 points) averages .12. This is also true of anything T5 or higher that doesn't have a 2+ save. The firewarrior will out damage the intercessor. OFC this ins't imperssive. Until you facotr in a fireblade giving them 3 shots in rapid fire range and get them to 3+ reroll 1's to hit and +1 to wound. Now 30 firewarriors averages 11 wounds to an IK (pretty good retruns for a useless chaff unit) 15 intercessors rerolling all hits (which they can't even do anymore only 1 unit can) only does a little less than 3 wounds 5ish if 10 rapid fire.
Xenomancers wrote: Plaugebearers aren't intended to kill things. They are a tarpit unit. If they locked in with intercessors they would be there the whole game.
If I spend 295 points (30 Plaguebearers, Instrument and Icon) on a unit, manage to get all 30 into close combat and actually swing with all of them, while buffing them with my locus, a Scrivener, a Poxbringer, AND a Daemon Prince, I kill 90-100 points of MEQ. One minimum squad. A third of points I spent on the unit alone, not even counting the buffers.
If I don't buff them up a ton, and just manage to get all 30 in combat and swinging without any casualties, I kill one Heavy Intercessor. Right about 10% of their cost.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that Bloodletters and Daemonettes are killier. As they should be. But to say "Your unit isn't allowed to kill anything" is infuriating to hear.
Not to mention, what SHOULD I kill Intercessors or Tac Marines with? Or should nothing I have be allowed to kill anything?
They are a tarpit unit though, but I understand the frustration, especially when they can be buffed up pretty dramatically.
As far as what should kill intercessors and Heavy intercessors in your army? according to a few marine players here...nothing Marines R'da Bestest and needz more durability than anyone else.
I imagine there are some pretty glaring holes in a mono god deamons detachment. IMHOGW may have had the right idea in AOS of splitting deamons up into seperate armies with mortal troop back up
Xenomancers wrote:
Example of best stand alone units in the game pls. You can't say eradicators...they are going to be heavily nerfed. They are a mistake unit and everyone knows it.
Honestly ? Any of them. Theyre models that have a good defensive profile and BS3/WS3 with access to loads of weapons that give them an edge over whatever threat they want.
A unit that hits on 3's doesnt NEED rerolls to be good.
Are they better with character support? Absolutely no doubt on that but it doesn't suddenly become "impossible to win" without their characters.
Xenomancers wrote:
Go ahead and try it. Pay 600 points for your 30 intercessors that have no ability to engage tanks and remove infantry at a "decent" clip unless they can with a 6 inch move and without advancing if they want to shoot with a bolt rifle make it into melee without being destroyed (unlikely).
It's like you guys play in metas where ap-2/3/4 weapons with multiple shots and multi damage aren't the norm. Like...the legit norm.
Hmm, its funny how your basic infantry that carries 4 -2 2 guns can't engage tanks. I've certainly never lost multiple tanks (even ones with invulns) to intercessor spam. Its also funny how i need to spam a single weapon type to deal with the basic troop of an army. 600 pts for 60 wounds with a 3+ save. Hmmmm surely these are too fragile and die like flies.
EDIT: Oh, and not every army even has access to high ap, multi shot, multi damage weapons.
Tyel wrote: I don't think we are miles apart.
I guess my issue is that if say "Tau melee" was "bad for its points" (or at least worse than "fighty factions") - then the reality is it will never get used. Which makes it a dead unit, and bad game design. It doesn't necessarily have to be "Khorne Berzerker 2.0" - it can be different - but it shouldn't be objectively *bad*.
Yeah, I think a lot of people hone in on the idea of intentionally making units 'bad for their points' because they don't 'fit' the faction, and that is not how you design a game. People invoke army context waaaaaay too often to justify points costs being off.
If I wanted to design units to let Tau build towards the close assault army archetype, I'd filter it through the lens of Tau having shooting as core to their identity. So taking a page from Farsight, I'd design a unit with fusion blades that can be used both as short-ranged guns and as melee weapons. They wouldn't be as good in melee as a Khorne Berseker, but they'd be able to shoot effectively and immediately charge. That combination of shooting + melee would give them a one-two punch that would fulfill the close assault role and make them worth their points, but their melee profile alone wouldn't be as good as that of a Berserker, because being super good in melee isn't Tau's thing. Does that make sense?
Tyel wrote: I mean to go with the example - Tomb Blades exist. Nothing stops you bringing 27 of them if you want, making up about 40%~ of a 2k points army.
They are tougher than say Eldar bikes (base stats and rules) - and not quite as fast. But the combination is still reasonable in itself.
Is this fluffy/not fluffy?
Perfectly fine, bolded for emphasis. That lets being super fast and glassy continue to be the Eldar's shtick, with the differences in the factions reflected in the unit design.
If those Tomb Blades were just as fast and just as glassy, you'd wonder what Eldar are supposed to do special, if Necrons can do their 'thing' just as well. And if those Tomb Blades were just as fast and tougher, you'd have Eldar players annoyed that this non-Eldar unit does their 'thing' better than them.
That's where we are with Marines, and that's where the salt comes from. I don't want Marine specialists to be overpriced; I just want:
-Their cost to take their durability and general combat ability (eg Devastators are not as helpless in melee as Guard heavy weapon teams) into account, and
-To reserve unique game-rule-breaking abilities (like dropping off troops after moving) for the factions to which they are most appropriate.
2 Fire Warriors at 30" do .11 wounds to an IK.
1 Intercessor does the exact same (4+) or .15 wounds (5+).
And here's the thing-Daemons have their own Codex, and the different gods have less overlap than different colors of Marines do. They share three units (Furies, Soul Grinders, and Daemon Princes). The rest are entirely unique. And, while you can technically build a generic-unit only Daemons list... You can't build a good one. You don't have troops, for one.
OK, Xeno, if Fire Warriors with their S5 gun are intended to be 'fire support' for killing 'light infantry' then what the hell are breachers supposed to be for? If you get them within suicide range, a full squad of 10 kills a whopping TWO 20 point intercessors.
JNAProductions wrote: 2 Fire Warriors at 30" do .11 wounds to an IK.
1 Intercessor does the exact same (4+) or .15 wounds (5+).
And here's the thing-Daemons have their own Codex, and the different gods have less overlap than different colors of Marines do. They share three units (Furies, Soul Grinders, and Daemon Princes). The rest are entirely unique. And, while you can technically build a generic-unit only Daemons list... You can't build a good one. You don't have troops, for one.
I literally put both units up in their best conditions...this assumes good generalship. Both are in rapid fire range (bolter dis is conditional on not moving - pretty rough when you consider...you have all these great melee stats you want to use right?). It is disingenuous to evaluate units in different situations. It teaches nothing anyways.
JNAProductions wrote: 2 Fire Warriors at 30" do .11 wounds to an IK.
1 Intercessor does the exact same (4+) or .15 wounds (5+).
And here's the thing-Daemons have their own Codex, and the different gods have less overlap than different colors of Marines do. They share three units (Furies, Soul Grinders, and Daemon Princes). The rest are entirely unique. And, while you can technically build a generic-unit only Daemons list... You can't build a good one. You don't have troops, for one.
I literally put both units up in their best conditions...this assumes good generalship. Both are in rapid fire range (bolter dis is conditional on not moving - pretty rough when you consider...you have all these great melee stats you want to use right?). It is disingenuous to evaluate units in different situations. It teaches nothing anyways.
Both standing at max range and shooting, since neither want to be within 15" of an Imperial Knight. That will result in their swift demise.
It helps to actually be right when making claims.
A space marine - is designed to kill light troops and ignore small arms fire (firewarriors). A firewarrior is designed to be a front line screening unit with decent armor and provide supporting fire. Not sure how a unit with ap-0 is designated to kill heavy infantry. It's really not.
Firewarriors can take a marker light....it give a reroll 1s buff to your whole army on a 4+ against that target. Extremely valuable...for a support unit...which fire warriors are...stop me if I am blowing your mind K.
You are 100% wrong its common sense. When you have double the number of shots per point and wound twice as much with those double shots its easy to know the firewarrior wins. Firewarriors vs intersessors vs and imperial knight. I don't even need to do that math to know the firewarriors are better. 18 points of firewarriors average .22 wounds vs an imperial knight. An intercessor (20 points) averages .12. This is also true of anything T5 or higher that doesn't have a 2+ save. The firewarrior will out damage the intercessor. OFC this ins't imperssive. Until you facotr in a fireblade giving them 3 shots in rapid fire range and get them to 3+ reroll 1's to hit and +1 to wound. Now 30 firewarriors averages 11 wounds to an IK (pretty good retruns for a useless chaff unit) 15 intercessors rerolling all hits (which they can't even do anymore only 1 unit can) only does a little less than 3 wounds 5ish if 10 rapid fire.
JNAProductions wrote: 2 Fire Warriors at 30" do .11 wounds to an IK.
1 Intercessor does the exact same (4+) or .15 wounds (5+).
I literally put both units up in their best conditions...this assumes good generalship. Both are in rapid fire range (bolter dis is conditional on not moving - pretty rough when you consider...you have all these great melee stats you want to use right?). It is disingenuous to evaluate units in different situations. It teaches nothing anyways.
LMAO, sorry I really laughed out loud when I saw this. You put both units in their best conditions...which apparently means Tau Firewarriors want to be 15' from the enemy.... Funny how you put Firewarriors in the "best" condition but left out putting Intercessors even closer and in Tactical Doctrine turn. So they can double tap at -2AP and than charge into CC and do more damage with their 3 attacks each. But hey lets not get into that and just let you put Firewarriors 15' away from the enemy, because that is where they want to be.
the_scotsman wrote: OK, Xeno, if Fire Warriors with their S5 gun are intended to be 'fire support' for killing 'light infantry' then what the hell are breachers supposed to be for? If you get them within suicide range, a full squad of 10 kills a whopping TWO 20 point intercessors.
S5 Ap-2 - is that not for killing heavy infantry?
Breechers are for killing heavy infantry. I dont exactly remember their PA buff but I remember something meshing really well with breechers. Short range is hard to get around. Plus we also have to remember tau don't have a 9th eddition codex yet for a 2 point increase in 9th eddition manual just because...reasons? In any case - they are intended to be used with devilfish...which are also unfortunately bad as are most transports.
Still though..90 points to kill 40 points is pretty good returns. Better returns than the intercessors get they only average 27 points of damage. Likely though...there is probably something more important to kill than these intercessors right?
JNAProductions wrote: 2 Fire Warriors at 30" do .11 wounds to an IK.
1 Intercessor does the exact same (4+) or .15 wounds (5+).
And here's the thing-Daemons have their own Codex, and the different gods have less overlap than different colors of Marines do. They share three units (Furies, Soul Grinders, and Daemon Princes). The rest are entirely unique. And, while you can technically build a generic-unit only Daemons list... You can't build a good one. You don't have troops, for one.
I literally put both units up in their best conditions...this assumes good generalship. And to represent that good generalship, I believe we should ignore a special rule the space marines get that would allow them to destroy the fire warriors from maximum range and force the fire warriors, a unit that does not want to be close to me, to come closer to me to have a chance. This is good and makes sense in my brain.
JNAProductions wrote: 2 Fire Warriors at 30" do .11 wounds to an IK.
1 Intercessor does the exact same (4+) or .15 wounds (5+).
And here's the thing-Daemons have their own Codex, and the different gods have less overlap than different colors of Marines do. They share three units (Furies, Soul Grinders, and Daemon Princes). The rest are entirely unique. And, while you can technically build a generic-unit only Daemons list... You can't build a good one. You don't have troops, for one.
I literally put both units up in their best conditions...this assumes good generalship. And to represent that good generalship, I believe we should ignore a special rule the space marines get that would allow them to destroy the fire warriors from maximum range and force the fire warriors, a unit that does not want to be close to me, to come closer to me to have a chance. This is good and makes sense in my brain.
If space marines are sitting back not moving shooting at tau. The game is already in the bag for tau. Trust me...I've tried.
Then again I play Ultramarines...not a chapter like ironhands or IF that have much better special rules than me. IF probably do beat tau in a firefight. Because they have broken special rules.
the_scotsman wrote: OK, Xeno, if Fire Warriors with their S5 gun are intended to be 'fire support' for killing 'light infantry' then what the hell are breachers supposed to be for? If you get them within suicide range, a full squad of 10 kills a whopping TWO 20 point intercessors.
S5 Ap-2 - is that not for killing heavy infantry?
Breechers are for killing heavy infantry. I dont exactly remember their PA buff but I remember something meshing really well with breechers. Short range is hard to get around. Plus we also have to remember tau don't have a 9th eddition codex yet for a 2 point increase in 9th eddition manual just because...reasons? In any case - they are intended to be used with devilfish...which are also unfortunately bad as are most transports.
Still though..90 points to kill 40 points is pretty good returns. Better returns than the intercessors get they only average 27 points of damage. Likely though...there is probably something more important to kill than these intercessors right?
Better than Plaguebearers (unbuffed) getting a 10% return on Heavy Intercessors or a little less than 15% on regular Intercessors.
Or their 30% returns on Tac Marines, when buffed by a Scrivener, a Poxbringer, a Daemon Prince, and their Locus.
the_scotsman wrote: OK, Xeno, if Fire Warriors with their S5 gun are intended to be 'fire support' for killing 'light infantry' then what the hell are breachers supposed to be for? If you get them within suicide range, a full squad of 10 kills a whopping TWO 20 point intercessors.
S5 Ap-2 - is that not for killing heavy infantry?
Breechers are for killing heavy infantry. I dont exactly remember their PA buff but I remember something meshing really well with breechers. Short range is hard to get around. Plus we also have to remember tau don't have a 9th eddition codex yet for a 2 point increase in 9th eddition manual just because...reasons? In any case - they are intended to be used with devilfish...which are also unfortunately bad as are most transports.
Still though..90 points to kill 40 points is pretty good returns. Better returns than the intercessors get they only average 27 points of damage. Likely though...there is probably something more important to kill than these intercessors right?
Better than Plaguebearers (unbuffed) getting a 10% return on Heavy Intercessors or a little less than 15% on regular Intercessors.
Or their 30% returns on Tac Marines, when buffed by a Scrivener, a Poxbringer, a Daemon Prince, and their Locus.
Seems like a specific beef with plauge bearers. That DP has no issue mincing marines.
the_scotsman wrote: OK, Xeno, if Fire Warriors with their S5 gun are intended to be 'fire support' for killing 'light infantry' then what the hell are breachers supposed to be for? If you get them within suicide range, a full squad of 10 kills a whopping TWO 20 point intercessors.
S5 Ap-2 - is that not for killing heavy infantry?
Breechers are for killing heavy infantry. I dont exactly remember their PA buff but I remember something meshing really well with breechers. Short range is hard to get around. Plus we also have to remember tau don't have a 9th eddition codex yet for a 2 point increase in 9th eddition manual just because...reasons? In any case - they are intended to be used with devilfish...which are also unfortunately bad as are most transports.
Still though..90 points to kill 40 points is pretty good returns. Better returns than the intercessors get they only average 27 points of damage. Likely though...there is probably something more important to kill than these intercessors right?
You hit enter twice and that caused you to forget about the devilfish you said they're supposed to use, aw beans!
AsSuMe GoOd GeNeRaLsHiP, the breachers are magically able to get within 3" of the intercessors. Them plus their transport causes 5.77 unsaved wounds, round to 6, that's 60pts return. 31%.
the space marine army then responds to kill the suicide unit. Between shooting and melee, the 7 intercessors are able to easily destroy the breacher squad down to a man. 90pts/their original cost of 200pts = 45% return.
This is EXACTLY the gak that people are talking about, RIGHT HERE. Even when you magically teleport a specialist unit to exactly where they want to be to kill a marine generalist unit that has thirty inches of optimal range, the marine unit ends up getting superior points return by taking the punch to the face, turning around, and responding to kill the unit you just suicided against them.
the_scotsman wrote: OK, Xeno, if Fire Warriors with their S5 gun are intended to be 'fire support' for killing 'light infantry' then what the hell are breachers supposed to be for? If you get them within suicide range, a full squad of 10 kills a whopping TWO 20 point intercessors.
S5 Ap-2 - is that not for killing heavy infantry?
Breechers are for killing heavy infantry. I dont exactly remember their PA buff but I remember something meshing really well with breechers. Short range is hard to get around. Plus we also have to remember tau don't have a 9th eddition codex yet for a 2 point increase in 9th eddition manual just because...reasons? In any case - they are intended to be used with devilfish...which are also unfortunately bad as are most transports.
Still though..90 points to kill 40 points is pretty good returns. Better returns than the intercessors get they only average 27 points of damage. Likely though...there is probably something more important to kill than these intercessors right?
Better than Plaguebearers (unbuffed) getting a 10% return on Heavy Intercessors or a little less than 15% on regular Intercessors.
Or their 30% returns on Tac Marines, when buffed by a Scrivener, a Poxbringer, a Daemon Prince, and their Locus.
Seems like a specific beef with plauge bearers. That DP has no issue mincing marines.
You mean the Daemon Prince that kills two and a half MEQs a round on average? That one?
But yes, do tell me about how if I spend 495 points for three foot Princes, I can have a 20% of killing one ten-man squad, if they all make it to combat.
And do tell me how when I spend 635 points on Troops and HQs to buff the troops, manage to get them into combat completely unscathed, and manage to cram 30 bases in the new half an inch of half an inch combat rules, I should expect to kill 90-100 points of Marines.
Daemon prince with wings and sword, the usual build: 195pts.
5A with the talons - kills 2 space marines. 20% points return vs intercessors.
Intercessors shooting and then charging a daemon prince with wings: 4.63 wounds. Theoretically a 119pt return, if you use something else to supplement the damage and kill him, 60% points return.
TIL 2 marines per turn is just really RRRRRRRRRIPPIN into them, just MINCING them oh my god.
the_scotsman wrote: OK, Xeno, if Fire Warriors with their S5 gun are intended to be 'fire support' for killing 'light infantry' then what the hell are breachers supposed to be for? If you get them within suicide range, a full squad of 10 kills a whopping TWO 20 point intercessors.
S5 Ap-2 - is that not for killing heavy infantry?
Breechers are for killing heavy infantry. I dont exactly remember their PA buff but I remember something meshing really well with breechers. Short range is hard to get around. Plus we also have to remember tau don't have a 9th eddition codex yet for a 2 point increase in 9th eddition manual just because...reasons? In any case - they are intended to be used with devilfish...which are also unfortunately bad as are most transports.
Still though..90 points to kill 40 points is pretty good returns. Better returns than the intercessors get they only average 27 points of damage. Likely though...there is probably something more important to kill than these intercessors right?
You hit enter twice and that caused you to forget about the devilfish you said they're supposed to use, aw beans!
AsSuMe GoOd GeNeRaLsHiP, the breachers are magically able to get within 3" of the intercessors. Them plus their transport causes 5.77 unsaved wounds, round to 6, that's 60pts return. 31%.
the space marine army then responds to kill the suicide unit. Between shooting and melee, the 7 intercessors are able to easily destroy the breacher squad down to a man. 90pts/their original cost of 200pts = 45% return.
This is EXACTLY the gak that people are talking about, RIGHT HERE. Even when you magically teleport a specialist unit to exactly where they want to be to kill a marine generalist unit that has thirty inches of optimal range, the marine unit ends up getting superior points return by taking the punch to the face, turning around, and responding to kill the unit you just suicided against them.
I am not specifically defending breechers or saying they are a valid strategy. I literally pointed out how bad a devil fish is and they are intended to be used with one.
What breechers really need is deep strike (they don't have it). Just take broadsides with the -1 missile army trait and blow the marines off the board. cry less.
Daemon prince with wings and sword, the usual build: 195pts.
5A with the talons - kills 2 space marines. 20% points return vs intercessors.
Intercessors shooting and then charging a daemon prince with wings: 4.63 wounds. Theoretically a 119pt return, if you use something else to supplement the damage and kill him, 60% points return.
TIL 2 marines per turn is just really RRRRRRRRRIPPIN into them, just MINCING them oh my god.
How is it that you guys are so bad that you get charged by units slower than you?
I was thinking Dual Talons. That's how I usually run them.
And again-if I spend 495 points on three wingless Dual Talon Princes, and charge them all into one ten-man squad of Marines, I have a just over 20% chance of wiping the squad. They will then get wrecked by everything else the Marines have.
I have to fundamentally disagree with the people that says non-optimal units for armies that don't have that playstile should be just worse in a point by point basis.
Thats NOT how you make good games and choices. If you give Tau a meele unit and it sucks because of course Tau meele units can't be good , then literally no Tau will use it and your unit becomes worthless.
Bullgryns are an example of a good "unit out of context", they are good meele units. Very good units. But they are support choice. They can't be the core of your army or your strategy, and they lack the amount of support and sinergies proper meele armies have around playing meele. They offer a deffensive meele unit for Imperial Guard.
You can have armies having varied playstiles and they all be different. Necrons, Orks, Chaos Marines and Sisters of Battle all can have reasonable meele based armies and all play differently just like in Fantasy you had shooting armies like Dwarfs, the Empire, Wood Elves, some builds of High or Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, and they all played differently. And then most of those if not all of those armies could be also played in other styles!
This "each faction should have only ONE viable playstile and all others should be suboptimal" maybe works for AoS armies with 6 units but in warhammer 40k thats not only extremely boring but just bad design.
If you have given meele units for sisters of battle and sinergies for sister of battle meele units they SHOULD be an equal fighting force than a full meele khorne army. You know why? Because it doesnt matter that Sisters of Battle have shooting options if I don't use them and my army has enough units and synergies to support a meele playstile. If I'm using 2000 points of my army they should be balanced agaisnt 2000 of your army unless.
Of course that doesnt mean both armies play the same, maybe khorne meele units are individually more powerfull and sisters of battle need more tricks to be equal, etc... but asking for actual unbalance in the game is just... what?
For example, giving Tau a meele element based around Kroots: Of course they aren't gonna put up a fight 1vs1 agaisnt khorne berzerkers but they can still have a place as fast, skirmish, ambush, stealth based units with light shooting and capable meele. They would be completely different in how they are played, but they should not be just "bad" by points. Just don't give Tau elite meele units designeds to go toe to toe and kill primarchs in meele.
If I'm paying +600€ and spendings hundreds of hours un building and painting my army I want them to give me the most fun they can. If I can only play them one way because "lol mu shooting" (And you can have many different ways of playing a shooting army, for example T'au taus and Farsight taus are completely different ways of playing a pure shooting army), thats horrible.
Xenomancers wrote: I am not specifically defending breechers or saying they are a valid strategy. I literally pointed out how bad a devil fish is and they are intended to be used with one.
What breechers really need is deep strike (they don't have it). Just take broadsides with the -1 missile army trait and blow the marines off the board. cry less.
"Just play a completely different army because only one build works". Cry less.
Oh wait wait wait, ive got a better one!!
"Just play Guilliman parking lot and blow everything off the board", cry less about index marines.
Galas wrote: I have to fundamentally disagree with the people that says non-optimal units for armies that don't have that playstile should be just worse in a point by point basis.
Thats NOT how you make good games and choices. If you give Tau a meele unit and it sucks because of course Tau units can't be good , then literally no Tau will use it and your unit becomes worthless.
Bullgryns are an example of a good "unit out of context", they are good meele units. Very good units. But they are support choice. They can't be the core of your army or your strategy, and they lack the amount of support and sinergies proper meele armies have around playing meele. They offer a deffensive meele unit for Imperial Guard.
You can have armies having varied playstiles and they all be different. Necrons, Orks, Chaos Marines and Sisters of Battle all can have reasonable meele based armies and all play differently just like in Fantasy you had shooting armies like Dwarfs, the Empire, Wood Elves, some builds of High or Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, and they all played differently. And then most of those if not all of those armies could be also played in other styles!
This "each faction should have only ONE viable playstile and all others should be suboptimal" maybe works for AoS armies with 6 units but in warhammer 40k thats not only extremely boring but just bad design.
If you have given meele units for sisters of battle and sinergies for sister of battle meele units they SHOULD be an equal fighting force than a full meele khorne army. You know why? Because it doesnt matter that Sisters of Battle have shooting options if I don't use them and my army has enough units and sinergyes to support a meele playstile. If I'm using 2000 points of my army they should be balanced agaisnt 2000 of your army unless.
Of course that doesnt mean both armies play the same, maybe khorne meele units are individually more powerfull and sisters of battle need more tricks to be equal, etc... but asking for actual unbalance in the game is just... what?
For example, giving Tau a meele element based around Kroots: Of course they aren't gonna put up a fight 1vs1 agaisnt khorne berzerkers but they can still have a place as fast, skirmish, ambush, stealth based units with light shooting and capable meele. They would be completely different in how they are played, but they should not be just "bad" by points. Just don't give Tau elite meele units designeds to go toe to toe and kill primarchs in meele.
If I'm paying +600€ and spendings hundreds of hours un building and painting my army I want them to give me the most fun they can. If I can only play them one way because "lol mu shooting" (And you can have many different ways of playing a shooting army, for example T'au taus and Farsight taus are completely different ways of playing a pure shooting army), thats horrible.
+1, this is exactly what I was trying to say. There is a very big difference between an army having a theme/identity versus an army being pigeonholed into one build.
You guys seriously need to ignore him and move on or there's gunna be more pages spent endlessly debunking his nonsense than there are variations of bolter in the new codex.
Its astounding how one person can be proven wrong so often by using facts and basic math, but keep coming in ranting about the same, easily disproved nonsense.
Xenomancers wrote: I am not specifically defending breechers or saying they are a valid strategy. I literally pointed out how bad a devil fish is and they are intended to be used with one.
What breechers really need is deep strike (they don't have it). Just take broadsides with the -1 missile army trait and blow the marines off the board. cry less.
"Just play a completely different army because only one build works". Cry less.
Oh wait wait wait, ive got a better one!!
"Just play Guilliman parking lot and blow everything off the board", cry less about index marines.
Big difference between take these units that every tau has access to instead of these bad ones. Compared to take this unit that only 3% of marines have access to as your only means to win. It is a pretty drastic difference.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: You guys seriously need to ignore him and move on or there's gunna be more pages spent endlessly debunking his nonsense than there are variations of bolter in the new codex.
if you could point out the nonsense that would be great. Otherwise I am reporting you for breaking the fourm rules. Because you are. I am making valid points often supported by correct math.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: Its astounding how one person can be proven wrong so often by using facts and basic math, but keep coming in ranting about the same, easily disproved nonsense.
What's astounding is how much dakka hates marines. Valid points ignored. Always comes to...but but...I cant wipe 200 point infantry squads with cheaper units like I used to do in 7th eddition when space marines were garabge...then youll even argue marines werent garbage in 7th...
This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.
The majority of what you are talking about is imperial soup.
While some effective hero hammer type armies could really do well and even dominate the game. That really has nothing to do with the space marine codex. Invisibility was a spell that every army had access too and pretty much every winning army was abusing it in some way shape or form...Just some broken forge world option let you pick your power...(also...not in the space marine codex) ofc.
Bark star...thunder star...Cent star...Super friends? Space marines right? Actually no...we call that hero hammer for a reason. It was a broken game.
Xenomancers wrote:This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
Xenomancers wrote: For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies.
Xenomancers wrote: Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%.
So to summarize, Thousand Sons are in a great place in 8th and 9th because they can soup with Chaos and do well. But Space Marines, while winning tournaments and placing extremely well in LVO and Adepticon, were trash because they had to soup, and had a low W/L rate. Also, SM's were only the best in 8th edition for "15%" of the time. Just ignore the index phase, change the definition of "Worst" from meaning the most terrible option to "Not the best" and than ignore Tournament results and assume that SM 2.0 was only 15% of the game
Woah that's quite crazy. Thanks for putting those quote together, really brings some perspective into it.
Xenomancer is really someone with opinions .
They can't mass Deep Strike.
They can't hold an extended gunline (across the board)
They don't have the bodycount to spread themselves thinly.
They can't Smite spam.
They can't diversify their list to cover multiple aspects reliably (psyker, heavy gunline, area denial, close combat, heavy assault), its basically all-in on one or a couple of them.
They are vulnerable to attrition.
There's a very solid point there. Marine's have pretty meh board control. Yeah the areas they can control they can control very well, but they can only control so much area. Where orks, guard, nids and a few others would be able to make a larger area pretty much impassable. Though other factions such as knights and custodies would be able to put even more power into very small areas.
Galas wrote: I have to fundamentally disagree with the people that says non-optimal units for armies that don't have that playstile should be just worse in a point by point basis.
Thats NOT how you make good games and choices. If you give Tau a meele unit and it sucks because of course Tau meele units can't be good , then literally no Tau will use it and your unit becomes worthless.
Bullgryns are an example of a good "unit out of context", they are good meele units. Very good units. But they are support choice. They can't be the core of your army or your strategy, and they lack the amount of support and sinergies proper meele armies have around playing meele. They offer a deffensive meele unit for Imperial Guard.
You can have armies having varied playstiles and they all be different. Necrons, Orks, Chaos Marines and Sisters of Battle all can have reasonable meele based armies and all play differently just like in Fantasy you had shooting armies like Dwarfs, the Empire, Wood Elves, some builds of High or Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, and they all played differently. And then most of those if not all of those armies could be also played in other styles!
This "each faction should have only ONE viable playstile and all others should be suboptimal" maybe works for AoS armies with 6 units but in warhammer 40k thats not only extremely boring but just bad design.
If you have given meele units for sisters of battle and sinergies for sister of battle meele units they SHOULD be an equal fighting force than a full meele khorne army. You know why? Because it doesnt matter that Sisters of Battle have shooting options if I don't use them and my army has enough units and synergies to support a meele playstile. If I'm using 2000 points of my army they should be balanced agaisnt 2000 of your army unless.
Of course that doesnt mean both armies play the same, maybe khorne meele units are individually more powerfull and sisters of battle need more tricks to be equal, etc... but asking for actual unbalance in the game is just... what?
For example, giving Tau a meele element based around Kroots: Of course they aren't gonna put up a fight 1vs1 agaisnt khorne berzerkers but they can still have a place as fast, skirmish, ambush, stealth based units with light shooting and capable meele. They would be completely different in how they are played, but they should not be just "bad" by points. Just don't give Tau elite meele units designeds to go toe to toe and kill primarchs in meele.
If I'm paying +600€ and spendings hundreds of hours un building and painting my army I want them to give me the most fun they can. If I can only play them one way because "lol mu shooting" (And you can have many different ways of playing a shooting army, for example T'au taus and Farsight taus are completely different ways of playing a pure shooting army), thats horrible.
I completely agree with you and catbarf. Armies should have their general theme, but have methods of bending out of them. Since Marines are supposed to be jack of all trades, they should be able to bend one way or the other more easily than more specialized armies, but not outspecialize the specialists while also retaining their flexibility in all other ways.
Like, for lack of better thought process, if all abilities are listed as D, C, B, A, and S rank, with B being in the center, you should be able to wiggle your build around so that you move yourself up from say B to A tier, while possibly dropping something else down a rank or half a rank. If on this scale Marines are B in everything and Deathguard/Nurgle Daemons are S in Toughness, the Marines should be able to bump up their ranking in Toughness to an A if built around that, but might lose out on another aspect - maybe less board control as tilting towards Toughness costs more than being a generalist, or maybe less access to buffs than a more mainline unit (which access to / lack of Core keyword could be used to tweak).
Long story short, being able to play out of the designated sweet spot of an army should be possible, but not without some sort of cost. The cost cannot though make said unit/build useless though, but should instead offer alternate abilities to the norm.
The Bullgryn example is very apt - they are expensive, and fairly small units that are not very good at shooting, but they have good melee capabilities and are tough - with good wounds, saves, and toughness. What they lack in board control they make up for by bringing something Guard wouldn't otherwise have. Sure for the same price as a min Bullgryn squad you could take almost 3 full Infantry Squads, but for that price you get access to a different set of abilities that compete with without overshadowing each other. And with unit limits and the price of them, you can use Bullgryn to give a much needed melee boost, but you cannot build a full list of them and overshadow the rest of the army.
With the tier rankings above, a hard tilt into Bullgryns might bump a Guard army's Melee from a C to B overall (possibly an A in areas they are concentrated), but will also reduce their shooting and board control by a notch in exchange, as well as losing certain boons other Guard units enjoy (Regiment traits, Orders, etc).
Galas wrote: I have to fundamentally disagree with the people that says non-optimal units for armies that don't have that playstile should be just worse in a point by point basis.
Thats NOT how you make good games and choices. If you give Tau a meele unit and it sucks because of course Tau meele units can't be good , then literally no Tau will use it and your unit becomes worthless.
Bullgryns are an example of a good "unit out of context", they are good meele units. Very good units. But they are support choice. They can't be the core of your army or your strategy, and they lack the amount of support and sinergies proper meele armies have around playing meele. They offer a deffensive meele unit for Imperial Guard.
You can have armies having varied playstiles and they all be different. Necrons, Orks, Chaos Marines and Sisters of Battle all can have reasonable meele based armies and all play differently just like in Fantasy you had shooting armies like Dwarfs, the Empire, Wood Elves, some builds of High or Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, and they all played differently. And then most of those if not all of those armies could be also played in other styles!
This "each faction should have only ONE viable playstile and all others should be suboptimal" maybe works for AoS armies with 6 units but in warhammer 40k thats not only extremely boring but just bad design.
If you have given meele units for sisters of battle and sinergies for sister of battle meele units they SHOULD be an equal fighting force than a full meele khorne army. You know why? Because it doesnt matter that Sisters of Battle have shooting options if I don't use them and my army has enough units and synergies to support a meele playstile. If I'm using 2000 points of my army they should be balanced agaisnt 2000 of your army unless.
Of course that doesnt mean both armies play the same, maybe khorne meele units are individually more powerfull and sisters of battle need more tricks to be equal, etc... but asking for actual unbalance in the game is just... what?
For example, giving Tau a meele element based around Kroots: Of course they aren't gonna put up a fight 1vs1 agaisnt khorne berzerkers but they can still have a place as fast, skirmish, ambush, stealth based units with light shooting and capable meele. They would be completely different in how they are played, but they should not be just "bad" by points. Just don't give Tau elite meele units designeds to go toe to toe and kill primarchs in meele.
If I'm paying +600€ and spendings hundreds of hours un building and painting my army I want them to give me the most fun they can. If I can only play them one way because "lol mu shooting" (And you can have many different ways of playing a shooting army, for example T'au taus and Farsight taus are completely different ways of playing a pure shooting army), thats horrible.
I completely agree with you and catbarf. Armies should have their general theme, but have methods of bending out of them. Since Marines are supposed to be jack of all trades, they should be able to bend one way or the other more easily than more specialized armies, but not outspecialize the specialists while also retaining their flexibility in all other ways.
Like, for lack of better thought process, if all abilities are listed as D, C, B, A, and S rank, with B being in the center, you should be able to wiggle your build around so that you move yourself up from say B to A tier, while possibly dropping something else down a rank or half a rank. If on this scale Marines are B in everything and Deathguard/Nurgle Daemons are S in Toughness, the Marines should be able to bump up their ranking in Toughness to an A if built around that, but might lose out on another aspect - maybe less board control as tilting towards Toughness costs more than being a generalist, or maybe less access to buffs than a more mainline unit (which access to / lack of Core keyword could be used to tweak).
Long story short, being able to play out of the designated sweet spot of an army should be possible, but not without some sort of cost. The cost cannot though make said unit/build useless though, but should instead offer alternate abilities to the norm.
The Bullgryn example is very apt - they are expensive, and fairly small units that are not very good at shooting, but they have good melee capabilities and are tough - with good wounds, saves, and toughness. What they lack in board control they make up for by bringing something Guard wouldn't otherwise have. Sure for the same price as a min Bullgryn squad you could take almost 3 full Infantry Squads, but for that price you get access to a different set of abilities that compete with without overshadowing each other. And with unit limits and the price of them, you can use Bullgryn to give a much needed melee boost, but you cannot build a full list of them and overshadow the rest of the army.
With the tier rankings above, a hard tilt into Bullgryns might bump a Guard army's Melee from a C to B overall (possibly an A in areas they are concentrated), but will also reduce their shooting and board control by a notch in exchange, as well as losing certain boons other Guard units enjoy (Regiment traits, Orders, etc).
That is simply the crux of the matter and do I wish that was the case. If this was how GW did their unit design for factions we would see a healthier game overall. But Avarice/Greed is an evil consuming force. It is selling models first over healthy enjoyable gameplay.
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
They're not S-tier everywhere simultaneously, but they can be S-tier in nearly anything they want, frequently better than armies that specialize in or base their identities around that Thing, while simultaneously still remaining no worse than A or B in every other category, where other armies would have to make serious tradeoffs for their specialty.
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
They're not S-tier everywhere simultaneously, but they can be S-tier in nearly anything they want, frequently better than armies that specialize in or base their identities around that Thing, while simultaneously still remaining no worse than A or B in every other category, where other armies would have to make serious tradeoffs for their specialty.
So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
From what I understand, the issue isn't that they can do everything at once, but that they can veer into everything while still maintaining all of their jack of all trades boons. If being straight B tier (average) across the board with a little spillover into A tier is ideal, Marines are instead mostly A tier and can shift into S tier very easily without sacrificing much in other areas. I think very few people are arguing it is bad Marines can do everything, they are arguing that Marines can do everything, and in many cases far better than factions that are based around those specialties.
The ideal would be for them as jack of all trades would be for them to be able to shift their focus so that they can be good (but definitely not the best) at anything, while simultaneously not suffering as hard for overspecializing. For example, if a build bumps them into A tier in mobility and board control, they should perhaps be dropped to C tier in say firepower. Meanwhile a faction that specializes in mobility and board control might be S ranked in them while ranking a D in survivability - but can do specialty builds or have access to certain units that can say knock board control down to A rank and bumping survival up to C or lower B.
Sorry for the letter grades, for me at least it helps visualize things. For note it would be D, C, B, A, S - going worst to best. I know some people are familiar with that kind of ranking but I always feel the need to explain.
JNAProductions wrote: What do you consider a horde? How many models is a horse army, in a 2k list?
And I’d argue that invulnerable saves are not a playstyle. They’re a defensive tool, not an entire playstyle.
Well I use horde differently. In this case I was using it the way others do. And they’ve already told you it’s not.
And I would certainly argue an entire army of invulnerable saves is a play style. Being able to leverage or invalidate a game mechanic is absolutely a play style. It was for mortal wounds. It is for invuln saves.
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
They're not S-tier everywhere simultaneously, but they can be S-tier in nearly anything they want, frequently better than armies that specialize in or base their identities around that Thing, while simultaneously still remaining no worse than A or B in every other category, where other armies would have to make serious tradeoffs for their specialty.
So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
No, the idea is Marines who choose to focus on a particular area should NOT be better at it than the faction based around it. Even specializing into a certain area, Marines still are average to above average in most other aspects. The idea is that their peaks should be lower but their valleys also higher. No matter how you build them they shouldn't be the WORST at anything, but they also shouldn't be the BEST.
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
They're not S-tier everywhere simultaneously, but they can be S-tier in nearly anything they want, frequently better than armies that specialize in or base their identities around that Thing, while simultaneously still remaining no worse than A or B in every other category, where other armies would have to make serious tradeoffs for their specialty.
So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
How did you come to that conclusion based on what he said? Not mocking, honestly curious.
Leth wrote: Marines can do everything sure, but they can’t do more than 1-2 things at once.
So it’s not really a solid comparison. They just are too expensive to adequately cover everything at once.
They're not S-tier everywhere simultaneously, but they can be S-tier in nearly anything they want, frequently better than armies that specialize in or base their identities around that Thing, while simultaneously still remaining no worse than A or B in every other category, where other armies would have to make serious tradeoffs for their specialty.
So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
No, he said that marines who chose to focus on a particularly area should face the same drawbacks as an army who specializes in the same thing.
Currently, when marines focus on something, they do it just as good as the experts, while the general power of their army still keeps them above average in aspects they don't focus on.
When you can match dedicated melee experts in power while still being notably better than them in every other aspect, there is a problem.
From a marine point of view, now being able to lose a single model is a huge step down from decades of And They Shall Know No Leadership Characteristic.
Jidmah wrote: From a marine point of view, now being able to lose a single model is a huge step down from decades of And They Shall Know No Leadership Characteristic.
it isn't though, as if they could just, ya know combat squad without disadvantage or MSU, like CSM, which btw would prefer bigger squads for stratagem efficency?
Leth wrote: Considering they are no longer immune to negative morale modifiers, it could possibly add up quick in the right builds.
Which you still bypass because you'd allready want to avoid big enough squads to be severly punished by attrition to that degree via MSU because you'd want to actively avoid blast?
I lack experience to have a well founded opinion on that therefore I'll just ask:
It was said (and from my limited understanding of the SM Codex it sounds not too far fetched) that for example White Scars do the fast attack thingy of Dark eldar better then them or that Marines can be geared to do the Deepstrike thing of GSC better then them etc.
Lets just assume a Marine army specializing in one of these areas that are typically associated with another faction. Is it correct to assume that they are still better in the other typical arreas than that specialized faction as they only have to give up pretty little? So if I would look at a White Scars army heavily geared towards lightning strikes to an extend they surpass what Drukhari can pull of, is it correct that they would still be much sturdier for example?
Or if I take Drop pods for turn 1 DS and lots of deepstrike options to an extend that the army is as good at that as GSC, that they are still better in Shooting, Durability and CC as they don't have to give up much for that?
Please see this as an honest question and not a rhethorical one. I don't know, I just see the datasheets and have a vague feeling that this might be the case.
On a peripherically related note: you can for example gear IG almost purely for CC just for the fun of it:
Spoiler:
DKOK Vanguard Detachment (only 1 Datasheet each, so that you can easily take multiples without Problems with Ro3:
DKOK Death Rider Commander (Demolition Charge, Powerfist) 60 points
Lord Commissar (Power Fist) 45 points
9 Bullgryns 387 points
Ogryn Bodyguard (Maul, Armor), 60 points
Ministorum Priest 40 points
DKOK Death Rider Command Squad 60 points
10 DKOK Death Riders 150points
together 820 Points, so you can take 2,5 of those in a 2000 Points game and would purely have CC dudes. Might be better to mix them another way, but it was just to demonstrate it. My main Point is: while you could by that push an army that Overall is maybe C Tier in CC to A, they have to give up almost everything for that. No Shooting, not non-LOS Shooting, no objective secured, just pure melee. And that is OK, because when you want to go that far out of your armies character it should - while possible - cost you.
Last but not least: @ slayer6 I read your comments and find them pretty good regarding the questions as you list various things they cannot do.
BrianDavion wrote: So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
Sure. If by "suck" you mean "being A tier instead of S tier".
Anyone that isn't the number one very best sucks. I guess that means everyone on this board, me and you included, suck then.
SemperMortis wrote: Its astounding how one person can be proven wrong so often by using facts and basic math, but keep coming in ranting about the same, easily disproved nonsense.
What's astounding is how much dakka hates marines. Valid points ignored. Always comes to...but but...I cant wipe 200 point infantry squads with cheaper units like I used to do in 7th eddition when space marines were garabge...then youll even argue marines werent garbage in 7th...
This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.
The majority of what you are talking about is imperial soup.
While some effective hero hammer type armies could really do well and even dominate the game. That really has nothing to do with the space marine codex. Invisibility was a spell that every army had access too and pretty much every winning army was abusing it in some way shape or form...Just some broken forge world option let you pick your power...(also...not in the space marine codex) ofc.
Bark star...thunder star...Cent star...Super friends? Space marines right? Actually no...we call that hero hammer for a reason. It was a broken game.
Xenomancers wrote:This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
Xenomancers wrote: For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies.
Xenomancers wrote: Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%.
So to summarize, Thousand Sons are in a great place in 8th and 9th because they can soup with Chaos and do well. But Space Marines, while winning tournaments and placing extremely well in LVO and Adepticon, were trash because they had to soup, and had a low W/L rate. Also, SM's were only the best in 8th edition for "15%" of the time. Just ignore the index phase, change the definition of "Worst" from meaning the most terrible option to "Not the best" and than ignore Tournament results and assume that SM 2.0 was only 15% of the game
But to get back on your main point of "everyone hates my speese mehreens!". No, nobody "hates" space marines. What people hate is BROKEN SPACE MARINES. And what you have done for page after page is defend broken game mechanics and units because they belong to Marines. You've defended Intercessors being better at range than Firewarriors while simultaneously being better in CC than ork boyz because Orkz can kill genestealers and genestealers can kill Marines....and then when I did the math for you showing you wrong you moved the goalposts or happily ignored the fact that your basic troops choice is better at a specialist troops units specialty, Point for point that is. Pretty sure it was you who also said Aggressors are now garbage because they lost shoot twice. Apparently your 135pt unit isn't good if it can't wipe out 160pts of enemy models in 1 turn.
BrianDavion wrote: So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
Sure. If by "suck" you mean "being A tier instead of S tier".
Anyone that isn't the number one very best sucks. I guess that means everyone on this board, me and you included, suck then.
I have made this exact point before Ox. Certain Marine players think if they aren't the very best army in the game they are garbage. Xenos and others saying SM's were bottom tier in 8th as an example of exactly this.
I don't want any faction to languish like Orkz did in 7th, but maybe a dose of what bottom tier actually is would have given them some perspective.
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
that list has 132 bodies. a little bit more then "only about 100"
IMHO a horde army isn't even defined by the exact bodycount (although over 100 bodies is almost required) but rather a army for whom "the bulk of it's fighting force is made up of cheap disposable units whose durability comes from simply being able to absord more casualties then the enemy is capable of dishing out" (sort of a 'more bodies then we have bullets' situation)
this is rough as a horde is really a bit like obscenity. you know it when you see it.
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
that list has 132 bodies. a little bit more then "only about 100"
IMHO a horde army isn't even defined by the exact bodycount (although over 100 bodies is almost required) but rather a army for whom "the bulk of it's fighting force is made up of cheap disposable units whose durability comes from simply being able to absord more casualties then the enemy is capable of dishing out" (sort of a 'more bodies then we have bullets' situation)
this is rough as a horde is really a bit like obscenity. you know it when you see it.
With 2 W do you get a "more wounds than bullets situation?
150 Gaunts would be 150 wounds at T3 6+ would be a horde. But 80 Marines would be 160 wounds at T4 3+. You have more wounds, and those wounds are much less vulnerable to anti-infantry fire, although more vulnerable to 2D+ weapons.
Fair on the body count-I didn't look that closely after the slightly less than 90 Skarboys.
But I'll hang with Insectum here and say that that's not a very good horde definition. I mean, if you saw 90 MEQ on the table against you, what would you call it?
Apparently Give up some of their Rules stack to make theirbpointa seem fair or pay for the benifit of stacking 3 or more layers of rules on stuff.
Genuinely go and try and loose a game with marines now without making it obvious your throwing the game against a new player now, it's borderline impossible, without "forgetting" half the rules or strategums.
That aside I think the issue is a complete lack of weakness.
JNAProductions wrote: Fair on the body count-I didn't look that closely after the slightly less than 90 Skarboys.
But I'll hang with Insectum here and say that that's not a very good horde definition. I mean, if you saw 90 MEQ on the table against you, what would you call it?
Baffling?
but yeah, obviously it can be done. any army can horde in that they take a bunch of their cheapest troops and spam them (BTW because I was curious I tried seeing how many bodies you can fit into a custodes list if you just want as many dudes as possiable, 2000 point "horde" of custodes is a "huge" 37 guys...) but the effectiveness of it goes up as the cost of your infantry goes down.
That statement about TS primary was to help people find the choas armies I was talking about in 40k stats. No other reason. TS have a great win rate in 8th when you consider all choas armies that include them in their army. You could say the same thing about blood angels too I suppose or custodians. If you seriously don't think marine players don't know what it's like to be bottom tier you live in an alternate reality. The have been bottom tier in literally every eddition of 40k since 4th eddition.
7th (7.5) they had some success before they were power creeped by ynnari and daemonic incursion quit palying after ynnari in 7th because in all honesty the game had become a joke. 8th comes and during index time (before armies had any function rules or stratagems) they did pretty well for a few months until other amries started getting rules and they floundered all the way to the bottom. Then they had dominating success at the end of the edition after getting essentially their 9th eddition codex early. Revisionist historians man...scum of the earth.
That statement about TS primary was to help people find the choas armies I was talking about in 40k stats. No other reason. TS have a great win rate in 8th when you consider all choas armies that include them in their army. You could say the same thing about blood angels too I suppose or custodians. If you seriously don't think marine players don't know what it's like to be bottom tier you live in an alternate reality. The have been bottom tier in literally every eddition of 40k since 4th eddition.
7th (7.5) they had some success before they were power creeped by ynnari and daemonic incursion quit palying after ynnari in 7th because in all honesty the game had become a joke. 8th comes and during index time (before armies had any function rules or stratagems) they did pretty well for a few months until other amries started getting rules and they floundered all the way to the bottom. Then they had dominating success at the end of the edition after getting essentially their 9th eddition codex early. Revisionist historians man...scum of the earth.
Why do you insist of not counting index era as a legitimate period of time? Marines were top tier then.
JNAProductions wrote: Fair on the body count-I didn't look that closely after the slightly less than 90 Skarboys.
But I'll hang with Insectum here and say that that's not a very good horde definition. I mean, if you saw 90 MEQ on the table against you, what would you call it?
Baffling?
but yeah, obviously it can be done. any army can horde in that they take a bunch of their cheapest troops and spam them (BTW because I was curious I tried seeing how many bodies you can fit into a custodes list if you just want as many dudes as possiable, 2000 point "horde" of custodes is a "huge" 37 guys...) but the effectiveness of it goes up as the cost of your infantry goes down.
But the effectiveness also goes up as durability increases.
It takes 30 points of Bolt Rifles rapid firing outside the Tactical Doctrine to kill an Ork Boy. 60 without Rapid Fire.
It takes 120 points of the same to kill a single Tactical Marine.
Cover changes the numbers to 36 and 180 respectively.
Tactical Doctrine changes the numbers to 30 and 90 respectively.
Marines are 3-5 times as durable as Orks against small arms fire, while only being 2.25 times as expensive.
That statement about TS primary was to help people find the choas armies I was talking about in 40k stats. No other reason. TS have a great win rate in 8th when you consider all choas armies that include them in their army. You could say the same thing about blood angels too I suppose or custodians. If you seriously don't think marine players don't know what it's like to be bottom tier you live in an alternate reality. The have been bottom tier in literally every eddition of 40k since 4th eddition.
7th (7.5) they had some success before they were power creeped by ynnari and daemonic incursion quit palying after ynnari in 7th because in all honesty the game had become a joke. 8th comes and during index time (before armies had any function rules or stratagems) they did pretty well for a few months until other amries started getting rules and they floundered all the way to the bottom. Then they had dominating success at the end of the edition after getting essentially their 9th eddition codex early. Revisionist historians man...scum of the earth.
SemperMortis wrote: Its astounding how one person can be proven wrong so often by using facts and basic math, but keep coming in ranting about the same, easily disproved nonsense.
What's astounding is how much dakka hates marines. Valid points ignored. Always comes to...but but...I cant wipe 200 point infantry squads with cheaper units like I used to do in 7th eddition when space marines were garabge...then youll even argue marines werent garbage in 7th...
This is how choas functions. They are specifically designed this way. In 8th - no one was bringing mono army so it's pointless to even make this argument. Interestingly...can you name another army other than marines that has to give up all their special rules to take allies? It's almost like they are specifically designed to be a mono force.
The majority of what you are talking about is imperial soup.
While some effective hero hammer type armies could really do well and even dominate the game. That really has nothing to do with the space marine codex. Invisibility was a spell that every army had access too and pretty much every winning army was abusing it in some way shape or form...Just some broken forge world option let you pick your power...(also...not in the space marine codex) ofc.
Bark star...thunder star...Cent star...Super friends? Space marines right? Actually no...we call that hero hammer for a reason. It was a broken game.
Xenomancers wrote:This antimarine sentiment is outrageous. Almost as outrageous as how bad marines were in 8th eddition before they got a real codex. 40% WR in competitive for 2 consecutive years. Where was the outrage then?
Xenomancers wrote: For several editions marines have been my primary army. It's always been below top tier. Requiring gimmicks to function with better armies.
Xenomancers wrote: Like seriously Marines were the worst army in 40k for the 85% of the edition and the best for the last 15%.
So to summarize, Thousand Sons are in a great place in 8th and 9th because they can soup with Chaos and do well. But Space Marines, while winning tournaments and placing extremely well in LVO and Adepticon, were trash because they had to soup, and had a low W/L rate. Also, SM's were only the best in 8th edition for "15%" of the time. Just ignore the index phase, change the definition of "Worst" from meaning the most terrible option to "Not the best" and than ignore Tournament results and assume that SM 2.0 was only 15% of the game
But to get back on your main point of "everyone hates my speese mehreens!". No, nobody "hates" space marines. What people hate is BROKEN SPACE MARINES. And what you have done for page after page is defend broken game mechanics and units because they belong to Marines. You've defended Intercessors being better at range than Firewarriors while simultaneously being better in CC than ork boyz because Orkz can kill genestealers and genestealers can kill Marines....and then when I did the math for you showing you wrong you moved the goalposts or happily ignored the fact that your basic troops choice is better at a specialist troops units specialty, Point for point that is. Pretty sure it was you who also said Aggressors are now garbage because they lost shoot twice. Apparently your 135pt unit isn't good if it can't wipe out 160pts of enemy models in 1 turn.
BrianDavion wrote: So... Marines who choose to focus on a partiuclar area should STILL suck?
Sure. If by "suck" you mean "being A tier instead of S tier".
Anyone that isn't the number one very best sucks. I guess that means everyone on this board, me and you included, suck then.
I have made this exact point before Ox. Certain Marine players think if they aren't the very best army in the game they are garbage. Xenos and others saying SM's were bottom tier in 8th as an example of exactly this.
I don't want any faction to languish like Orkz did in 7th, but maybe a dose of what bottom tier actually is would have given them some perspective.
Your posts come off as very hypocritical, Xeno.
What's good for TSons is apparently not good enough for Loyalist Marines.
Ice_can wrote: Apparently Give up some of their Rules stack to make theirbpointa seem fair or pay for the benifit of stacking 3 or more layers of rules on stuff.
Genuinely go and try and loose a game with marines now without making it obvious your throwing the game against a new player now, it's borderline impossible, without "forgetting" half the rules or strategums.
That aside I think the issue is a complete lack of weakness.
It would be pretty easy actually. Don't use your character auras or more than one unit. don't take eradicators.
Take lots of primaris units like...hell blasters/ inceptors/ reviers/ infiltrators
Take lots marine armor like...predator's/razorbacks/rhinos/repuslors/exectuioners/lanraiders/storm ravens
You will struggle to win games with those units I assure you. The majority of those units are new too. The primaris everyone complains about. Which have been nerfed so hard or were never actually good - you'll never see these units on the table...cept maybe infiltrators.
7th (7.5) they had some success before they were power creeped by ynnari and daemonic incursion quit palying after ynnari in 7th because in all honesty the game had become a joke. 8th comes and during index time (before armies had any function rules or stratagems) they did pretty well for a few months until other amries started getting rules and they floundered all the way to the bottom. Then they had dominating success at the end of the edition after getting essentially their 9th eddition codex early. Revisionist historians man...scum of the earth.
I've disproved this myth several times already but you like to keep stating it. Is the hope that if you tell a lie often enough people won't question the veracity of it?
At no point, literally NO POINT were SM's bottom tier in 8th. Literally NEVER. In 7th they were NEVER bottom tier.
This again goes back to my statement, if SM's aren't top tier you just assume you are bottom tier garbage and can never win. You also used biased stats like W/L rate at tournaments to justify this statement...completely ignoring top finishes. "Mehreens only had a 40% win rate at LVO!" you guys placed in the top 8 though. "That doesn't count because they are an outlier" Absolute cognitive dissonance. You scream SM are bottom tier while you have dudes finishing at the hardest tournament in the game in the top 8.
You want to see Bottom tier? Go back to 7th and try winning against SM, Eldar, Tau, Crons, admech, Nidz (only flying circus for nids) as an ork or DE player.
That statement about TS primary was to help people find the choas armies I was talking about in 40k stats. No other reason. TS have a great win rate in 8th when you consider all choas armies that include them in their army. You could say the same thing about blood angels too I suppose or custodians. If you seriously don't think marine players don't know what it's like to be bottom tier you live in an alternate reality. The have been bottom tier in literally every eddition of 40k since 4th eddition.
7th (7.5) they had some success before they were power creeped by ynnari and daemonic incursion quit palying after ynnari in 7th because in all honesty the game had become a joke. 8th comes and during index time (before armies had any function rules or stratagems) they did pretty well for a few months until other amries started getting rules and they floundered all the way to the bottom. Then they had dominating success at the end of the edition after getting essentially their 9th eddition codex early. Revisionist historians man...scum of the earth.
Why do you insist of not counting index era as a legitimate period of time? Marines were top tier then.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
That statement about TS primary was to help people find the choas armies I was talking about in 40k stats. No other reason. TS have a great win rate in 8th when you consider all choas armies that include them in their army. You could say the same thing about blood angels too I suppose or custodians. If you seriously don't think marine players don't know what it's like to be bottom tier you live in an alternate reality. The have been bottom tier in literally every eddition of 40k since 4th eddition.
7th (7.5) they had some success before they were power creeped by ynnari and daemonic incursion quit palying after ynnari in 7th because in all honesty the game had become a joke. 8th comes and during index time (before armies had any function rules or stratagems) they did pretty well for a few months until other amries started getting rules and they floundered all the way to the bottom. Then they had dominating success at the end of the edition after getting essentially their 9th eddition codex early. Revisionist historians man...scum of the earth.
Why do you insist of not counting index era as a legitimate period of time? Marines were top tier then.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
Because why?
Did people not play in it?
Were no tournaments held?
Or are you just arbitrarily discluding it because it makes your argument weaker?
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
That seems like an odd take, considering it took what, 1 and a half year, basically half of the entire editions runtime, before everyone got their Codex. Just in time for muhreens to get their second one of course.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Show the evidence. Show your work.
And here's the rub-let's say you're able to find a dozen top-level tournaments where Marines get handily crushed and their highest ranking was 50/200 or so. Does that mean that it's okay for Marines to be OP now, because they sucked before? Even accepting the "they sucked before" as true, that doesn't follow to "So they should be OP now."
Before you say "They're not OP!" one of their basic troops choices, which is a generalist unit, outfights Orks and Genestealers, and outshoots Tau.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
That seems like an odd take, considering it took what, 1 and a half year, basically half of the entire editions runtime, before everyone got their Codex. Just in time for muhreens to get their second one of course.
Simplistic way to look at it. At what point did most armies in competitive play enter with a codex army? That is the end of index hammer and the beginning of codex hammer 8th edition. I think it was about the time of the first chapter approved. The game changed so much in this time - there is no reason to even look at results before this. First turn deep strike is such a huge change too. It's why I mentioned the first chapter approved.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Show the evidence. Show your work.
And here's the rub-let's say you're able to find a dozen top-level tournaments where Marines get handily crushed and their highest ranking was 50/200 or so. Does that mean that it's okay for Marines to be OP now, because they sucked before? Even accepting the "they sucked before" as true, that doesn't follow to "So they should be OP now."
Before you say "They're not OP!" one of their basic troops choices, which is a generalist unit, outfights Orks and Genestealers, and outshoots Tau.
Does it matter if my 100 point intercessors outshoot your 90 point firewarriors if...your 250 point broadsides are immune to my intercessors and remove intercessors with trival ease? This argument is so easily countered by custodian gaurd. The gaurd shoot pretty even with them against each other. In melee its a joke. They wipe them out. Per point. Space marines should be beating troops. They pay extra to do that - with the risk that you might not have any troops or have more elite troops.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6. Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Space Marine Codex #1 Release date: July 2017 Orkz Codex Release Date: November 2018 GSC: February 2019 SoB: November 2019
So when you say it was 4-6 months you are ....lying. SoB took 2 years after release to get their codex. Hell, SM got their 2nd codex before SoB got their codex. Also, 4-6 months would be October 2017 to December 2017 and by that point the only factions with a codex were:
Adeptus Mechanicus Astra Militarum Craftworlds Grey Knights Tyranids Blood Angels Chaos Space Marines Dark Angels Death Guard Space Marines
So Nidz, Eldar, Mechanicus and Imperial Guard plus 6 flavors of Power armor. You had Several major factions like Necrons, Space Wolves, Tau, DE, Orkz without a codex for significantly longer
Also, Codex SM wasn't worse than Index Orkz/Sob no matter how you want to slice it. Your girlyman gunline which you don't count for some reason was winning tournaments all the way up until Codex 2.0 came out.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
That seems like an odd take, considering it took what, 1 and a half year, basically half of the entire editions runtime, before everyone got their Codex. Just in time for muhreens to get their second one of course.
Simplistic way to look at it. At what point did most armies in competitive play enter with a codex army? That is the end of index hammer and the beginning of codex hammer 8th edition. I think it was about the time of the first chapter approved. The game changed so much in this time - there is no reason to even look at results before this. First turn deep strike is such a huge change too. It's why I mentioned the first chapter approved.
Yes I wonder why competitive play was dominated by armies with a codex, such a mystery. Even then Marines did not compare unfavourably to at least half the field. Your assertion marines were trash for most of 8th is unfounded.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
That seems like an odd take, considering it took what, 1 and a half year, basically half of the entire editions runtime, before everyone got their Codex. Just in time for muhreens to get their second one of course.
Simplistic way to look at it. At what point did most armies in competitive play enter with a codex army? That is the end of index hammer and the beginning of codex hammer 8th edition. I think it was about the time of the first chapter approved. The game changed so much in this time - there is no reason to even look at results before this. First turn deep strike is such a huge change too. It's why I mentioned the first chapter approved.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Show the evidence. Show your work.
And here's the rub-let's say you're able to find a dozen top-level tournaments where Marines get handily crushed and their highest ranking was 50/200 or so. Does that mean that it's okay for Marines to be OP now, because they sucked before? Even accepting the "they sucked before" as true, that doesn't follow to "So they should be OP now."
Before you say "They're not OP!" one of their basic troops choices, which is a generalist unit, outfights Orks and Genestealers, and outshoots Tau.
Does it matter if my 100 point intercessors outshoot your 90 point firewarriors if...your 250 point broadsides are immune to my intercessors and remove intercessors with trival ease? This argument is so easily countered by custodian gaurd. The gaurd shoot pretty even with them against each other. In melee its a joke. They wipe them out. Per point.
Gasp shock and horror! An artillery heavy support unit can wipe out a generalist troop unit? Say it ain't so! It's certainly not like you could deep strike turn one and melt them with Multi-Meltas to the face! Or use obscuring terrain to avoid taking anything but 4 S5 AP-1 D1 shots hitting on a 4+ from each 100+ point Broadside!
Not to mention, you cap at 9 Broadsides, for over 1,000 points. By all means, put at least half your points in nine T5 W6 2+ baskets. There's certainly no weapons that Marines have that can pop them without too much difficulty.
ITT 'my basic generalist unit beating every other basic generalist unit (and many specialist units, for that matter) is fine because dedicated anti-MEQ specialists can beat it'
Anyone remember back when Xeno was complaining that Guard were underpriced and beat the crap out of Intercessors point-for-point? Someone should have informed him that his complaint was invalid because Aggressors exist.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Space Marine Codex #1 Release date: July 2017
Orkz Codex Release Date: November 2018
GSC: February 2019
SoB: November 2019
So when you say it was 4-6 months you are ....lying. SoB took 2 years after release to get their codex. Hell, SM got their 2nd codex before SoB got their codex. Also, 4-6 months would be October 2017 to December 2017 and by that point the only factions with a codex were:
Adeptus Mechanicus
Astra Militarum
Craftworlds
Grey Knights
Tyranids
Blood Angels
Chaos Space Marines
Dark Angels
Death Guard
Space Marines
So Nidz, Eldar, Mechanicus and Imperial Guard plus 6 flavors of Power armor. You had Several major factions like Necrons, Space Wolves, Tau, DE, Orkz without a codex for significantly longer
Also, Codex SM wasn't worse than Index Orkz/Sob no matter how you want to slice it. Your girlyman gunline which you don't count for some reason was winning tournaments all the way up until Codex 2.0 came out.
Incorrect - SOB index had higher winrate than all marine factions. Especially after the first few months of the edition shook out.
Tau probably were better before their codex came out. Rule of 3 hurt them more than any other rules they got in their codex. Same with nids. Space wolves? Who cares...they are just another marine faction doing poorly - like they all were. Orks once they got their codex were great. Still outperforming marines with their own index. 40 stats is down right now or I'd show you exactly by time period. GK/SM/SW/DA - consistently below 45% WR for over 2 years. It is the bottom of the barrel dude!
You also haven't answered the rather important question of "Even if they sucked before, why should they be OP now?"
You really think that someone playing pre codex BA, DA, SW or GK cared that early 8th ultramarines lists were winning? You know when players of those armies cared about those wins? When GW decided to nerf BA/DA/SW/GK, because vehicles spam armies with re-rolls, those armies didn't have, were too good. Or when rules of 3 was made thing, for everyone because of hive tyrants and tau commanders. Or when GW was telling that psychic powers were too powerful, gave GK nerf psychic mechanics only to put out powerful psychic options for eldar, chaos and other armies just right after they released codex GK.
You also haven't answered the rather important question of "Even if they sucked before, why should they be OP now?"
You really think that someone playing pre codex BA, DA, SW or GK cared that early 8th ultramarines lists were winning? You know when players of those armies cared about those wins? When GW decided to nerf BA/DA/SW/GK, because vehicles spam armies with re-rolls, those armies didn't have, were too good. Or when rules of 3 was made thing, for everyone because of hive tyrants and tau commanders. Or when GW was telling that psychic powers were too powerful, gave GK nerf psychic mechanics only to put out powerful psychic options for eldar, chaos and other armies just right after they released codex GK.
Find me a Chaos list that won with, say, Word Bearers. Or World Eaters.
catbarf wrote: ITT 'my basic generalist unit beating every other basic generalist unit (and many specialist units, for that matter) is fine because dedicated anti-MEQ specialists can beat it'
Anyone remember back when Xeno was complaining that Guard were underpriced and beat the crap out of Intercessors point-for-point? Someone should have informed him that his complaint was invalid because Aggressors exist.
Theres that word basic and also generalist.
Basic troops dont cost 20 PPM compared to the average 7-9. Generalist aren't specialist anti infantry units like intercessors. Fire warriors are a support unit. Space marine are shock troops. Stop trying to break it down to being more simple than it is while simultaneously getting these units roles. The reason marines have sucked forever is because they have paid too much for stats they cant use. Decent melee with no real way to make melee. Decent toughness that is completely ignored by heavy weapons. That is a huge risk putting points into those stats with very little gains capable because they don't deal a lot of damage. You can't expect units like this "full price" for everything.
catbarf wrote: ITT 'my basic generalist unit beating every other basic generalist unit (and many specialist units, for that matter) is fine because dedicated anti-MEQ specialists can beat it'
Anyone remember back when Xeno was complaining that Guard were underpriced and beat the crap out of Intercessors point-for-point? Someone should have informed him that his complaint was invalid because Aggressors exist.
Theres that word basic and also generalist.
Basic troops dont cost 20 PPM compared to the average 7-9. Generalist aren't specialist anti infantry units like intercessors. Fire warriors are a support unit. Space marine are shock troops. Stop trying to break it down to being more simple than it is while simultaneously getting these units roles. The reason marines have sucked forever is because they have paid too much for stats they cant use. Decent melee with no real way to make melee. Decent toughness that is completely ignored by heavy weapons. That is a huge risk putting points into those stats with very little gains capable because they don't deal a lot of damage. You can't expect units like this "full price" for everything.
Simple question, Xeno.
Should Intercessors be better at shooting than Fire Warriors? Should they be better at fighting than Ork Boys or Genestealers? This is point for point, not model to model.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
That seems like an odd take, considering it took what, 1 and a half year, basically half of the entire editions runtime, before everyone got their Codex. Just in time for muhreens to get their second one of course.
Simplistic way to look at it. At what point did most armies in competitive play enter with a codex army? That is the end of index hammer and the beginning of codex hammer 8th edition. I think it was about the time of the first chapter approved. The game changed so much in this time - there is no reason to even look at results before this. First turn deep strike is such a huge change too. It's why I mentioned the first chapter approved.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Show the evidence. Show your work.
And here's the rub-let's say you're able to find a dozen top-level tournaments where Marines get handily crushed and their highest ranking was 50/200 or so. Does that mean that it's okay for Marines to be OP now, because they sucked before? Even accepting the "they sucked before" as true, that doesn't follow to "So they should be OP now."
Before you say "They're not OP!" one of their basic troops choices, which is a generalist unit, outfights Orks and Genestealers, and outshoots Tau.
Does it matter if my 100 point intercessors outshoot your 90 point firewarriors if...your 250 point broadsides are immune to my intercessors and remove intercessors with trival ease? This argument is so easily countered by custodian gaurd. The gaurd shoot pretty even with them against each other. In melee its a joke. They wipe them out. Per point.
Gasp shock and horror! An artillery heavy support unit can wipe out a generalist troop unit? Say it ain't so! It's certainly not like you could deep strike turn one and melt them with Multi-Meltas to the face! Or use obscuring terrain to avoid taking anything but 4 S5 AP-1 D1 shots hitting on a 4+ from each 100+ point Broadside!
Not to mention, you cap at 9 Broadsides, for over 1,000 points. By all means, put at least half your points in nine T5 W6 2+ baskets. There's certainly no weapons that Marines have that can pop them without too much difficulty.
That's not the point. That heavy support units kills marines like they are gaurdsmen. But you still pay 3x more for a marine. Seriously you are trolling if you can not acknowledge this.
JNAProductions wrote: Find me a Chaos list that won with, say, Word Bearers. Or World Eaters.
Or pure Daemons.
Wait why are suddenly using my side of the argument and claim that WB or WE are somehow different from AL or The Ahriman soup. the ahriman soup aside for ahrimans and the sorcs consisted essentialy of demons. And those monster mash or Ahriman list were winning.
If a BA "army" that consited mostly of IG and a castellan is to be considered an army for all marines, according to people like you, then telling me that I somehow have to prove that WB are different from other chaos stuff is a strange one. Either different factions are different, or no factions are. So either I am wrong, or your demons had a good army, you just should have used more tzeench ones and more ahrimans&csmDPs.
JNAProductions wrote: Find me a Chaos list that won with, say, Word Bearers. Or World Eaters.
Or pure Daemons.
Wait why are suddenly using my side of the argument and claim that WB or WE are somehow different from AL or The Ahriman soup. the ahriman soup aside for ahrimans and the sorcs consisted essentialy of demons. And those monster mash or Ahriman list were winning.
If a BA "army" that consited mostly of IG and a castellan is to be considered an army for all marines, according to people like you, then telling me that I somehow have to prove that WB are different from other chaos stuff is a strange one. Either different factions are different, or no factions are. So either I am wrong, or your demons had a good army, you just should have used more tzeench ones and more ahrimans&csmDPs.
That was not a BA army, no matter what anyone says.
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
I said carpet of bodies.
Compare the number of models Orks or Nids can take to the number that Space marines can take. One will be significantly higher than the other.
Call me when Marines can field 300+ bodies at 2k.
If you simply go by # of wounds, that's different altogether. Quantity (of models) has a quality all its own, and all that.
I'm not saying that having a carpet of bodies is always good, but it's a thing that can and has been done, and Marines can't.
catbarf wrote: ITT 'my basic generalist unit beating every other basic generalist unit (and many specialist units, for that matter) is fine because dedicated anti-MEQ specialists can beat it'
Anyone remember back when Xeno was complaining that Guard were underpriced and beat the crap out of Intercessors point-for-point? Someone should have informed him that his complaint was invalid because Aggressors exist.
Theres that word basic and also generalist.
Basic troops dont cost 20 PPM compared to the average 7-9. Generalist aren't specialist anti infantry units like intercessors. Fire warriors are a support unit. Space marine are shock troops. Stop trying to break it down to being more simple than it is while simultaneously getting these units roles. The reason marines have sucked forever is because they have paid too much for stats they cant use. Decent melee with no real way to make melee. Decent toughness that is completely ignored by heavy weapons. That is a huge risk putting points into those stats with very little gains capable because they don't deal a lot of damage. You can't expect units like this "full price" for everything.
Simple question, Xeno.
Should Intercessors be better at shooting than Fire Warriors?
Should they be better at fighting than Ork Boys or Genestealers?
This is point for point, not model to model.
Well they don't do ether of those things. Both those units are just bad vs units with good armor saves. You have to evaluate their shooting vs the same target with different profiles. Plus - a certain value of a unit is just existing. The less total points you spend on a unit means the less points they are putting into points that deal damage.
Example. Unit A cost half as much as unit B and shoots half as good.
You have 2 units A's each on an objective vs 1 unit B on 1 objective.
Tell me...How will unit B ever win? Especially when Unit B has to use melee to get any advantage...and is therefore...losing 2 objectives to 0 or 1 to 0 at best case?
Unit B needs to shoot better and melee better than unit A because unit A can only be in 1 place at a time just like all units and you have half as many of them .
Intercessors do pretty well against any type of infantry.
Chaff infantry out damage intercessors vs other chaff infantry though. Pretty much across the board.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
That seems like an odd take, considering it took what, 1 and a half year, basically half of the entire editions runtime, before everyone got their Codex. Just in time for muhreens to get their second one of course.
Simplistic way to look at it. At what point did most armies in competitive play enter with a codex army? That is the end of index hammer and the beginning of codex hammer 8th edition. I think it was about the time of the first chapter approved. The game changed so much in this time - there is no reason to even look at results before this. First turn deep strike is such a huge change too. It's why I mentioned the first chapter approved.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Show the evidence. Show your work.
And here's the rub-let's say you're able to find a dozen top-level tournaments where Marines get handily crushed and their highest ranking was 50/200 or so. Does that mean that it's okay for Marines to be OP now, because they sucked before? Even accepting the "they sucked before" as true, that doesn't follow to "So they should be OP now."
Before you say "They're not OP!" one of their basic troops choices, which is a generalist unit, outfights Orks and Genestealers, and outshoots Tau.
Does it matter if my 100 point intercessors outshoot your 90 point firewarriors if...your 250 point broadsides are immune to my intercessors and remove intercessors with trival ease? This argument is so easily countered by custodian gaurd. The gaurd shoot pretty even with them against each other. In melee its a joke. They wipe them out. Per point.
Gasp shock and horror! An artillery heavy support unit can wipe out a generalist troop unit? Say it ain't so! It's certainly not like you could deep strike turn one and melt them with Multi-Meltas to the face! Or use obscuring terrain to avoid taking anything but 4 S5 AP-1 D1 shots hitting on a 4+ from each 100+ point Broadside!
Not to mention, you cap at 9 Broadsides, for over 1,000 points. By all means, put at least half your points in nine T5 W6 2+ baskets. There's certainly no weapons that Marines have that can pop them without too much difficulty.
That's not the point. That heavy support units kills marines like they are gaurdsmen. But you still pay 3x more for a marine. Seriously you are trolling if you can not acknowledge this.
So, each Broadside kills, with 8 S7 AP-2 Dd3 shots and 4 S5 AP-1 D1 shots...
About four and a half GEQ in one turn.
...or...
One and four fifths MEQ.
The MEQ do bleed points faster (about 70 points of Intercessors compared to only 22.5 points of GEQ) but against, say, Fire Warriors, they die at exactly the same rate in points. Unless cover gets involved-that favors the Marines by a large margin.
catbarf wrote: ITT 'my basic generalist unit beating every other basic generalist unit (and many specialist units, for that matter) is fine because dedicated anti-MEQ specialists can beat it'
Anyone remember back when Xeno was complaining that Guard were underpriced and beat the crap out of Intercessors point-for-point? Someone should have informed him that his complaint was invalid because Aggressors exist.
Theres that word basic and also generalist.
Basic troops dont cost 20 PPM compared to the average 7-9. Generalist aren't specialist anti infantry units like intercessors. Fire warriors are a support unit. Space marine are shock troops. Stop trying to break it down to being more simple than it is while simultaneously getting these units roles. The reason marines have sucked forever is because they have paid too much for stats they cant use. Decent melee with no real way to make melee. Decent toughness that is completely ignored by heavy weapons. That is a huge risk putting points into those stats with very little gains capable because they don't deal a lot of damage. You can't expect units like this "full price" for everything.
Simple question, Xeno.
Should Intercessors be better at shooting than Fire Warriors?
Should they be better at fighting than Ork Boys or Genestealers?
This is point for point, not model to model.
Well they don't do ether of those things. Both those units are just bad vs units with good armor saves. You have to evaluate their shooting vs the same target with different profiles. Plus - a certain value of a unit is just existing. The less total points you spend on a unit means the less points they are putting into points that deal damage.
Example. Unit A cost half as much as unit B and shoots half as good.
You have 2 units A's each on an objective vs 1 unit B on 1 objective.
Tell me...How will unit B ever win? Especially when Unit B has to use melee to get any advantage...and is therefore...losing 2 objectives to 0 or 1 to 0 at best case?
Intercessors do pretty well against any type of infantry.
Chaff infantry out damage intercessors vs other chaff infantry though. Pretty much across the board.
Give me a unit to compare to. Go on-let me run the numbers.
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
I said carpet of bodies.
Compare the number of models Orks or Nids can take to the number that Space marines can take. One will be significantly higher than the other.
Call me when Marines can field 300+ bodies at 2k.
If you simply go by # of wounds, that's different altogether. Quantity (of models) has a quality all its own, and all that.
I'm not saying that having a carpet of bodies is always good, but it's a thing that can and has been done, and Marines can't.
I'm not buying that an army has to consist of 300 bodies to be a horde.
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
I said carpet of bodies.
Compare the number of models Orks or Nids can take to the number that Space marines can take. One will be significantly higher than the other.
Call me when Marines can field 300+ bodies at 2k.
If you simply go by # of wounds, that's different altogether. Quantity (of models) has a quality all its own, and all that.
I'm not saying that having a carpet of bodies is always good, but it's a thing that can and has been done, and Marines can't.
I'm not buying that an army has to consist of 300 bodies to be a horde.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
That seems like an odd take, considering it took what, 1 and a half year, basically half of the entire editions runtime, before everyone got their Codex. Just in time for muhreens to get their second one of course.
Simplistic way to look at it. At what point did most armies in competitive play enter with a codex army? That is the end of index hammer and the beginning of codex hammer 8th edition. I think it was about the time of the first chapter approved. The game changed so much in this time - there is no reason to even look at results before this. First turn deep strike is such a huge change too. It's why I mentioned the first chapter approved.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Show the evidence. Show your work.
And here's the rub-let's say you're able to find a dozen top-level tournaments where Marines get handily crushed and their highest ranking was 50/200 or so. Does that mean that it's okay for Marines to be OP now, because they sucked before? Even accepting the "they sucked before" as true, that doesn't follow to "So they should be OP now."
Before you say "They're not OP!" one of their basic troops choices, which is a generalist unit, outfights Orks and Genestealers, and outshoots Tau.
Does it matter if my 100 point intercessors outshoot your 90 point firewarriors if...your 250 point broadsides are immune to my intercessors and remove intercessors with trival ease? This argument is so easily countered by custodian gaurd. The gaurd shoot pretty even with them against each other. In melee its a joke. They wipe them out. Per point.
Gasp shock and horror! An artillery heavy support unit can wipe out a generalist troop unit? Say it ain't so! It's certainly not like you could deep strike turn one and melt them with Multi-Meltas to the face! Or use obscuring terrain to avoid taking anything but 4 S5 AP-1 D1 shots hitting on a 4+ from each 100+ point Broadside!
Not to mention, you cap at 9 Broadsides, for over 1,000 points. By all means, put at least half your points in nine T5 W6 2+ baskets. There's certainly no weapons that Marines have that can pop them without too much difficulty.
That's not the point. That heavy support units kills marines like they are gaurdsmen. But you still pay 3x more for a marine. Seriously you are trolling if you can not acknowledge this.
So, each Broadside kills, with 8 S7 AP-2 Dd3 shots and 4 S5 AP-1 D1 shots...
About four and a half GEQ in one turn.
...or...
One and four fifths MEQ.
The MEQ do bleed points faster (about 70 points of Intercessors compared to only 22.5 points of GEQ) but against, say, Fire Warriors, they die at exactly the same rate in points. Unless cover gets involved-that favors the Marines by a large margin.
catbarf wrote: ITT 'my basic generalist unit beating every other basic generalist unit (and many specialist units, for that matter) is fine because dedicated anti-MEQ specialists can beat it'
Anyone remember back when Xeno was complaining that Guard were underpriced and beat the crap out of Intercessors point-for-point? Someone should have informed him that his complaint was invalid because Aggressors exist.
Theres that word basic and also generalist.
Basic troops dont cost 20 PPM compared to the average 7-9. Generalist aren't specialist anti infantry units like intercessors. Fire warriors are a support unit. Space marine are shock troops. Stop trying to break it down to being more simple than it is while simultaneously getting these units roles. The reason marines have sucked forever is because they have paid too much for stats they cant use. Decent melee with no real way to make melee. Decent toughness that is completely ignored by heavy weapons. That is a huge risk putting points into those stats with very little gains capable because they don't deal a lot of damage. You can't expect units like this "full price" for everything.
Simple question, Xeno.
Should Intercessors be better at shooting than Fire Warriors?
Should they be better at fighting than Ork Boys or Genestealers?
This is point for point, not model to model.
Well they don't do ether of those things. Both those units are just bad vs units with good armor saves. You have to evaluate their shooting vs the same target with different profiles. Plus - a certain value of a unit is just existing. The less total points you spend on a unit means the less points they are putting into points that deal damage.
Example. Unit A cost half as much as unit B and shoots half as good.
You have 2 units A's each on an objective vs 1 unit B on 1 objective.
Tell me...How will unit B ever win? Especially when Unit B has to use melee to get any advantage...and is therefore...losing 2 objectives to 0 or 1 to 0 at best case?
Intercessors do pretty well against any type of infantry.
Chaff infantry out damage intercessors vs other chaff infantry though. Pretty much across the board.
Give me a unit to compare to. Go on-let me run the numbers.
Well and then special rules come into play and tau win this by a landslide. More to the point though. Those broadside also can kill tanks. That there is your generalist unit. It doesn't matter what it's shooting - it gets good returns. The intercessors on the other hand...only good against infantry. You want them to go even with infantry even though they bleed 3x the points against heavy shooting?
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
I said carpet of bodies.
Compare the number of models Orks or Nids can take to the number that Space marines can take. One will be significantly higher than the other.
Call me when Marines can field 300+ bodies at 2k.
If you simply go by # of wounds, that's different altogether. Quantity (of models) has a quality all its own, and all that.
I'm not saying that having a carpet of bodies is always good, but it's a thing that can and has been done, and Marines can't.
I'm not buying that an army has to consist of 300 bodies to be a horde.
It's semantics. A horde beats you by preventing you from moving and scoring objectives. Marines aren't really doing that. Too many points spent on being "killy".
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
That seems like an odd take, considering it took what, 1 and a half year, basically half of the entire editions runtime, before everyone got their Codex. Just in time for muhreens to get their second one of course.
Simplistic way to look at it. At what point did most armies in competitive play enter with a codex army? That is the end of index hammer and the beginning of codex hammer 8th edition. I think it was about the time of the first chapter approved. The game changed so much in this time - there is no reason to even look at results before this. First turn deep strike is such a huge change too. It's why I mentioned the first chapter approved.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Show the evidence. Show your work.
And here's the rub-let's say you're able to find a dozen top-level tournaments where Marines get handily crushed and their highest ranking was 50/200 or so. Does that mean that it's okay for Marines to be OP now, because they sucked before? Even accepting the "they sucked before" as true, that doesn't follow to "So they should be OP now."
Before you say "They're not OP!" one of their basic troops choices, which is a generalist unit, outfights Orks and Genestealers, and outshoots Tau.
Does it matter if my 100 point intercessors outshoot your 90 point firewarriors if...your 250 point broadsides are immune to my intercessors and remove intercessors with trival ease? This argument is so easily countered by custodian gaurd. The gaurd shoot pretty even with them against each other. In melee its a joke. They wipe them out. Per point.
Gasp shock and horror! An artillery heavy support unit can wipe out a generalist troop unit? Say it ain't so! It's certainly not like you could deep strike turn one and melt them with Multi-Meltas to the face! Or use obscuring terrain to avoid taking anything but 4 S5 AP-1 D1 shots hitting on a 4+ from each 100+ point Broadside!
Not to mention, you cap at 9 Broadsides, for over 1,000 points. By all means, put at least half your points in nine T5 W6 2+ baskets. There's certainly no weapons that Marines have that can pop them without too much difficulty.
That's not the point. That heavy support units kills marines like they are gaurdsmen. But you still pay 3x more for a marine. Seriously you are trolling if you can not acknowledge this.
So, each Broadside kills, with 8 S7 AP-2 Dd3 shots and 4 S5 AP-1 D1 shots...
About four and a half GEQ in one turn.
...or...
One and four fifths MEQ.
The MEQ do bleed points faster (about 70 points of Intercessors compared to only 22.5 points of GEQ) but against, say, Fire Warriors, they die at exactly the same rate in points. Unless cover gets involved-that favors the Marines by a large margin.
catbarf wrote: ITT 'my basic generalist unit beating every other basic generalist unit (and many specialist units, for that matter) is fine because dedicated anti-MEQ specialists can beat it'
Anyone remember back when Xeno was complaining that Guard were underpriced and beat the crap out of Intercessors point-for-point? Someone should have informed him that his complaint was invalid because Aggressors exist.
Theres that word basic and also generalist.
Basic troops dont cost 20 PPM compared to the average 7-9. Generalist aren't specialist anti infantry units like intercessors. Fire warriors are a support unit. Space marine are shock troops. Stop trying to break it down to being more simple than it is while simultaneously getting these units roles. The reason marines have sucked forever is because they have paid too much for stats they cant use. Decent melee with no real way to make melee. Decent toughness that is completely ignored by heavy weapons. That is a huge risk putting points into those stats with very little gains capable because they don't deal a lot of damage. You can't expect units like this "full price" for everything.
Simple question, Xeno.
Should Intercessors be better at shooting than Fire Warriors?
Should they be better at fighting than Ork Boys or Genestealers?
This is point for point, not model to model.
Well they don't do ether of those things. Both those units are just bad vs units with good armor saves. You have to evaluate their shooting vs the same target with different profiles. Plus - a certain value of a unit is just existing. The less total points you spend on a unit means the less points they are putting into points that deal damage.
Example. Unit A cost half as much as unit B and shoots half as good.
You have 2 units A's each on an objective vs 1 unit B on 1 objective.
Tell me...How will unit B ever win? Especially when Unit B has to use melee to get any advantage...and is therefore...losing 2 objectives to 0 or 1 to 0 at best case?
Intercessors do pretty well against any type of infantry.
Chaff infantry out damage intercessors vs other chaff infantry though. Pretty much across the board.
Give me a unit to compare to. Go on-let me run the numbers.
Well and then special rules come into play and tau win this by a landslide. More to the point though. Those broadside also can kill tanks. That there is your generalist unit. It doesn't matter what it's shooting - it gets good returns. The intercessors on the other hand...only good against infantry. You want them to go even with infantry even though they bleed 3x the points against heavy shooting?
So that's a no? You cannot name a unit that you want compared?
As for shooting tanks... S7 is not good for the heavy tanks. It takes 15 Broadsides, equipped as said above, to kill one 4++ or 2+ Knight. You can't take that many Broadsides, and if you could, it would run you just shy of 2,000 points.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
That seems like an odd take, considering it took what, 1 and a half year, basically half of the entire editions runtime, before everyone got their Codex. Just in time for muhreens to get their second one of course.
Simplistic way to look at it. At what point did most armies in competitive play enter with a codex army? That is the end of index hammer and the beginning of codex hammer 8th edition. I think it was about the time of the first chapter approved. The game changed so much in this time - there is no reason to even look at results before this. First turn deep strike is such a huge change too. It's why I mentioned the first chapter approved.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Show the evidence. Show your work.
And here's the rub-let's say you're able to find a dozen top-level tournaments where Marines get handily crushed and their highest ranking was 50/200 or so. Does that mean that it's okay for Marines to be OP now, because they sucked before? Even accepting the "they sucked before" as true, that doesn't follow to "So they should be OP now."
Before you say "They're not OP!" one of their basic troops choices, which is a generalist unit, outfights Orks and Genestealers, and outshoots Tau.
Does it matter if my 100 point intercessors outshoot your 90 point firewarriors if...your 250 point broadsides are immune to my intercessors and remove intercessors with trival ease? This argument is so easily countered by custodian gaurd. The gaurd shoot pretty even with them against each other. In melee its a joke. They wipe them out. Per point.
Gasp shock and horror! An artillery heavy support unit can wipe out a generalist troop unit? Say it ain't so! It's certainly not like you could deep strike turn one and melt them with Multi-Meltas to the face! Or use obscuring terrain to avoid taking anything but 4 S5 AP-1 D1 shots hitting on a 4+ from each 100+ point Broadside!
Not to mention, you cap at 9 Broadsides, for over 1,000 points. By all means, put at least half your points in nine T5 W6 2+ baskets. There's certainly no weapons that Marines have that can pop them without too much difficulty.
That's not the point. That heavy support units kills marines like they are gaurdsmen. But you still pay 3x more for a marine. Seriously you are trolling if you can not acknowledge this.
So, each Broadside kills, with 8 S7 AP-2 Dd3 shots and 4 S5 AP-1 D1 shots...
About four and a half GEQ in one turn.
...or...
One and four fifths MEQ.
The MEQ do bleed points faster (about 70 points of Intercessors compared to only 22.5 points of GEQ) but against, say, Fire Warriors, they die at exactly the same rate in points. Unless cover gets involved-that favors the Marines by a large margin.
catbarf wrote: ITT 'my basic generalist unit beating every other basic generalist unit (and many specialist units, for that matter) is fine because dedicated anti-MEQ specialists can beat it'
Anyone remember back when Xeno was complaining that Guard were underpriced and beat the crap out of Intercessors point-for-point? Someone should have informed him that his complaint was invalid because Aggressors exist.
Theres that word basic and also generalist.
Basic troops dont cost 20 PPM compared to the average 7-9. Generalist aren't specialist anti infantry units like intercessors. Fire warriors are a support unit. Space marine are shock troops. Stop trying to break it down to being more simple than it is while simultaneously getting these units roles. The reason marines have sucked forever is because they have paid too much for stats they cant use. Decent melee with no real way to make melee. Decent toughness that is completely ignored by heavy weapons. That is a huge risk putting points into those stats with very little gains capable because they don't deal a lot of damage. You can't expect units like this "full price" for everything.
Simple question, Xeno.
Should Intercessors be better at shooting than Fire Warriors?
Should they be better at fighting than Ork Boys or Genestealers?
This is point for point, not model to model.
Well they don't do ether of those things. Both those units are just bad vs units with good armor saves. You have to evaluate their shooting vs the same target with different profiles. Plus - a certain value of a unit is just existing. The less total points you spend on a unit means the less points they are putting into points that deal damage.
Example. Unit A cost half as much as unit B and shoots half as good.
You have 2 units A's each on an objective vs 1 unit B on 1 objective.
Tell me...How will unit B ever win? Especially when Unit B has to use melee to get any advantage...and is therefore...losing 2 objectives to 0 or 1 to 0 at best case?
Intercessors do pretty well against any type of infantry.
Chaff infantry out damage intercessors vs other chaff infantry though. Pretty much across the board.
Give me a unit to compare to. Go on-let me run the numbers.
Well and then special rules come into play and tau win this by a landslide. More to the point though. Those broadside also can kill tanks. That there is your generalist unit. It doesn't matter what it's shooting - it gets good returns. The intercessors on the other hand...only good against infantry. You want them to go even with infantry even though they bleed 3x the points against heavy shooting?
So that's a no? You cannot name a unit that you want compared?
As for shooting tanks... S7 is not good for the heavy tanks. It takes 15 Broadsides, equipped as said above, to kill one 4++ or 2+ Knight. You can't take that many Broadsides, and if you could, it would run you just shy of 2,000 points.
Typically when you choose a str 7 vs t8 or any just 1 less type situation you will get horrible results. broadsides do great against t7 units and typically you are throwing a seeker missle on them as well which helps even more. A lot better than intercessors anyways which is the point. Broadside can kill chaff/ elites/ or tanks...just not titan lvl units. Though as tau sept with +1 to wound they abolsutely can too.
For every favorable match you can name for intercessors there is an unfavorable one. This this not the case with OP units. Eradicators on the other hand - they are just too good. No argument here.
regarding the index, era BTW, I thought I'd present some dates.
8th edition launch: June 2017
Codex Space Marines 8.0: July 2017
Codex CSMs and Codex GKs: Aug 2017
Codex Death Guard: Sept 2017
Codex Admech Sept 2017
Codex Astra Millitarium Oct 2017
Codex: CWE Oct 2017
Codex Tyranids: Nov 2017
Codex Blood Angels: dec 2017
Codex Dark Angels Dec 2017
Now generally one can note distinct design change paradymes in an edition of 40k (such as in 7th edition generally one could class an army as eaither being pre or post necron codex)
8th edition IMHO had two cases of this.
Xeno isn't wrong that the inital 8th edition codices where fairly restrained. chapter tactics was only given to infantry bikes and dreads. for example. with the CWE and Guard codices, GW largely abandoned that and gave chapter tactics to everyone, outside of "marine" factions (and custodes because a 6++ invul save on a land raider would clearly be broken right?) the marine codices after this where still designed with this restrained mentality, but other codices less so.
The second shift, of course was the space marine 8.5 codex. which included some anti-soup rules and faction customization options this paradyme seems to be the current design philophsy for 9th edition codices, given the necrons have those traits as well.
I'm hoping they stick to the same design philophsy for all 0f 9th edition. generally speaking the biggest problem with 40k from a balance POV is when midway through the edition they completely change their entire design philophsy
Quasistellar wrote: People keep coming back at me with this "horde" word as if it matters.
I said carpet of bodies.
Which even Ork Boyz can't do.
I mean, sure, Marines can't fit 300 models into a 2K pointer. Ok.
But if the idea is to drown the enemy in bodies, having half as many, but tougher bodies might still work. 100 Tactical Marines seems possible. The real question is if it actually outperforms 400 Gants. . . which, honestly, it might.
Incorrect - SOB index had higher winrate than all marine factions. Especially after the first few months of the edition shook out. Tau probably were better before their codex came out. Rule of 3 hurt them more than any other rules they got in their codex. Same with nids. Space wolves? Who cares...they are just another marine faction doing poorly - like they all were. Orks once they got their codex were great. Still outperforming marines with their own index. 40 stats is down right now or I'd show you exactly by time period. GK/SM/SW/DA - consistently below 45% WR for over 2 years. It is the bottom of the barrel dude!
And right back into Win rate as if that is a useful metric at the tournament level. Let me ask you this simple question, If SM get 3 of the top 4 places in a tournament but have a WR of 40% does that mean SM are doing poorly? The obvious answer is no. Well during that "OMG my speese mehreens are doing bad!" phase that you constantly talk about and try to use WR as proof, SMs were winning tournaments and placing HIGHLY in GTs and the biggest events like Adepticon and LVO. So no, no matter how much you want to complain, SM were doing just fine, you guys were solidly mid tier with a build that was so competitive that it was winning major events.
You constantly are misrepresenting data to try and prove a point nobody else agrees with, it would be nice if you could just admit that your point (Marines were bottom tier) is wrong.
pothocboots wrote: I don't think quasistellar's idea is to drown the enemy in bodies, rather the board itself.
Not that a sufficient swarm of tacs wouldn't be a horde.
Also perhaps fluffy, a company is 100 marines right?
Yes, but in the post-Heresy era deploying a whole company in one place at one time is really unusual. And deploying a hundred Tactical Marines with bolters and no vehicle support isn't fluffy in any context.
pothocboots wrote: I don't think quasistellar's idea is to drown the enemy in bodies, rather the board itself.
Not that a sufficient swarm of tacs wouldn't be a horde.
Also perhaps fluffy, a company is 100 marines right?
Sure, but then you get into "area of control" territory, and since the Tacs have a longer range than many "horde" units, it would still seem to come into play. Or perhaps they're viable enough to split off and cover a sizeable piece of the now smaller table on their own. They could certainly support each other better than Gants with a 12" range Fleshborer can.
Basic troops dont cost 20 PPM compared to the average 7-9. Generalist aren't specialist anti infantry units like intercessors. Fire warriors are a support unit. Space marine are shock troops. Stop trying to break it down to being more simple than it is while simultaneously getting these units roles. The reason marines have sucked forever is because they have paid too much for stats they cant use. Decent melee with no real way to make melee. Decent toughness that is completely ignored by heavy weapons. That is a huge risk putting points into those stats with very little gains capable because they don't deal a lot of damage. You can't expect units like this "full price" for everything.
And you pop right into a semantic argument. Yes your intercessors and tac marines are YOUR BASIC TROOP CHOICE, just because you want to think of them as sooper speshul doesn't make them not the SM codex basic troops choice.
Now if you want to argue that Intercessors are not a generalist unit but are instead a multi-faceted specialist unit that excels at durability, ranged combat and close combat, yeah we could have that argument, but I'll warn you, it immediately means they are drastically under priced, upwards of 7ppm under priced. So if you want your BASIC troops choice to be better at ranged combat than a troops choice that is only good at ranged combat, point for point, and you want them to also be better at CC than a specialist CC troop choice that doesn't even have guns, point for point, and you want them to be more durable vs basic infantry weapons, than you aren't arguing for balance, you are arguing for being better than everyone else.
And yet again, Marines have not sucked forever. They were without a doubt one of the top 2 or 3 factions in the entire game for 8th and 7th.
Should Intercessors be better at shooting than Fire Warriors? Should they be better at fighting than Ork Boys or Genestealers? This is point for point, not model to model.
Well they don't do ether of those things. Both those units are just bad vs units with good armor saves. You have to evaluate their shooting vs the same target with different profiles. Plus - a certain value of a unit is just existing. The less total points you spend on a unit means the less points they are putting into points that deal damage. Example. Unit A cost half as much as unit B and shoots half as good. You have 2 units A's each on an objective vs 1 unit B on 1 objective. Tell me...How will unit B ever win? Especially when Unit B has to use melee to get any advantage...and is therefore...losing 2 objectives to 0 or 1 to 0 at best case? Unit B needs to shoot better and melee better than unit A because unit A can only be in 1 place at a time just like all units and you have half as many of them . Intercessors do pretty well against any type of infantry. Chaff infantry out damage intercessors vs other chaff infantry though. Pretty much across the board.
Yes intercessors out shoot fire warriors and out fight genestealers. point for point.
20 firewarriors = 180pts, 9 intercessors = 180pts. 20 firewarriors get 20 shots, 10 hits, 6.66 wounds for 5.55 Dead ork boyz. 9 Intercessors get 18 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds for 6 Dead Ork boyz. CC 20 Firewarriors 20 attacks, 6.66 hits, 2.22 wounds and 1.85 dead orkz 9 Intercessors get 28 attacks, 18.6 hits, 9.3 wounds and 7.77 dead boyz
Against one another though 20 firewarriors, 20 shots, 10 hits, 6.66 wounds 2 Dmg, 1 dead intercessor (20pts lost) 9 intercessors get 18 shots, 12 hits, 8 wounds for 5.33 dead firewarriors (45pts lost) CC 20 attacks, 6.6 hits, 2.2 wounds and .73ish wounds. no dead marines (0pts lost) 28 attacks, 18.6 hits, 12.4 wounds and 6.2 dead Tau firewarriors (54pts lost)
At half range firewarriors do more damage but at the same time, if firewarriors are 15' from ork boyz, they are dead the next turn, where as those intercessors will move 6' double tap and attempt a charge, and if they get into CC with those ork boyz, they win.
8 genestealers = 120pts 6 intercessors = 120pts. 8 genestealers get 24 attacks, 16 hits, 8 wounds for 8 dead Orkz 6 Intercessors get 19 attacks, 12.33 hits, 6.16 wounds and 5ish dead ork boyz WOOHOO!!! Genestealers win killing orkz. Against one another though
Genestealers get 24 attacks, 16 hits, 8 wounds about 4 wounds, 2 dead intercessors. (40pts lost) Intercessors 19 attacks, 12.33 hits, 6.16 wounds for 4 wounds or 4 dead genestealers (60pts lost)
At Range. Genestealers get 0 shots, 0 hits, 0 wounds for 0 dmg. (0pts lost) Intercessors get 12 shots, 8 hits, 4 wounds and 2.66 dead Genestealers (30-45pts lost)
Oh no, intercessors out kill genestealers in CC, and lets not even get into the fact that those intercessors would have been plinking away from 30' with their rifles
Your other frequent argument is that firewarriors are better vs vehicles.
Infact, i think the only vehicles that are more vulnerable to Firewarriors than intercessors are T8 vehicles and even then its only by 0.33dmg, not to mention that if it just happens to be in tac doctrine turn their dmg actually goes up to the same amount.
Maybe you want to compare guardsmen? 12 guardsmen = 60pts (I openly admit undercosted) 3 intercessors = 60pts
12 guardsmen get 12 shots, 6 hits and 2 wounds vs Orkz for 1.33 dead orkz. 3 Intercessors get 6 shots, 4 hits 2 wounds for 2 dead orkz.
What else do you want to compare intercessors to in order to try and make your argument? I highly recommend you ignore durability, because right now its not even remotely close.
Breton wrote: Because the index was just a filler until codexes could be released?
And does it change the fact that games were played with this filler? I mean, literally every rule in the history of 40k could be considered a "filler" for the next one. We never play with finished book because 40k has never been a finished game. Every time it came close, new edition came.
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Space Marine Codex #1 Release date: July 2017
Orkz Codex Release Date: November 2018
GSC: February 2019
SoB: November 2019
So when you say it was 4-6 months you are ....lying. SoB took 2 years after release to get their codex. Hell, SM got their 2nd codex before SoB got their codex. Also, 4-6 months would be October 2017 to December 2017 and by that point the only factions with a codex were:
Adeptus Mechanicus
Astra Militarum
Craftworlds
Grey Knights
Tyranids
Blood Angels
Chaos Space Marines
Dark Angels
Death Guard
Space Marines
So Nidz, Eldar, Mechanicus and Imperial Guard plus 6 flavors of Power armor. You had Several major factions like Necrons, Space Wolves, Tau, DE, Orkz without a codex for significantly longer
Also, Codex SM wasn't worse than Index Orkz/Sob no matter how you want to slice it. Your girlyman gunline which you don't count for some reason was winning tournaments all the way up until Codex 2.0 came out.
So you’re saying he was lying about the SM supremacy ending 4-6 months in when the IG and CWE codexes came out by proving.... the IG and CWE codexes were out in those first 4-6 months? Oh wait.
Quasistellar wrote: People keep coming back at me with this "horde" word as if it matters.
I said carpet of bodies.
Which even Ork Boyz can't do.
I mean, sure, Marines can't fit 300 models into a 2K pointer. Ok.
But if the idea is to drown the enemy in bodies, having half as many, but tougher bodies might still work. 100 Tactical Marines seems possible. The real question is if it actually outperforms 400 Gants. . . which, honestly, it might.
100 tactical marines isn’t possible. You’d need three HQs, 3 elites, 3 FA, and 3 HS or some such. Even 100 first born assorted marines probably isn’t very possible. Definitely not with even minimal options like heavy bolters etc. 100 first born with no upgrades is going to run you roughly 1800 points, and a cap/LT will eat up the last 200.
400 gaunts will run you what 1600? Leaving a couple hundred for HQs and a couple hundred for some sort of specialist(s)? And no, 400 gaunts require 400 shots. 100 first born require 100 shots.
Those 37 Custodes (max 2K according to someone else I’m taking their word for it right now) get at most (usually) two shots per battle round. 37*2*5 = 370 shots the whole game if everything goes their way. 30 gaunts, plus hqs plus those specials will never be shot at.you can’t even roll lucky enough to take them out because you can’t even roll that many dice.
Merge the wounds and armor save into 2W and a 3+ and what have you got? Pretty close to a Primaris marine for 5 points less?
It costs more, but not enough more.
Point for point, Intercessors outfight Boys and outshoot Fire Warriors. Not against every single target in the game-but against most targets.
And what on earth do you mean by combining their profiles like that? By that logic, I have a 500 point Knight Gallant. It's combined with 20 Guardsmen, giving it an extra 20 wounds at 5 points each.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: And no, 400 gaunts require 400 shots. 100 first born require 100 shots.
Merge the wounds and armor save into 2W and a 3+ and what have you got? Pretty close to a Primaris marine for 5 points less?
I'm kind of confused as to what you are saying here. Are you saying that if you taped a Fire Warrior and an Ork Boy together, gave it an extra wound, better saves, and a better balistic skill, while maintaining the best aspects of the melee/ranged weapons they have access to by default, that they would be the equivalent of a Primaris Intercessor for 5 points cheaper?
I mean yes, that is true, but that involves literally mashing two separate units with different focuses together, taking their best abilities, and even then fudging their stats to match them.
Merge the wounds and armor save into 2W and a 3+ and what have you got? Pretty close to a Primaris marine for 5 points less?
It costs more, but not enough more.
Point for point, Intercessors outfight Boys and outshoot Fire Warriors. Not against every single target in the game-but against most targets.
And what on earth do you mean by combining their profiles like that? By that logic, I have a 500 point Knight Gallant. It's combined with 20 Guardsmen, giving it an extra 20 wounds at 5 points each.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: And no, 400 gaunts require 400 shots. 100 first born require 100 shots.
If all the shots are AP-4 and D2 or better, sure.
You didn’t understand that a Primaris Intercessor has roughly the best stat from both those models, and both their wounds for (very roughly) their combined point for point cost? And no, no matter how times you make the claim, one Primaris Intercessor does not outshoot 3 fire warriors, or out fight 2 and a half boys. Just saying “point for point” doesn’t make your NOT point for point comparison accurate.
Especially if you didn’t understand that point for point an Intercessor is an Ork Boy AND a Tau Fire Warrior. And still costs more, point for point, to boot.
I mean yes, that is true, but that involves literally mashing two separate units with different focuses together, taking their best abilities, and even then fudging their stats to match them.
It figuratively involves mashing two units with a specific focus to compare them and their discount price for that one phase focus to another unit that has a two phase focus.
Merge the wounds and armor save into 2W and a 3+ and what have you got? Pretty close to a Primaris marine for 5 points less?
Just posted the point for point comparisons....low and behold, Intercessors are better point for point. Beautiful comparison though. "Look if i merge these units together, they are almost as good as a Primaris Marine!" Honestly, what is the point of that?
Because it it an irrelevant period. It's like caring who wins preseason football games.
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
Space Marine Codex #1 Release date: July 2017
Orkz Codex Release Date: November 2018
GSC: February 2019
SoB: November 2019
So when you say it was 4-6 months you are ....lying. SoB took 2 years after release to get their codex. Hell, SM got their 2nd codex before SoB got their codex. Also, 4-6 months would be October 2017 to December 2017 and by that point the only factions with a codex were:
Adeptus Mechanicus
Astra Militarum
Craftworlds
Grey Knights
Tyranids
Blood Angels
Chaos Space Marines
Dark Angels
Death Guard
Space Marines
So Nidz, Eldar, Mechanicus and Imperial Guard plus 6 flavors of Power armor. You had Several major factions like Necrons, Space Wolves, Tau, DE, Orkz without a codex for significantly longer
Also, Codex SM wasn't worse than Index Orkz/Sob no matter how you want to slice it. Your girlyman gunline which you don't count for some reason was winning tournaments all the way up until Codex 2.0 came out.
So you’re saying he was lying about the SM supremacy ending 4-6 months in when the IG and CWE codexes came out by proving.... the IG and CWE codexes were out in those first 4-6 months? Oh wait.
If only there was a way to look up past tournaments from 2018 and see how Space Marines of all flavors did? Ohh wait there is, Adepticon 2018, #1 Blood Angels, #7, 13, 15 Dark Angels, #19, 21, 25 Space Marines So Marines of 3 separate flavors finished in 7 of the top 25 places in a 250+ player tournament. (9 if you include custodes).
In fact, per BoK, in 2018, Smurfs and regular marines had 29 Top 3 finishes in GTs and Majors in 2018. Which put them at 6th overall and in tight contention with 4th place. The only stand out armies were Space Elves and Imperial Guard go figure, and that had less to do with IG rather than using them as CP batteries for the broken knights. Ohh, and those Orkz that Xenos said did better with index than Marines did with a codex? Yeah they had 13 total placings, and that includes them being played by 2 of the best players in the entire game (Nick Nanavati and Steven Pampreen)
SemperMortis wrote: If only there was a way to look up past tournaments from 2018 and see how Space Marines of all flavors did? Ohh wait there is, Adepticon 2018, #1 Blood Angels, #7, 13, 15 Dark Angels, #19, 21, 25 Space Marines So Marines of 3 separate flavors finished in 7 of the top 25 places in a 250+ player tournament. (9 if you include custodes).
In fact, per BoK, in 2018, Smurfs and regular marines had 29 Top 3 finishes in GTs and Majors in 2018. Which put them at 6th overall and in tight contention with 4th place. The only stand out armies were Space Elves and Imperial Guard go figure, and that had less to do with IG rather than using them as CP batteries for the broken knights. Ohh, and those Orkz that Xenos said did better with index than Marines did with a codex? Yeah they had 13 total placings, and that includes them being played by 2 of the best players in the entire game (Nick Nanavati and Steven Pampreen)
That’s why you spent so much time misrepresenting his claim and how long it took to roll out all the codexes when his point was specifically about those two and the first 4-6 months? If you can’t be honest about what he said, I’m not going to hold my breath about the rest of your claims. Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure. And there’s a stat for everything.
An Intercessor is worth 2.2 repeating Fire Warriors, or 2.5 Boys. But yeah, three Fire Warriors would probably outshoot a single Intercessor against a decent range of targets. They also cost 35% more, and have absolute CRAP for melee. So they should.
You didn’t understand that a Primaris Intercessor has roughly the best stat from both those models, and both their wounds for (very roughly) their combined point for point cost? And no, no matter how times you make the claim, one Primaris Intercessor does not outshoot 3 fire warriors, or out fight 2 and a half boys. Just saying “point for point” doesn’t make your NOT point for point comparison accurate.
3 Firewarriors is 27pts, so yeah, 1 intercessor at 20pts does not outperform 3 firewarriors, what he does do though is outperform them on an equivalent footing. The math I did was 180pts of Firewarriors (20 of them) vs 9 Intercessors, because that is a good comparison and equal points. And yes, intercessors absolutely out shoot those firewarriors, the only thing Firewarriors excel at (slightly) is T8. In CC I compared them against genestealers but if you wanted to do Boyz than a comparison would be 10 Orkz vs 4 intercessors. I am assuming you want to give the boyz choppas.
30 attacks, 20 hits, 10 wounds 3.33 dmg, Marines lose equivalent to 33pts
intercessors get 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds for 3.33 dmg. orkz lose equivalent to 26.66pts.
Marines lost 25% unit damage capacity, orkz lost 30%.
Next round Orkz only get 21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounds for 1 more dead Marine.
Marines get 6 attacks 4 hits, 2 wounds for 2 more dead Orkz.
Marines are at 50% fighting strength, orkz are as well. Dmg potential, Orkz are just barely edging out the marines, so long as we don't include the pistols both sides are carrying which will skew the data in favor of the marines.
So yes, Intercessors, point for point perform as well as Ork choppa boyz and are vastly superior to Ork Shoota boyz. And at range they are significantly better. Those 4 Intercessors at range kill 2-3 boyz a turn while the ork boyz can't even return fire until they are within charge range.
JNAProductions wrote: An Intercessor is worth 2.2 repeating Fire Warriors, or 2.5 Boys. But yeah, three Fire Warriors would probably outshoot a single Intercessor against a decent range of targets. They also cost 35% more, and have absolute CRAP for melee. So they should.
Tell me more. I’m curious to know how 1 intercessor with 2 WS3+ S4 -0 attacks + 1 some of the time is out fighting 2.5 x 2 WS3 S4 -0 + 1 all the Time attacks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote: 3 Firewarriors is 27pts, so yeah, 1 intercessor at 20pts does not outperform 3 firewarriors,
Yeah, I was doing pre-CA, my bad. Hadn’t seen your math and thought they were one of the few that didn’t get changed.
what he does do though is outperform them on an equivalent footing. The math I did was 180pts of Firewarriors (20 of them) vs 9 Intercessors, because that is a good comparison and equal points. And yes, intercessors absolutely out shoot those firewarriors, the only thing Firewarriors excel at (slightly) is T8. In CC I compared them against genestealers but if you wanted to do Boyz than a comparison would be 10 Orkz vs 4 intercessors. I am assuming you want to give the boyz choppas.
30 attacks, 20 hits, 10 wounds 3.33 dmg, Marines lose equivalent to 33pts
intercessors get 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds for 3.33 dmg. orkz lose equivalent to 26.66pts.
Marines lost 25% unit damage capacity, orkz lost 30%.
Next round Orkz only get 21 attacks, 14 hits, 7 wounds for 1 more dead Marine.
Marines get 6 attacks 4 hits, 2 wounds for 2 more dead Orkz.
Marines are at 50% fighting strength, orkz are as well. Dmg potential, Orkz are just barely edging out the marines, so long as we don't include the pistols both sides are carrying which will skew the data in favor of the marines.
So yes, Intercessors, point for point perform as well as Ork choppa boyz and are vastly superior to Ork Shoota boyz. And at range they are significantly better. Those 4 Intercessors at range kill 2-3 boyz a turn while the ork boyz can't even return fire until they are within charge range.
I think we just moved some goalposts. Why did we do Tau and Marines shooting at Orks, but Marines and Orks are... fighting each other? Why aren’t they fighting the same target? Oh wait. I see why.
That’s why you spent so much time misrepresenting his claim and how long it took to roll out all the codexes when his point was specifically about those two and the first 4-6 months? If you can’t be honest about what he said, I’m not going to hold my breath about the rest of your claims. Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure. And there’s a stat for everything.
Its like you enjoy lying and misrepresenting what I have said in order to try and win an argument you know you've already lost.
Original comment from me
LMAO, who cares about that first 18 months of 8th edition where not everyone had a codex, that doesn't count.
His response
It wasn't 18 months. It was like 4-6.
Once imperial guard and eldar came out. Marines were out of the game essentially. What's funny is index orks and index sisters out performed marines after this point lol.
I just proved that 1: Index orkz and SoB were not as good as codex Space Marines by showing top finishes in GT's and majors. (SoB only had 8) I proved that once IG and Eldar came out that Marines still were winning and more importantly, the part you seem to gloss over. I was showing that it took about 18 months before every major faction got a codex. So saying Index hammer doesn't count is basically cutting the edition in half.
I think we just moved some goalposts. Why did we do Tau and Marines shooting at Orks, but Marines and Orks are... fighting each other? Why aren’t they fighting the same target? Oh wait. I see why.
Then scroll up and see me break down Tau firewarriors and genestealers and Marine intercessors all beating on Orkz and or each other in detail, both ranged and in CC. I ran the numbers, intercessors are vastly superior.
Its like you enjoy lying and misrepresenting what I have said in order to try and win an argument you know you've already lost.
I know you are but what am I? Accusing me of lying and misrepresenting right after I just quote tweeted you doing it isn’t the best move you could make. He said it (the dominance) ended in 4-6 months when two specific codexes came out. You then lied about what he said to try and make a different point you could “win” at about how long it took for SOB to come out.
Its like you enjoy lying and misrepresenting what I have said in order to try and win an argument you know you've already lost.
I know you are but what am I? Accusing me of lying and misrepresenting right after I just quote tweeted you doing it isn’t the best move you could make. He said it (the dominance) ended in 4-6 months when two specific codexes came out. You then lied about what he said to try and make a different point you could “win” at about how long it took for SOB to come out.
4 to 6 months ends in december of 2017. I showed tournament results from 2018. SM finished 6th overall and were in close contention with 5th and 4th place. Clearly they were still performing fine after that 6 month window he randomly chose. So again, you and he are both wrong. Ohh and here it is incase you want to be lazy.
Yes intercessors out shoot fire warriors and out fight genestealers. point for point.
20 firewarriors = 180pts, 9 intercessors = 180pts.
20 firewarriors get 20 shots, 10 hits, 6.66 wounds for 5.55 Dead ork boyz.
9 Intercessors get 18 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds for 6 Dead Ork boyz.
CC 20 Firewarriors 20 attacks, 6.66 hits, 2.22 wounds and 1.85 dead orkz
9 Intercessors get 28 attacks, 18.6 hits, 9.3 wounds and 7.77 dead boyz
Against one another though
20 firewarriors, 20 shots, 10 hits, 6.66 wounds 2 Dmg, 1 dead intercessor (20pts lost)
9 intercessors get 18 shots, 12 hits, 8 wounds for 5.33 dead firewarriors (45pts lost)
CC 20 attacks, 6.6 hits, 2.2 wounds and .73ish wounds. no dead marines (0pts lost)
28 attacks, 18.6 hits, 12.4 wounds and 6.2 dead Tau firewarriors (54pts lost)
At half range firewarriors do more damage but at the same time, if firewarriors are 15' from ork boyz, they are dead the next turn, where as those intercessors will move 6' double tap and attempt a charge, and if they get into CC with those ork boyz, they win.
8 genestealers = 120pts 6 intercessors = 120pts.
8 genestealers get 24 attacks, 16 hits, 8 wounds for 8 dead Orkz
6 Intercessors get 19 attacks, 12.33 hits, 6.16 wounds and 5ish dead ork boyz WOOHOO!!! Genestealers win killing orkz.
Against one another though
Genestealers get 24 attacks, 16 hits, 8 wounds about 4 wounds, 2 dead intercessors. (40pts lost)
Intercessors 19 attacks, 12.33 hits, 6.16 wounds for 4 wounds or 4 dead genestealers (60pts lost)
At Range.
Genestealers get 0 shots, 0 hits, 0 wounds for 0 dmg. (0pts lost)
Intercessors get 12 shots, 8 hits, 4 wounds and 2.66 dead Genestealers (30-45pts lost)
Oh no, intercessors out kill genestealers in CC, and lets not even get into the fact that those intercessors would have been plinking away from 30' with their rifles
Your other frequent argument is that firewarriors are better vs vehicles.
Infact, i think the only vehicles that are more vulnerable to Firewarriors than intercessors are T8 vehicles and even then its only by 0.33dmg, not to mention that if it just happens to be in tac doctrine turn their dmg actually goes up to the same amount.
Maybe you want to compare guardsmen?
12 guardsmen = 60pts (I openly admit undercosted)
3 intercessors = 60pts
12 guardsmen get 12 shots, 6 hits and 2 wounds vs Orkz for 1.33 dead orkz.
3 Intercessors get 6 shots, 4 hits 2 wounds for 2 dead orkz.
What else do you want to compare intercessors to in order to try and make your argument? I highly recommend you ignore durability, because right now its not even remotely close.
Then scroll up and see me break down Tau firewarriors and genestealers and Marine intercessors all beating on Orkz and or each other in detail, both ranged and in CC. I ran the numbers, intercessors are vastly superior.
I’m dying to hear about how one 20 point model with 2 attacks plus 1 some of the time out fights 2 and a half 2+1 all the time attacks. But just like your strawman aimed at that other guy I’m not holding my breath for anything honest
Testy and irrational stuff in defense of Marines winds up self-fulfilling the prophecies by making it very difficult to keep the fury correctly laser-focused on GW, and winds up with people really, really wanting to attack Marine players. Some of them do, and then the Marine players say "You just hate marines!" And the cycle devolves.
SemperMortis wrote: 4 to 6 months ends in december of 2017. I showed tournament results from 2018. SM finished 6th overall and were in close contention with 5th and 4th place. Clearly they were still performing fine after that 6 month window he randomly chose. So again, you and he are both wrong. Ohh and here it is incase you want to be lazy.
I’m not so lazy I don’t see you still lying about what what said. He made a claim, you misrepresented it and went off on all the other codexes not being out in 4-6 months.
I’m also not so lazy I don’t see you disregard anything that doesn’t fit your narrative like those firewarriors in half range instead of acknowledging a narrow exception. Like an honest person would.
And finally, I’m not so lazy I didn’t notice you changing from shooting the same target to fighting each other to muddy the waters with mixed durability. But I get it. Nobody can honestly claim/prove an average 3 or less S4 -0 D1 attacks will out fight 7.5 S4 -0 D1 attacks.
I’m not so lazy I don’t see you still lying about what what said. He made a claim, you misrepresented it and went off on all the other codexes not being out in 4-6 months.
except the initial statement was mine, and he responded that it wasn't 18 months but 4-6, I then disproved that both in the # of months between all major factions receiving a codex and the fact that even after that 4-6 months, SM still won the 6th most tournament placings during the entire year that followed.
Breton wrote: I’m also not so lazy I don’t see you disregard anything that doesn’t fit your narrative like those firewarriors in half range instead of acknowledging a narrow exception. Like an honest person would.
You mean like the part where i said
At half range firewarriors do more damage but at the same time, if firewarriors are 15' from ork boyz, they are dead the next turn, where as those intercessors will move 6' double tap and attempt a charge, and if they get into CC with those ork boyz, they win.
Also, being better at longer than half range isn't a "Narrow exception" its literally half the range of the weapon. And on top of that as I originally stated, Firewarriors DO NOT want to be 15' or closer to Ork boyz or basically any other troops in the game, because at T3 WS5 they melt when in CC.
Breton wrote: And finally, I’m not so lazy I didn’t notice you changing from shooting the same target to fighting each other to muddy the waters with mixed durability. But I get it. Nobody can honestly claim/prove an average 3 or less S4 -0 D1 attacks will out fight 7.5 S4 -0 D1 attacks.
wow....ok. So you mean this is somehow "Muddying the waters".
20 firewarriors = 180pts, 9 intercessors = 180pts. 20 firewarriors get 20 shots, 10 hits, 6.66 wounds for 5.55 Dead ork boyz. 9 Intercessors get 18 shots, 12 hits, 6 wounds for 6 Dead Ork boyz. CC 20 Firewarriors 20 attacks, 6.66 hits, 2.22 wounds and 1.85 dead orkz 9 Intercessors get 28 attacks, 18.6 hits, 9.3 wounds and 7.77 dead boyz
Against one another though 20 firewarriors, 20 shots, 10 hits, 6.66 wounds 2 Dmg, 1 dead intercessor (20pts lost) 9 intercessors get 18 shots, 12 hits, 8 wounds for 5.33 dead firewarriors (45pts lost) CC 20 attacks, 6.6 hits, 2.2 wounds and .73ish wounds. no dead marines (0pts lost) 28 attacks, 18.6 hits, 12.4 wounds and 6.2 dead Tau firewarriors (54pts lost)
At half range firewarriors do more damage but at the same time, if firewarriors are 15' from ork boyz, they are dead the next turn, where as those intercessors will move 6' double tap and attempt a charge, and if they get into CC with those ork boyz, they win.
How much more in depth should I go so I don't "Muddy the waters"?
You disproved his claim the CWE and IG codexes were out in 4-6 months by listing all of the codexes that we’re out in those 4-6 months. Including IG and CWE. Then trying to dunk on him about the SOB codex not coming out until after SM 2.0.
And I see you still haven’t done Choppa boys vs (something) and Intercessors against the same (something) to prove Intercessors with less than half the same number of the same quality attacks out fight ork boys.
Tell you what, I’ll do it.
1 intercessor charges a guard squad. 3 attacks, hit on 3’s 2 hits, wound on 3’s, 1.34 wounds, .67 damage.
100 tactical marines isn’t possible. You’d need three HQs, 3 elites, 3 FA, and 3 HS or some such. Even 100 first born assorted marines probably isn’t very possible. Definitely not with even minimal options like heavy bolters etc. 100 first born with no upgrades is going to run you roughly 1800 points, and a cap/LT will eat up the last 200.
400 gaunts will run you what 1600? Leaving a couple hundred for HQs and a couple hundred for some sort of specialist(s)? And no, 400 gaunts require 400 shots. 100 first born require 100 shots.
Those 37 Custodes (max 2K according to someone else I’m taking their word for it right now) get at most (usually) two shots per battle round. 37*2*5 = 370 shots the whole game if everything goes their way. 30 gaunts, plus hqs plus those specials will never be shot at.you can’t even roll lucky enough to take them out because you can’t even roll that many dice.
100 firstborn require 200 1D shots. Mathwise 2,000 Fleshborer shots from the gants not in cover. 4,000 in cover.
400 Gants require 1086 Bolter shots in return (not counting doctrine). 1355 in cover. Given the better bolter range the I'd say the marines would have the advantage, and if there was cover that advantage would dramatically increase.
I'm not saying a literal 100 marine army would be good, but neither would a 400 Gant army. But the broad strokes idea behind both could be the basis for a reasonable "hoard" skew build.
Breton wrote: You disproved his claim the CWE and IG codexes were out in 4-6 months by listing all of the codexes that we’re out in those 4-6 months. Including IG and CWE. Then trying to dunk on him about the SOB codex not coming out until after SM 2.0.
And I see you still haven’t done Choppa boys vs (something) and Intercessors against the same (something) to prove Intercessors with less than half the same number of the same quality attacks out fight ork boys.
Tell you what, I’ll do it.
1 intercessor charges a guard squad. 3 attacks, hit on 3’s 2 hits, wound on 3’s, 1.34 wounds, .67 damage.
That can’t be right. I was PROMISED Intercessors outfight orks, point for point.
You are ignoring the fact that it is a lot easier to pick off orks. 4 Guardsmen (20 points), based on random mathhammer app I found online, swing their 4 close combat attacks and deal .5 wounds on average to Ork Boyz, or .22 wounds to an Intercessor, who has 2 wounds. Part of outchopping the choppy people are saying is that they can dish out damage on par with Ork Boyz while being far more survivable, and simultaneously outshooting them by a long shot.
That and I believe at least the original complaint was that facing off against each other, Marines can 1v1 Orks with ease, while simultaneously outshooting Tau, per the examples people are bandying about.
Breton wrote: You disproved his claim the CWE and IG codexes were out in 4-6 months by listing all of the codexes that we’re out in those 4-6 months. Including IG and CWE. Then trying to dunk on him about the SOB codex not coming out until after SM 2.0.
And I see you still haven’t done Choppa boys vs (something) and Intercessors against the same (something) to prove Intercessors with less than half the same number of the same quality attacks out fight ork boys.
Tell you what, I’ll do it.
1 intercessor charges a guard squad. 3 attacks, hit on 3’s 2 hits, wound on 3’s, 1.34 wounds, .67 damage.
That can’t be right. I was PROMISED Intercessors outfight orks, point for point.
Go ahead and run the full math.
First off, Guardsmen have a 5+, not a 4+.
Second off, Intercessor does 3 attacks, 2 hits, 4/3 wounds and 8/9 failed saves. Three Boys do 9 attacks, 6 hits, 4 wounds, and 8/3 failed saves.
But the strikes back, 11 and 9 respectively, do 1/6th of a wound each. That's .6 wounds to the Intercessor, but 1.25 Boys dead. The Guard fight twice before the charger fights again, for 1.2 wounds against the Intercessor and 2.5 dead Boys.
Then, Intercessor gets 4 attacks, 8/3 hits, 16/9 wounds, and 32/27 failed saves. The one remaining Boy, if the Ork player got lucky, does 6 attacks, 4 hits, 8/3 wounds and 16/9 dead.
The remaining attacks from the Guard kill the Intercessor or lone remaining Boy. But since there's a close to 50% chance of the Guard killing the Boys in two combat phases, whereas there's only about a one in three chance of doing that to the Intercessor...
8/3+(16/9)/2=3.56 dead Guard, averaged 8/9+2(32/27)/3=1.68 dead Guard, averaged
Alright, fair. Against GEQ, Intercessors come out right about half as effective as slightly more points of Orks. (The exact effectiveness, point to point, would be 56.63%.)
You are ignoring the fact that it is a lot easier to pick off orks. 4 Guardsmen (20 points), based on random mathhammer app I found online, swing their 4 close combat attacks and deal .5 wounds on average to Ork Boyz, or .22 wounds to an Intercessor, who has 2 wounds. Part of outchopping the choppy people are saying is that they can dish out damage on par with Ork Boyz while being far more survivable, and simultaneously outshooting them by a long shot.
That and I believe at least the original complaint was that facing off against each other, Marines can 1v1 Orks with ease, while simultaneously outshooting Tau, per the examples people are bandying about.
What does “how easy it is to pick off orks” have to do with how hard they fight, point for point?
And no, the original math was Tau Shooting Orks, then Marines shooting orks. Then we switched to Genestealers/Orks fighting marines and Marines fighting Orks as opposed to both of them fighting the same target with the same T and Sv.
Marines can't do top 4 in 9th like they did in 8th. So far.
And uh, they can't make friends either.
That is all.
yeah, with all the complaining you'd think we where in the early days of the iron hands supplement. the problem is that 9th edition is a game of manuver and objective capture. it's hard to mathhammer out who can capture the most objectives for 2000 points.
What! Are you telling me that movement and board control are things that we cant mathhammer out, and thus any conclusion solely based on mathhammer doesnt include a significant number of factors that are important to victory. Perhaps it is the interaction of a variety of things that determines somethings value, situational variables that you cant just apply a number to?
No, no its the people who think the game is more than simple D6 math who are wrong.
Okay, show of hands, since I've been guilty of mischaracterizing people on this one before - Who here is genuinely arguing that marines aren't far too good and multicapable right now?
I mean, you might argue against one point or another but if you've come to the overall conclusion that they're anything but overtuned at the moment, then clearly our basis for what is even going on is so vastly disparate that I wouldn't even know where to begin bridging that gap.
I think most people agree that they are too powerful right now, but disagree on to the extent of that power differance.
Also at some point it gets annoying seeing it come up everywhere and infecting every conversation.
“So I was enjoying this bagel and would you..”SOME ELDAR MODELS CAN LEGALLY DRINK, marines are getting to much stuff”
“Yes, but I was talking about my bage “ “MARINES ARE OVERPOWERED”
“Jesus Christ, it’s not that bad, relax I was talking about my bagel”
“Look at those marines trying to silence criticism”
At some point the negativity echo chamber gets beyond obnoxious to the point where it is actively off putting. I mean we have people proud of yelling at the people who are just front line staff at the warhammer community page until they got banned for Christ sakes. If anyone did that to retail workers most of us would tell them off for being a gakwit
Constructive criticism is all well and good, I approve of it and really like community ideas that would improve the game or tone down broken things but the hyperbole, goalpost moving, and just nonstop over reacting to everything gets really old really quick.
Honestly if it weren’t for covid and limited contact with people I wouldn’t even bother coming here anymore. Even bolter and chainsword is getting an influx of dakka types and it sucks. Luckily that community seems more tolerant of pushback against people who create a hostile space.
Leth wrote: I think most people agree that they are too powerful right now, but disagree on to the extent of that power differance.
Also at some point it gets annoying seeing it come up everywhere and infecting every conversation.
“So I was enjoying this bagel and would you..”SOME ELDAR MODELS CAN LEGALLY DRINK, marines are getting to much stuff”
“Yes, but I was talking about my bage “ “MARINES ARE OVERPOWERED”
“Jesus Christ, it’s not that bad, relax I was talking about my bagel”
“Look at those marines trying to silence criticism”
At some point the negativity echo chamber gets beyond obnoxious to the point where it is actively off putting. I mean we have people proud of yelling at the people who are just front line staff at the warhammer community page until they got banned for Christ sakes. If anyone did that to retail workers most of us would tell them off for being a gakwit
Constructive criticism is all well and good, I approve of it and really like community ideas that would improve the game or tone down broken things but the hyperbole, goalpost moving, and just nonstop over reacting to everything gets really old really quick.
Honestly if it weren’t for covid and limited contact with people I wouldn’t even bother coming here anymore. Even bolter and chainsword is getting an influx of dakka types and it sucks. Luckily that community seems more tolerant of pushback against people who create a hostile space.
I agree, and it's been this way for waaaay too long.
I feel like loyalist marines have an inordinate amount of support. Compared to my other armies that have maybe 1/5 the entries if they're lucky. And on paper yes they are too good. But in game at least from my experience it's not that simple. I can consistently win against the varieties I've faced but it requires soup and tailoring specifically to deal with marines. But that's the meta for many people I would guess.
Leth wrote: What! Are you telling me that movement and board control are things that we cant mathhammer out, and thus any conclusion solely based on mathhammer doesnt include a significant number of factors that are important to victory. Perhaps it is the interaction of a variety of things that determines somethings value, situational variables that you cant just apply a number to?
No, no its the people who think the game is more than simple D6 math who are wrong.
If the people who seem compelled to continuously lie and insist that Intercessors aren't actually that good in raw combat power would actually make a case for Intercessors on the basis of those non-quantifiable factors, then we could have that discussion.
Instead we get these bs claims about their combat power that are easily refuted with basic math, then derail the thread when the people making them exercise their right to deny simple facts.
CEO Kasen wrote: Okay, show of hands, since I've been guilty of mischaracterizing people on this one before - Who here is genuinely arguing that marines aren't far too good and multicapable right now?
I mean, you might argue against one point or another but if you've come to the overall conclusion that they're anything but overtuned at the moment, then clearly our basis for what is even going on is so vastly disparate that I wouldn't even know where to begin bridging that gap.
I don't know that Marines are overtuned. I do think too many armies were broken/hammered by the massive and short sighted changes to 8th and haven't been fixed yet. Marines are where they've pretty much always been. I can look at the 2nd Ed Codex Army Lists that came in the box and I can see Marines and Orks at the same time, and I can do the math. Until just recently the first born had 1W, and the same stat line they almost always have. Their points cost was roughly half of what it was then (at 1W). Now it's roughly 67%. Orks have multiple improved stats, one worse one(with a special rule offset), and they're roughly 67% of their points cost. Guardians got more skillful, less obedient, and went up 33%. Guard Infantry Squads are half the price. Termaguants are half price and a little less accurate. Stealers are half priced. You look at the then vs now for a lot of units that fall into the same archetypes (basic troop, main battle tank, etc) and they're following similar patterns with a little wiggle room for some stat changes and one wacky outlier (like the guardians going up in price)
What I'm getting at is the stat sheets for XYZ points per model(s) haven't changed very much. The only part that has changed significantly is usually the XYZ points, and even then they usually fit in the same ratio everyone else's data sheet changed by. Most infantry got cheaper, many vehicles went up. In other words, they haven't tuned the units/armies very much at all.
Genestealers didn't get nerfed. Close Combat changed and it absolutely screwed them. Banjo music in a canoe screwed them. But again, they didn't retune Genestealers, they broke fighting. And then did a single-cheeked job of fixing what they broke with chopas, Astartes Chainswords, (Half of that Single-Cheek here: )Scything Talons, and Shock/Hateful Assault etc.
CEO Kasen wrote: Testy and irrational stuff in defense of Marines winds up self-fulfilling the prophecies by making it very difficult to keep the fury correctly laser-focused on GW, and winds up with people really, really wanting to attack Marine players. Some of them do, and then the Marine players say "You just hate marines!" And the cycle devolves.
The vast majority of marine players have entitlement complexes anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leth wrote: Also at some point it gets annoying seeing it come up everywhere and infecting every conversation.
To be frank, the fact that you find it annoying is a problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: I don't know that Marines are overtuned. I do think too many armies were broken/hammered by the massive and short sighted changes to 8th and haven't been fixed yet.
So marines are overtuned, because balanced is relative to the play environment they're found in.
CEO Kasen wrote: Testy and irrational stuff in defense of Marines winds up self-fulfilling the prophecies by making it very difficult to keep the fury correctly laser-focused on GW, and winds up with people really, really wanting to attack Marine players. Some of them do, and then the Marine players say "You just hate marines!" And the cycle devolves.
The vast majority of marine players have entitlement complexes anyway.
Sounds pretty entitled of you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leth wrote: Also at some point it gets annoying seeing it come up everywhere and infecting every conversation.
To be frank, the fact that you find it annoying is a problem.
Just take it, you deserve it for playing Marines anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breton wrote: I don't know that Marines are overtuned. I do think too many armies were broken/hammered by the massive and short sighted changes to 8th and haven't been fixed yet.
So marines are overtuned, because balanced is relative to the play environment they're found in.
No, the rules are bad. Marines haven't changed much. Few datasheets have. Demanding datasheets be nerfed for this year's ruleset is silly. You don't change the constant, you change the variable.
If the people who seem compelled to continuously lie and insist that Intercessors aren't actually that good in raw combat power would actually make a case for Intercessors on the basis of those non-quantifiable factors, then we could have that discussion.
Instead we get these bs claims about their combat power that are easily refuted with basic math, then derail the thread when the people making them exercise their right to deny simple facts.
No kidding, did you see the guy trying to claim 7.5 S4 -0 D1 attacks were worse than between 2 and 3 S4 -0 D1 attacks?
CEO Kasen wrote: Testy and irrational stuff in defense of Marines winds up self-fulfilling the prophecies by making it very difficult to keep the fury correctly laser-focused on GW, and winds up with people really, really wanting to attack Marine players. Some of them do, and then the Marine players say "You just hate marines!" And the cycle devolves.
The vast majority of marine players have entitlement complexes anyway.
Look, I hate what GW has done with Marines - and not done with other armies - with a passion that makes rabid wolverines look sedate, and I wouldn't even say that. For a variety of reasons.
1) Certainly some do feel like they should just be better, but vast majority feels like a stretch.
2) "Entitlement" meant something at some point, but these days, I don't know. I find the word leaves a bad taste in my mouth, one used to provoke arguments rather than solve them.
3) If I do say that, we're never actually going to find any common ground whatsoever with the numerous Marine mains who aren't dickbags.
CEO Kasen wrote: Testy and irrational stuff in defense of Marines winds up self-fulfilling the prophecies by making it very difficult to keep the fury correctly laser-focused on GW, and winds up with people really, really wanting to attack Marine players. Some of them do, and then the Marine players say "You just hate marines!" And the cycle devolves.
The vast majority of marine players have entitlement complexes anyway.
Sounds pretty entitled of you.
Sounds like he's proving Kasen's point completely.
Intercessors can have 3 shots and 3 attacks a turn. Assuming it isn't turn 1, 3 of which will have a point of AP. Therefore they expect to do 14.66 points worth of damage to Ork Boyz before any other effects. This is just shy of a 75% return.
By contrast an Ork boy can have say 1 pistol shot and 4 attacks. Which expects to do about 5 points of damage to the Intercessor, for a 63% return. This drops to 4 damage and 50% if there are fewer than 20 boyz in the squad. This is worse.
Unfortunately is doubly worse because as anyone whose ever played Orks (or any horde army really) will tell you, getting 25-30 boyz to actually fight is difficult. Most likely some won't be swinging in which case the expected output falls further.
Why won't Marines be claiming all the top 4 spots everywhere? Because, despite what people say, 40k has elements of skill beyond just picking the best units in the game. 9th is an objective based game, and if you remember to play to your objectives, and your opponent doesn't, you are likely to win even if his units are doing far more damage than yours. Also, dice are a thing. Just because the above expectations have the Marines killing 1.83 Orks a turn doesn't mean they will. You can roll badly, your opponent can roll well.
All theory suggests Marines remain the best codex in the game, therefore the army everyone is Meta-ing against. This doesn't mean they have or will ever have a 100% win record against everyone.
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
That list has exactly 137 bodies, but I do understand your point.
You are applying two different metrics here though.
Either you look at both marines and orks from a perspective what makes a good list OR you look at both of them from a perspective what is potentially possible for them to do.
A space wolves horde list I found here goes up to 105 models, but the vast majority of models were fenrisian wolves, not marines. Most other lists I could find in the recent articles on goodhammer had 70-80 models at best. From just looking at the lists, it seems like many high cost models are just too good to pass up on.
If you go for the theoretical maximum, a goff horde could easily go up to 200 bodies with just a single battalion and still bring Thrakka.
So, when you apply the same metric to both, orks outhorde marines either way.
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
That list has exactly 137 bodies, but I do understand your point.
You are applying two different metrics here though.
Either you look at both marines and orks from a perspective what makes a good list OR you look at both of them from a perspective what is potentially possible for them to do.
A space wolves horde list I found here goes up to 105 models, but the vast majority of models were fenrisian wolves, not marines. Most other lists I could find in the recent articles on goodhammer had 70-80 models at best. From just looking at the lists, it seems like many high cost models are just too good to pass up on.
If you go for the theoretical maximum, a goff horde could easily go up to 200 bodies with just a single battalion and still bring Thrakka.
So, when you apply the same metric to both, orks outhorde marines either way.
I capped out at 82 and 75 doing a first pass on Old Marines. Now I wasn't doing "horde" or anything like that, just playing around, but at 18+ PPM you're not making a full Firstborn Company anymore inside of 2,000 points. 100 Bodies is 1800 even before you add the Heavies, Specials, Cap, Chap, and 2 LT's. I didn't try playing with scouts yet, but I tend to go sniper with them instead of BP/CCW etc.
So Battle Scribe just released their first pass on the new codex.
And I figured I'd try all first born.
Cap, Jump Pack, TH/SS Shield Eternal
LT Jump Pack, pair of Lightning Claws (potentially a Hero of the Chapter for more goodies)
LT Jump Pack, pair of Lightning Claws (potentially a Hero of the Chapter for more goodies)
10 Tacs, Flamer, Grav Cannon, Drop Pod
10 Tacs Flamer, Grav Cannon, Drop Pod
10 Tacs Flamer, Grav Cannon, Drop Pod
10 Tacs Flamer Grav Cannon, Drop Pod
Ah they are usually quickly shouted down and then don’t show up again over there.
It’s like rats, if you let them in and breed, eventually they take over the place, but if you stop them from settin up shop? Your food stays rat dropping free.
This point I started coming here for popcorn rather than any actual meaningful conversations about the hobby. That was just an exercise in frustration. It’s rough talking about the game with people who seem to hate it yet still play.
Quasistellar wrote: They can't do a carpet of bodies. Pretty much everything else they can do to some extent well, but just maybe not as well as other armies.
Again, what's considered a horde?
Marines can field 90+ bodies in a 2k list.
They can field 60+ and still have plenty of room for toys.
I'd agree that it's not the most optimal way to play them, but that's not so much because they CAN'T horde, and more because their other options are better. Hell, this top-placing Ork list only had about 100 bodies, and they were not NEARLY as durable as Space Marine bodies.
That list has exactly 137 bodies, but I do understand your point.
You are applying two different metrics here though.
Either you look at both marines and orks from a perspective what makes a good list OR you look at both of them from a perspective what is potentially possible for them to do.
A space wolves horde list I found here goes up to 105 models, but the vast majority of models were fenrisian wolves, not marines. Most other lists I could find in the recent articles on goodhammer had 70-80 models at best. From just looking at the lists, it seems like many high cost models are just too good to pass up on.
If you go for the theoretical maximum, a goff horde could easily go up to 200 bodies with just a single battalion and still bring Thrakka.
So, when you apply the same metric to both, orks outhorde marines either way.
Besides, I think "can be done while moderately effective" goes without saying. I CAAAAN grab a bunch of fire warriors and run them up the board to get in close combat. but I would not say "you can play Tau as a melee horde army" (..... I'd love to see someone try mind you just to see the look on his opponents face)
I actually played against such an army in 7th. It was beautiful.
Beautiful slaughter that is, my lootas have never killed that many models in melee. And probably the only way orks would ever beat tau in that edition.
BrianDavion wrote: Besides, I think "can be done while moderately effective" goes without saying. I CAAAAN grab a bunch of fire warriors and run them up the board to get in close combat. but I would not say "you can play Tau as a melee horde army" (..... I'd love to see someone try mind you just to see the look on his opponents face)
I'm not sure about melee - but I think if Vior'la and FSE could be combined in one trait, there is potential for a quite fast, short ranged infantry horde list. Breachers/Carbines/Drones provide a mountain of shots, while Kroot serve as aggressive forward positioning bubble wrap. A couple of commanders could provide some point-anti tank.
You could do it anyway, but I feel without the free rerolls though you don't have the damage, and BS5 is awful, so without Vior'la its too slow.
If money/time was no object though it could be fun to experiment with.
This talk of Tau trying to lean into melee kind of leans back to where conversation was like 3 or 4 pages ago. The army is designed with range in mind, and if say it is an S tier gunline, their standard melee is D tier. Now, with some use of Breachers for close quarters firepower and leaning into Kroot, you could make some melee capabilities in the army, maybe bumping it to a C, but at the cost of some long range firepower, synergies within your army, and since Kroot are essentially made of paper, staying power. So yeah, you could probably bully some gunline units that are not expecting melee / cqc Tau, but vs a dedicated melee unit they would fold fast - but still have a good chunk of their shootiness to compensate.
From what I understand, the ideal for Marines would be a solid B across the board, with say an A in survivability - and then the ability to tilt in any direction, though not as hard as a fully specialized force would be. So if you go gunline tank brigade marines, you'd probably be say A in firepower, survivability, and vehicle power, probably a D in hordiness, and still have that solid B across the board elsewhere. That means that if they find a foe they cannot out shoot with the gunline, they still have average to above average melee capabilities to stick it to them.
The problem is that right now, from what I am gathering from this thread and elsewhere and a casual glance at what Marines can do, they are more A tier across the board (except hordiness, which they probably cap out at a B at best if going all in), and from there can shift one or more abilities up to S tier without much sacrifice - and while still paying prices as if they were upper B across the board like the ideal.
Sorry for the alphabet soup, I just find it easier to visualize by ranking things in tiers D, C, B, A, S going from lowest to highest.
This is just my understanding of the issue people are having with Marines right now (and I suppose since the 2.0 codex), so take that for what you will.
In piggy backing on that point. I don't think it's fair to compare an 8th edition book to a 9th edition book.
Necrons and Space Marines both are so different than their 8th edition books, I don't think we'll be really playing true "9th edition" Until all the codex's get updated.
For better or for worse. I know it sucks to have to wait, especially for other armies. I play Ynnari and Harlequins, I have no idea when I'll be updated. Space Marines will always have a lot of datatsheets, that's just what it is. But, I think the discussion on power level and capabilities will be very different when more books get updated.
I guess at this exact stage in 9th edition when the only other codex besides Marines is Necrons, we could say Marines might be slightly overtuned.
And I do mean slightly. Let's please remember that the 9th edition keyword changes and mission structure has literally broken three full armies (Tau, Imperial Knights, and Chaos Knights) to make them just not work. The fly and point changes broke Tau. The primary and secondary objectives broke Knights.
We're basically back where we were at start of 8th -- the army with the codex is doing well overall, while other armies are also taking regular top 4 spots (daemons, DG, Harlequins, Orks, etc). Except this time, Marines seem to be able to take a variety of lists, whereas in 8th it was RG parking lots, so overall I'd say we're in a healthier spot.
I'd say we really only need to tweak a couple specific marine units (ERADICATORS lulz), and some of the other armies in a really bad spot probably just need their codex. I have to assume there's something in those codexes to justify the hardcore nerfs and/or point increases Tau, Drukhari, CWE, and Knights (oddly knights are well-off points wise but just can't win the objective game) got.
In summary, I'm saying that I don't think it's so much that Marines are overtuned, it's that they are tuned for 9th, while other factions haven't recieved that 9th edition boost yet.
The problem is that the game is never actually finished - there never will be a "9th edition completed".
As soon as it looks completed, there's SM2.0, and/or there's Psychic Awakening 2: The Awakenenening. Then the words will be "wait for your 2nd codex" or "wait for your awkenenenening" book (I can't tell you how many times I heard this with Daemons, only to have the book be a disappointment in terms of amount of content). Then 10th will hit, and the first codex is SM, and as soon as the other factions are wrapping up, there's SM2, and Psychic Awakening 3: The Psychicening, and then 11th edition...
the "wait and see so we can all be on a level playing field" doesn't ring true to people who have been "waiting and seeing" since the end of 5th...
Its a bit "Space Marines 2.0 was tuned for 8.5 edition 40k".
I mean things change. I thought Castellan-Hammer would never end, even though it only lasted about 9-10 months. (Sorry Knight Players, but if Knights are never competitively viable again its no skin of my nose.)
The issue is Marines have now been at the top for the best part of a year and a half - and certainly in the next 6 months or so there isn't any indication that's going to change.
jaredb wrote: In piggy backing on that point. I don't think it's fair to compare an 8th edition book to a 9th edition book.
Necrons and Space Marines both are so different than their 8th edition books, I don't think we'll be really playing true "9th edition" Until all the codex's get updated.
For better or for worse. I know it sucks to have to wait, especially for other armies. I play Ynnari and Harlequins, I have no idea when I'll be updated. Space Marines will always have a lot of datatsheets, that's just what it is. But, I think the discussion on power level and capabilities will be very different when more books get updated.
Except even at 1 codex per month that will leave people without a 9th edition codex untill 2022
CEO Kasen wrote: Testy and irrational stuff in defense of Marines winds up self-fulfilling the prophecies by making it very difficult to keep the fury correctly laser-focused on GW, and winds up with people really, really wanting to attack Marine players. Some of them do, and then the Marine players say "You just hate marines!" And the cycle devolves.
Nah but they really just hate marines. They can't acknowledge the fact marines have been bad for most the history of the game. They overstate periods when marines were actually good. So if they can't be honest about these periods - there is no way to have a real discussion about how bad the situation is now. Generally - the level marines are at right now is not even close to unprecedented.
Nothing even comes close to invis death stars or scatter bikes or wraith knights. There are a few mispointed options in the marine and generally they don't have a lot of bad options. Nothing they put out is unbeatable though. Your standard eldar shinning spear unit with a 2++ save will murder everything in the marine arsenal.
Things marines can not do.
Automatically assault your back line with a psychic power out of range for you to deny. (Quicken/Shinning spears.)
They can't destroy your heavy tank with mortal wounds in the shooting phase. (Harliqens)
They can't 1 shot a warlord titan with a single weapon for under 100 points. (SAG)
Just a few more examples.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Its a bit "Space Marines 2.0 was tuned for 8.5 edition 40k".
I mean things change. I thought Castellan-Hammer would never end, even though it only lasted about 9-10 months. (Sorry Knight Players, but if Knights are never competitively viable again its no skin of my nose.)
The issue is Marines have now been at the top for the best part of a year and a half - and certainly in the next 6 months or so there isn't any indication that's going to change.
LOL a year and a half. Funny. Hilarious actually.
Ironhands supplement is when marine power started. Dev doctrine nerfed within 3 months of that. Chaplain dreads moved to legends...Ever aspect of that list nerfed to oblivion. Assault cents nerfed to oblivion...tell me...what aspect of those lists which did well still exists? NONE of it does. Dev doctrine is only turn 1 and in 9th you don't even have targets to shoot anymore. It is literally just these new things which are OP now - Changes to MM (basic math shows it's out of line - will be nerfed) Eradicators - obviously will be nerfed.
It's also hilarious you don't aknowledge no one has been playing the game for the past 9 months lol.
jaredb wrote: In piggy backing on that point. I don't think it's fair to compare an 8th edition book to a 9th edition book.
Necrons and Space Marines both are so different than their 8th edition books, I don't think we'll be really playing true "9th edition" Until all the codex's get updated.
For better or for worse. I know it sucks to have to wait, especially for other armies. I play Ynnari and Harlequins, I have no idea when I'll be updated. Space Marines will always have a lot of datatsheets, that's just what it is. But, I think the discussion on power level and capabilities will be very different when more books get updated.
Except even at 1 codex per month that will leave people without a 9th edition codex untill 2022
Here is something worthy of complaint. Why can't we get all the rules at ones?
Xenomancers wrote: Things marines can not do.
Automatically assault your back line with a psychic power out of range for you to deny. (Quicken/Shinning spears.)
They can't destroy your heavy tank with mortal wounds in the shooting phase. (Harliqens)
They can't 1 shot a warlord titan with a single weapon for under 100 points. (SAG)
Just a few more examples.
Shining Spears have a 16" move. 22" with advance, though they lack native Advance and Charge. Quicken is also tied to a T3 W2 4++ Warlock. T4 W3 if you spring for a bike. Eliminators would eat those guys for breakfast. And, if they DO manage to charge something (which is pretty likely, if they get first turn and successfully cast Quickening) then for 320 points on the Spears alone, they kill 8-9 MEQ. If you have an Apothecary nearby, that drops to 6 or less MEQ dead.
That's true-Harlequins have access to Haywire, which is something Marines lack. But are you saying that Marines struggle to kill vehicles? With Eradicators, Devastators, and the plethora of other units?
And it should be noted, if Battlescribe is correct, the SAG is 120 points. Even if you go for the SSAG (which is no longer tournament legal, but sure, let's do it) and double shoot with it, for 4d6 shots, you get an average of five and a half hits. If every hit wounded and every save was failed and an 11 or 12 was rolled for Strength, that's around enough to one-shot a Dominous Knight. Of course, the odds of all that happening are minuscule.
Xenomancers wrote: Things marines can not do.
Automatically assault your back line with a psychic power out of range for you to deny. (Quicken/Shinning spears.)
They can't destroy your heavy tank with mortal wounds in the shooting phase. (Harliqens)
They can't 1 shot a warlord titan with a single weapon for under 100 points. (SAG)
Just a few more examples.
Shining Spears have a 16" move. 22" with advance, though they lack native Advance and Charge. Quicken is also tied to a T3 W2 4++ Warlock. T4 W3 if you spring for a bike. Eliminators would eat those guys for breakfast. And, if they DO manage to charge something (which is pretty likely, if they get first turn and successfully cast Quickening) then for 320 points on the Spears alone, they kill 8-9 MEQ. If you have an Apothecary nearby, that drops to 6 or less MEQ dead.
That's true-Harlequins have access to Haywire, which is something Marines lack. But are you saying that Marines struggle to kill vehicles? With Eradicators, Devastators, and the plethora of other units?
And it should be noted, if Battlescribe is correct, the SAG is 120 points. Even if you go for the SSAG (which is no longer tournament legal, but sure, let's do it) and double shoot with it, for 4d6 shots, you get an average of five and a half hits. If every hit wounded and every save was failed and an 11 or 12 was rolled for Strength, that's around enough to one-shot a Dominous Knight. Of course, the odds of all that happening are minuscule.
Always with the odds and never about potential. Just something being possible is enough to ruin a plan or lose you a game with some good/bad luck. In any case - just stating things marines can't do.
Xenomancers wrote: Things marines can not do.
Automatically assault your back line with a psychic power out of range for you to deny. (Quicken/Shinning spears.)
They can't destroy your heavy tank with mortal wounds in the shooting phase. (Harliqens)
They can't 1 shot a warlord titan with a single weapon for under 100 points. (SAG)
Just a few more examples.
Shining Spears have a 16" move. 22" with advance, though they lack native Advance and Charge. Quicken is also tied to a T3 W2 4++ Warlock. T4 W3 if you spring for a bike. Eliminators would eat those guys for breakfast. And, if they DO manage to charge something (which is pretty likely, if they get first turn and successfully cast Quickening) then for 320 points on the Spears alone, they kill 8-9 MEQ. If you have an Apothecary nearby, that drops to 6 or less MEQ dead.
That's true-Harlequins have access to Haywire, which is something Marines lack. But are you saying that Marines struggle to kill vehicles? With Eradicators, Devastators, and the plethora of other units?
And it should be noted, if Battlescribe is correct, the SAG is 120 points. Even if you go for the SSAG (which is no longer tournament legal, but sure, let's do it) and double shoot with it, for 4d6 shots, you get an average of five and a half hits. If every hit wounded and every save was failed and an 11 or 12 was rolled for Strength, that's around enough to one-shot a Dominous Knight. Of course, the odds of all that happening are minuscule.
Always with the odds and never about potential. Just something being possible is enough to ruin a plan or lose you a game with some good/bad luck. In any case - just stating things marines can't do.
3 Eradicators are 120 points. 140 with a MultiMelta and Heavy Meltas.
They can do 72 damage to a single unit.
MultiMelta Devs with a Cherub can do 80 damage in a phase.
MultiMelta Devastators can take an armorium cherub for 10 shots total. That's 80 damage if they get lucky.
Xenomancers wrote: Things marines can not do.
Automatically assault your back line with a psychic power out of range for you to deny. (Quicken/Shinning spears.)
They can't destroy your heavy tank with mortal wounds in the shooting phase. (Harliqens)
They can't 1 shot a warlord titan with a single weapon for under 100 points. (SAG)
Just a few more examples.
Shining Spears have a 16" move. 22" with advance, though they lack native Advance and Charge. Quicken is also tied to a T3 W2 4++ Warlock. T4 W3 if you spring for a bike. Eliminators would eat those guys for breakfast. And, if they DO manage to charge something (which is pretty likely, if they get first turn and successfully cast Quickening) then for 320 points on the Spears alone, they kill 8-9 MEQ. If you have an Apothecary nearby, that drops to 6 or less MEQ dead.
That's true-Harlequins have access to Haywire, which is something Marines lack. But are you saying that Marines struggle to kill vehicles? With Eradicators, Devastators, and the plethora of other units?
And it should be noted, if Battlescribe is correct, the SAG is 120 points. Even if you go for the SSAG (which is no longer tournament legal, but sure, let's do it) and double shoot with it, for 4d6 shots, you get an average of five and a half hits. If every hit wounded and every save was failed and an 11 or 12 was rolled for Strength, that's around enough to one-shot a Dominous Knight. Of course, the odds of all that happening are minuscule.
Always with the odds and never about potential. Just something being possible is enough to ruin a plan or lose you a game with some good/bad luck. In any case - just stating things marines can't do.
3 Eradicators are 120 points. 140 with a MultiMelta and Heavy Meltas.
They can do 72 damage to a single unit.
MultiMelta Devs with a Cherub can do 80 damage in a phase.
MultiMelta Devastators can take an armorium cherub for 10 shots total. That's 80 damage if they get lucky.
Yeah I literally mentioned...it is insane. MM needs a points increase to 30-35 points. Eradicators need to go up 10 points a pop.
I dont see how the maximum potential is a better metric than the average of a unit.
Sure, a single skyweaver can technically do 18 mortal wounds to a vehicle but in most game its going to be 2-3 mortal wounds (i didnt math it out).
So if you say that skyweavers should always be treated as 18 mortal wounds machines then youre way off the mark.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I dont see how the maximum potential is a better metric than the average of a unit.
Sure, a single skyweaver can technically do 18 mortal wounds to a vehicle but in most game its going to be 2-3 mortal wounds (i didnt math it out).
So if you say that skyweavers should always be treated as 18 mortal wounds machines then youre way off the mark.
Potential is more important than average to me. Most of the time and average result will deal 0 damage after saves and command rerolls and fnp - it is killer rolls you need to get results most the time. Both need to be looked at though. Unlikely is not impossible. Marines aren't gonna get lucky and get 6 shots with a single smasha gun and kill a knight. It can happen though. It is worth noting the average result or close to it only happens about half the time.
Regarding the original question: If I'm not mistaken, marines can't take trackguards on their vehicles, other than IG who can keep some of their tanks running at full speed in the last bracket.
They also lack- as far as I know - a suicide bomb like the Cyclops (I don't know if those are still around in the new book). I can't say if that is a strategic disadvantage, but it is something they cannot do.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I dont see how the maximum potential is a better metric than the average of a unit.
Sure, a single skyweaver can technically do 18 mortal wounds to a vehicle but in most game its going to be 2-3 mortal wounds (i didnt math it out). So if you say that skyweavers should always be treated as 18 mortal wounds machines then youre way off the mark.
Potential is more important than average to me. Most of the time and average result will deal 0 damage after saves and command rerolls and fnp - it is killer rolls you need to get results most the time. Both need to be looked at though. Unlikely is not impossible. Marines aren't gonna get lucky and get 6 shots with a single smasha gun and kill a knight. It can happen though. It is worth noting the average result or close to it only happens about half the time.
Do us a favor-calculate the odds of one-shotting a knight with a Smasha Gun.
Because, back of the corner math says that if we just assume they get 4 hits (which is pretty good, when the average is 7/6 hits) they've got a .00015% chance of doing that, if the Knight has a 4++. Or, to put another way, if you got 4 hits with a Smasha Gun 2,000,000 times, you'd expect to one-shot the Knight three times. Assuming the Knight isn't Taranis, of course.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I dont see how the maximum potential is a better metric than the average of a unit.
Sure, a single skyweaver can technically do 18 mortal wounds to a vehicle but in most game its going to be 2-3 mortal wounds (i didnt math it out).
So if you say that skyweavers should always be treated as 18 mortal wounds machines then youre way off the mark.
The total poential damage from skyweavers is redic. each shot can deal 4 damage with 3 being mortal wounds. each skyweaver has 6 potential shots. a single skyweavers can 1 shot a knight possibly. Now that is not what I am saying you should fear. A full unit though. It is well within reason they could kill 3 vehicals in a turn without you ever getting to roll a save.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I dont see how the maximum potential is a better metric than the average of a unit.
Sure, a single skyweaver can technically do 18 mortal wounds to a vehicle but in most game its going to be 2-3 mortal wounds (i didnt math it out).
So if you say that skyweavers should always be treated as 18 mortal wounds machines then youre way off the mark.
Potential is more important than average to me. Most of the time and average result will deal 0 damage after saves and command rerolls and fnp - it is killer rolls you need to get results most the time. Both need to be looked at though. Unlikely is not impossible. Marines aren't gonna get lucky and get 6 shots with a single smasha gun and kill a knight. It can happen though. It is worth noting the average result or close to it only happens about half the time.
Do us a favor-calculate the odds of one-shotting a knight with a Smasha Gun.
Because, back of the corner math says that if we just assume they get 4 hits (which is pretty good, when the average is 7/6 hits) they've got a .00015% chance of doing that, if the Knight has a 4++. Or, to put another way, if you got 4 hits with a Smasha Gun 2,000,000 times, you'd expect to one-shot the Knight three times. Assuming the Knight isn't Taranis, of course.
ofc A knight is a tall target though. Something like a repulsor and a redemptor...a lot easier. Or even worse ... a carnifex. Lascannon cant one shot a carni. A smasha on a decent roll will.
VladimirHerzog wrote: I dont see how the maximum potential is a better metric than the average of a unit.
Sure, a single skyweaver can technically do 18 mortal wounds to a vehicle but in most game its going to be 2-3 mortal wounds (i didnt math it out). So if you say that skyweavers should always be treated as 18 mortal wounds machines then youre way off the mark.
Potential is more important than average to me. Most of the time and average result will deal 0 damage after saves and command rerolls and fnp - it is killer rolls you need to get results most the time. Both need to be looked at though. Unlikely is not impossible. Marines aren't gonna get lucky and get 6 shots with a single smasha gun and kill a knight. It can happen though. It is worth noting the average result or close to it only happens about half the time.
Do us a favor-calculate the odds of one-shotting a knight with a Smasha Gun.
Because, back of the corner math says that if we just assume they get 4 hits (which is pretty good, when the average is 7/6 hits) they've got a .00015% chance of doing that, if the Knight has a 4++. Or, to put another way, if you got 4 hits with a Smasha Gun 2,000,000 times, you'd expect to one-shot the Knight three times. Assuming the Knight isn't Taranis, of course.
ofc A knight is a tall target though. Something like a repulsor and a redemptor...a lot easier. Or even worse ... a carnifex. Lascannon cant one shot a carni. A smasha on a decent roll will.
JNAProductions wrote: A single Skyweaver has a .00000000067% chance of one-shotting a Knight.
Or, one in about 150,000,000,000 times it will happen. If you rolled that once every second, it will, on average, happen once in the next 5,000 years.
That is the magic perfect roll. If you take all the results that deal 10+ wounds. You have a much better number there. Instead of 1 and 150 billion. You are down what - one in 200? And you have 6 of them? shooting every turn? Crazy results happen in games - practically every game I see tripps or quads rolled. Not even sure how we got here. Just because I said Marines aren't gonna 1 shot a castellan with a SAG I guess. I can confirm though...I've seen this happen 3 times in person. Every single one of those situations is an automatic win for the orks.
In that logic an IG conscript squad can oneshot a Knight outside of rapid fire range with wounds to spare. They have 30 shots, so that can be 30 wounds, right?
Pyroalchi wrote: In that logic an IG conscript squad can oneshot a Knight outside of rapid fire range with wounds to spare. They have 30 shots, so that can be 30 wounds, right?
I even saw it happen exactly 17 times in 8th edition, and each time ended in a crushing victory for the IG player! Crazy stuff happens in games! Did you know I once saw a warlock reroll a snakeeyes perils into a snakeeyes perils? Clearly they should be worth 0 points, or even negative points, since they have the potential to self-destruct and do d3 mortal wounds to everyone around them, including friendlies.
After all, it's the potential that matters, not the average!!
Complete intellectual dishonesty. Complete and utter. The SAG with proper strat useage and command rerolls had a 20% chance of doing 20 damage or more to a knight - and it was like 80 points. A nice guy laid out an excellent grid about 1.5 years ago to demonstrate on dakka. Plus yes - IG infantry have a lot of damage potential. It is part of the reason that 5 point IG infantry were way to low compare to a space marine. Yet - even then the same space marine haters refused to acknowledge how weak marines were.
Pyroalchi wrote: In that logic an IG conscript squad can oneshot a Knight outside of rapid fire range with wounds to spare. They have 30 shots, so that can be 30 wounds, right?
I even saw it happen exactly 17 times in 8th edition, and each time ended in a crushing victory for the IG player! Crazy stuff happens in games! Did you know I once saw a warlock reroll a snakeeyes perils into a snakeeyes perils? Clearly they should be worth 0 points, or even negative points, since they have the potential to self-destruct and do d3 mortal wounds to everyone around them, including friendlies.
After all, it's the potential that matters, not the average!!
What is that logical fallacy where you restate someone's argument incorrectly? Oh yeah the strawman...never seen that before. Never said Average doesn't matter. I said average results are underwhelming sometimes. It is big hits that you need to kill units and win game. Do you really think it makes a difference wether you do 3 or 4 damage to a 24 wound vehicle most the time? Killing in it 1 turn though...that makes a big difference. ESP when it can act as normal regardless of damage. To not acknowledge this is baffling to me.
Xenomancers wrote: Complete intellectual dishonesty. Complete and utter. The SAG with proper strat useage and command rerolls had a 20% chance of doing 20 damage or more to a knight - and it was like 80 points. A nice guy laid out an excellent grid about 1.5 years ago to demonstrate on dakka. Plus yes - IG infantry have a lot of damage potential. It is part of the reason that 5 point IG infantry were way to low compare to a space marine. Yet - even then the same space marine haters refused to acknowledge how weak marines were.
Xenomancers wrote: Complete intellectual dishonesty. Complete and utter. The SAG with proper strat useage and command rerolls had a 20% chance of doing 20 damage or more to a knight - and it was like 80 points. A nice guy laid out an excellent grid about 1.5 years ago to demonstrate on dakka. Plus yes - IG infantry have a lot of damage potential. It is part of the reason that 5 point IG infantry were way to low compare to a space marine. Yet - even then the same space marine haters refused to acknowledge how weak marines were.
No people weren't agreeing because maine everything as points efficent as 5ppm guardsmen made tha game too dang lethal.
Yets thats exactly what GW did with codex 2.0 and guess what Marines jumped to being OP.
Taking a foot infantry tack list and wiping the floor of an IG gunline in 8th was the clear tell tale game for me of new marines being the new problem child.
Rather than fixing 5 ppm guardsmen, GW just made marines that good across the board. I really need to stop expecting them to ever implement sensible fixes.
Pyroalchi wrote: In that logic an IG conscript squad can oneshot a Knight outside of rapid fire range with wounds to spare. They have 30 shots, so that can be 30 wounds, right?
I even saw it happen exactly 17 times in 8th edition, and each time ended in a crushing victory for the IG player! Crazy stuff happens in games! Did you know I once saw a warlock reroll a snakeeyes perils into a snakeeyes perils? Clearly they should be worth 0 points, or even negative points, since they have the potential to self-destruct and do d3 mortal wounds to everyone around them, including friendlies.
After all, it's the potential that matters, not the average!!
What is that logical fallacy where you restate someone's argument incorrectly? Oh yeah the strawman...never seen that before. Never said Average doesn't matter. I said average results are underwhelming sometimes. It is big hits that you need to kill units and win game. Do you really think it makes a difference wether you do 3 or 4 damage to a 24 wound vehicle most the time? Killing in it 1 turn though...that makes a big difference. ESP when it can act as normal regardless of damage. To not acknowledge this is baffling to me..
1 only Mechnicus Knights can act in top bracket with a strategum. Not any knight and certainly not all knights.
Avarage dice matter a lot to non marine units because.
GUESS WHAT we don't get to keep rerolling every dice we throw.
If you throw 10 dice for most factions the result is what it is.
Xenomancers wrote: Complete intellectual dishonesty. Complete and utter. The SAG with proper strat useage and command rerolls had a 20% chance of doing 20 damage or more to a knight - and it was like 80 points. A nice guy laid out an excellent grid about 1.5 years ago to demonstrate on dakka. Plus yes - IG infantry have a lot of damage potential. It is part of the reason that 5 point IG infantry were way to low compare to a space marine. Yet - even then the same space marine haters refused to acknowledge how weak marines were.
Pyroalchi wrote: In that logic an IG conscript squad can oneshot a Knight outside of rapid fire range with wounds to spare. They have 30 shots, so that can be 30 wounds, right?
I even saw it happen exactly 17 times in 8th edition, and each time ended in a crushing victory for the IG player! Crazy stuff happens in games! Did you know I once saw a warlock reroll a snakeeyes perils into a snakeeyes perils? Clearly they should be worth 0 points, or even negative points, since they have the potential to self-destruct and do d3 mortal wounds to everyone around them, including friendlies.
After all, it's the potential that matters, not the average!!
What is that logical fallacy where you restate someone's argument incorrectly? Oh yeah the strawman...never seen that before. Never said Average doesn't matter. I said average results are underwhelming sometimes. It is big hits that you need to kill units and win game. Do you really think it makes a difference wether you do 3 or 4 damage to a 24 wound vehicle most the time? Killing in it 1 turn though...that makes a big difference. ESP when it can act as normal regardless of damage. To not acknowledge this is baffling to me..
1 only Mechnicus Knights can act in top bracket with a strategum. Not any knight and certainly not all knights.
Avarage dice matter a lot to non marine units because.
GUESS WHAT we don't get to keep rerolling every dice we throw.
If you throw 10 dice for most factions the result is what it is.
I've never seen a none mechanicus knight. There is no need to ever take one. For this exact reason.
It's also completely false. Every army can reroll in some capacity. The only army really struggling in this area is tyranids as far as I can recall.
Xenomancers wrote: Complete intellectual dishonesty. Complete and utter. The SAG with proper strat useage and command rerolls had a 20% chance of doing 20 damage or more to a knight - and it was like 80 points. A nice guy laid out an excellent grid about 1.5 years ago to demonstrate on dakka. Plus yes - IG infantry have a lot of damage potential. It is part of the reason that 5 point IG infantry were way to low compare to a space marine. Yet - even then the same space marine haters refused to acknowledge how weak marines were.
yeah, can we get a source on that claim?
so 5 point guardsmen were balanced?
not on the 5pts guardsmen, on the "20% chance to do 20 damage to a knight". What were the stratagems that were used to achieve that? And more importantly, What was the average damage it did.
Marines R'da Bestest and needz more durability than anyone else.
