Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Assault Marines are there to secure objectives quickly, harrass squishy units and finish off crippled units.
VV do their job better, but have to compete with an overcrowded Elites slot while the Assault Marine only has to compete with a less crowded FA slot, the biggest competition being the Bike Marines.
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Those "taxes" are stuff you're bringing anyway like Scouts and such. Then only a few elites are actually worth it.
The Elite slot isn't crammed and limited in number like you believe it is. If anything, Assault Marines need to fight against better units like Inceptors and Scout Bikers.
Also are you REALLY going with the "not everyone min-maxes" lazy argument? If a unit is bad, it's bad. That statement doesn't change that.
Again, not everyone is running armies of scouts like they're playing the a 10th company army. Or did you just ignore that not everyone plays those kinds of armies for the sake of being right?
Assault Marines aren't stellar, but they're a decent multi-tool style unit that can handle a number of roles easilly in a TAC list in less minmaxed settings.
I'm not advocating running 30+ of them or anything, but rather saying a single unit on the table (maybe two) can be used. There are units that are better at melee, and units better at shooting, but not many units can do both and be great at both so Assault Marines are a reasonable compromise for filling roles when you just run a premade list for pick up games instead of tooling your army for your opponent's faction all the time.
Basically, they're not great, but they're not horrible. They can be used for a few different roles and that's their niche: they're a flexible addition to an army for those who need it. They don't replace other options but rather compliment them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/01 16:06:41
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Those "taxes" are stuff you're bringing anyway like Scouts and such. Then only a few elites are actually worth it.
The Elite slot isn't crammed and limited in number like you believe it is. If anything, Assault Marines need to fight against better units like Inceptors and Scout Bikers.
Also are you REALLY going with the "not everyone min-maxes" lazy argument? If a unit is bad, it's bad. That statement doesn't change that.
Again, not everyone is running armies of scouts like they're playing the a 10th company army. Or did you just ignore that not everyone plays those kinds of armies for the sake of being right?
Assault Marines aren't stellar, but they're a decent multi-tool style unit that can handle a number of roles easilly in a TAC list in less minmaxed settings.
I'm not advocating running 30+ of them or anything, but rather saying a single unit on the table (maybe two) can be used. There are units that are better at melee, and units better at shooting, but not many units can do both and be great at both so Assault Marines are a reasonable compromise for filling roles when you just run a premade list for pick up games instead of tooling your army for your opponent's faction all the time.
Basically, they're not great, but they're not horrible. They can be used for a few different roles and that's their niche: they're a flexible addition to an army for those who need it. They don't replace other options but rather compliment them.
Once again you're using the "don't min-max" argument, which really isn't an argument.
They're not complimenting anything that Scout Bikers, Inceptors, and Vanguard aren't doing better. That doesn't exactly speak "multi-tool". Those units aren't even min-max either! That's just how bad Assault Marines are.
I never say "don't" do anything. I said they're fine in lists that aren't min maxed, not that players should play one way or another, but rather that players who play a specific kind of 40k (namely casual pick up games with TAC style lists) the Assault Marine has a home as a support unit/distraction carnifex/objective grabber (for games you need to pop about to grab objectives at random due to card draws).
They compliment an army by always being able to provide -something- to the army be it a mop up melee, support shooting, harassing the opponent's back lines or just flushing out some guys camping on an objective. They're not the best thing ever (basically being Vanilla Marines with 12" movement and Fly), but they can do some work.
Scout bikes and Inceptors are shooting units with meh melee and Vanguard are Assault Marines +1 with a points cost to match, so you're comparing two shooting units (who don't do mop up melee worth a darn, meaning they don't fully replace everything the Assault Marines can provide), and using the buffed version of something to prove that the base version is bad is like proving vanilla ice cream is trash because you can have it with butterscotch. Yeah, sure it's better with butterscotch, but it's not the worst thing in the world on the world.
I basically feel like you can't comprehend the casual meta enough to understand that less competitive units can see some effective play in more casual games.
That said, if you're getting into Marines for the first time ever, just buy Primaris since they're likely going to replace the current Marines anyways.
BaconCatBug wrote: Assault Marines have no use while Vanguard Vets or Slamguinius exist.
Unless you're already overloaded on Elites as is and want to save points, and aren't playing Blood Angels....
You have up to three detachments. That's not a valid argument. At all.
And said detachments come with taxes which can eat into your budget for other toys in a list, and not everyone wants to run soup armies to bring ol' Slammy. Heck, I've been spending a couple days now on building a TS army using just the TS codex and a single detachment that can play pick up games reasonably well. Problem is fitting in all the toys I want to bring into the list.
Fact is not everyone builds LVO style max optimization lists that only work in that meta.
Those "taxes" are stuff you're bringing anyway like Scouts and such. Then only a few elites are actually worth it.
The Elite slot isn't crammed and limited in number like you believe it is. If anything, Assault Marines need to fight against better units like Inceptors and Scout Bikers.
Also are you REALLY going with the "not everyone min-maxes" lazy argument? If a unit is bad, it's bad. That statement doesn't change that.
Again, not everyone is running armies of scouts like they're playing the a 10th company army. Or did you just ignore that not everyone plays those kinds of armies for the sake of being right?
Assault Marines aren't stellar, but they're a decent multi-tool style unit that can handle a number of roles easilly in a TAC list in less minmaxed settings.
I'm not advocating running 30+ of them or anything, but rather saying a single unit on the table (maybe two) can be used. There are units that are better at melee, and units better at shooting, but not many units can do both and be great at both so Assault Marines are a reasonable compromise for filling roles when you just run a premade list for pick up games instead of tooling your army for your opponent's faction all the time.
Basically, they're not great, but they're not horrible. They can be used for a few different roles and that's their niche: they're a flexible addition to an army for those who need it. They don't replace other options but rather compliment them.
Once again you're using the "don't min-max" argument, which really isn't an argument.
They're not complimenting anything that Scout Bikers, Inceptors, and Vanguard aren't doing better. That doesn't exactly speak "multi-tool". Those units aren't even min-max either! That's just how bad Assault Marines are.
I never say "don't" do anything. I said they're fine in lists that aren't min maxed, not that players should play one way or another, but rather that players who play a specific kind of 40k (namely casual pick up games with TAC style lists) the Assault Marine has a home as a support unit/distraction carnifex/objective grabber (for games you need to pop about to grab objectives at random due to card draws).
They compliment an army by always being able to provide -something- to the army be it a mop up melee, support shooting, harassing the opponent's back lines or just flushing out some guys camping on an objective. They're not the best thing ever (basically being Vanilla Marines with 12" movement and Fly), but they can do some work.
Scout bikes and Inceptors are shooting units with meh melee and Vanguard are Assault Marines +1 with a points cost to match, so you're comparing two shooting units (who don't do mop up melee worth a darn, meaning they don't fully replace everything the Assault Marines can provide), and using the buffed version of something to prove that the base version is bad is like proving vanilla ice cream is trash because you can have it with butterscotch. Yeah, sure it's better with butterscotch, but it's not the worst thing in the world on the world.
I basically feel like you can't comprehend the casual meta enough to understand that less competitive units can see some effective play in more casual games.
That said, if you're getting into Marines for the first time ever, just buy Primaris since they're likely going to replace the current Marines anyways.
You're...not serious are you?
They're not fine in ANY list. Vanguard, for 2 points more, have an extra attack and +1LD (or two extra attacks if you're going the double Chainsword route). That isn't just a "points cost to match". That's flat out making a unit irrelevant when at the same time that unit isn't even super good in the first place. What you SHOULD be saying is that Vanguard do well in lists that aren't min-maxed and to ignore the Assault Marine profile altogether. It's literally that pointless as is.
Once again, 11 attacks isn't gonna mop up anything. 21 attacks might do that though for only a 10 point increase. Nobody is being flushed out by either the 80 point unit or the 90 point unit, except one is at least gonna hit harder.
Scout Bikers have 2 attacks each, it's only 7 attacks vs 11 attacks for several more shots. 3 Scout Bikers with an extra Storm Bolter is only 77 points to the 80 points in the Assault Marines. For being a "shooting unit", you're sure not losing a lot of attacks are you?
So what I can't comprehend is you justifying the Assault Marine profile just by constantly shouting "don't min-max". If Vanguard are THAT much better for the price but aren't the greatest unit exactly, how are you gonna defend the significantly worse unit?
Maybe if you stop building a strawman out of my posts by changing "for those who don't min max" by turning it into "don't min max ever" we'd actually come to an understanding in where the unit has some utility instead of forcefully changing an arguement in order to defeat it.
I've only said Assault Marines have a home in casual TAC lists where they can do some work. I never said they were the optimal choice, I never said not to min-max and I never said you can't pick other things, I just said they can work in a certain kind of meta for those who want to play them.
Seriously, stop trying to twist my posts in order to be right just because you can't accept that a unit that isn't good in a competitive setting can see the table and be okay in less min-maxed metas.
If you're factoring in a Repulsor you're looking at a -much- higher points cost to get a unit into assault that ASM would do on their own.
I find it interesting that there are basically two camps on this:
1. Feth them and run them as something else
2. I want to play my units and will use them as is and try to make them work
Personally I've always been in the second camp. During 5th I recall regularly seeing people saying to never run Repentia because they're overpriced and can't be used effectively but I'd cut a bloody path through the table with them and easily earn back 2-3x their points almost every game despite the issues that were bundled into them.
And that's always been my point: in a more casual setting subpar units can more than certainly be played at par, and sometimes move above par when played well.
Are their better options in a codex? Sure. Every codex has stuff like this (I mean I'm trying to build a list around putting Rubrics and SoT into a TS army without immediately shooting myself in the foot for not just running so many goats that my opponent wonders if I'm trying to open a farm), and while there are certainly more optimal choices, I don't feel that sub-optimal is the same thing as being completely useless.
If you like the models put them on the table and try different things for them. Maybe they'll do well, maybe they'll fall flat but at the end of the day you'll play what you want to play and the game will be more enjoyable for it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Once again, when you have three detachments, taking up an Elite slot is not a point against them.
Yeah, but if I want to save points on an harrassment unit/distraction carnifex why would I pay more for a unit that can distract just as well for less (or will be ignored because it's "useless" and then allowed more freedom on the board)? Why do I want to pay more if I'm only using them as a barebones squad of five to run and grab objectives for points? Why is more points automatically better?
Basically because a unit that costs what it does is still too much if that is all they are doing. A small addition of points makes them actually a threat sometimes, and unless you literally can't spare the points is pretty much always going to be worth it.
So yeah, when you're right up to your points limit and genuinely can't fit in VVs, then that is where the unit's niche is.
See, that's the problem: I'm always points limited because I want to take a wide variety of toys into an army that tend to run some points. Heck, I'm looking at converting a Lascannon defiler for my TS army and am trying to figure out how to replace the little skull head with a combi-bolter.
I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?
Narrative reasons, points restrictions, model restrictions, personal restrictions against proxying....
This is an endless list that has been talked about here before: not everyone like running stuff as other stuff. Points limits might keep VV from being viable in your army due to wanting to squeeze in a Lascannon Predator, or maybe you don't have the extra HQs needed to run another detachment for Elites and you already loaded up on other stuff.
Just because you can't think of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. People have been running less than optimal units for dozens of reasons for decades now, and just because ASM aren't as optimal as VV (who are less optimal that a better melee unit like Berserkers) doesn't mean they don't see table time basically everyday somewhere.
I don't really think that AP is the problem as much as the game not being adjust to allow for better saves to be purchased to mitigate AP.
That's why AP was better in WFB where you could set up a unit to have a 1+ (or better save) so they AP would drag them down to a 3+ and still give you a chance of saving.
Then again it was also a system set up to handle rolls of 7+ as well, something that 40k needs to bring in as well.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
You're not wrong. But just saying "I want to run them for narrative reasons" doesn't really lend itself to any useful discussion. You can say that about any unit, whether it's good or bad. If you want to do that, that's fine. But you can't really enter into any meaningful discussion at that point because the reasons for taking them are outside the scope of any objective analysis. That's why discussion boards pretty much always revolve around what's effective.
I disagree, there should be analysis done on how to run basically anything, even if it basically sucks, because sometimes people don't have a lot to work with or have narrative reasons for running stuff and want to get the best bang for their buck, even if they exchange rate sucks.
Sure, they don't fit into LVO style metas where you need to use every single point on only the most optimal things based on the rules and missions they run, but in less strict settings there should be a look at every unit in the game and how to use them as effectively as possible, even if there are other choices that might work better in different slots entirely.
ClockworkZion wrote: I can imagine a list that needs to use it's last 80 on Assault Marines though: someone who has them for narrative reasons (one bat rep series I've run across has an Ultramarines army that represents an Assault company so he runs at least one Assault Marine Squad with a Jump Pack Captain with Teeth of Terra relic), or anyone who doesn't have FW models (the Tarantula arguement) or just doesn't have the extra models kicking about at the time to use something else due to getting back into the game and trying to learn the edition before buying new stuff. Or you know, you really like the models and just want to have flying chainsaw marines in your army.
Basically, they do have reasons for being on the table, the problem is that the arguments against them are always from a strict crunch perspective and ignore the possibility that people will play less optimal units for any number of reasons.
I can't imagine why someone would want assault marines of VV though. VV are some of the best models ever produced in the marine line. Tons of customization options. Covered in golden honors. Thunder hammers...what's not to like?
Narrative reasons, points restrictions, model restrictions, personal restrictions against proxying....
None of which are valid. Wheres all my non-Primaris Lieutenant kits?
Also point restrictions are a LOL reason. Assault Marines aren't good at the job. Either fork up the extra 10 points for Vanguard, or realize you didn't need that role that bad and buy something else for 80 points. There's tons of options you can get.
They are plenty of valid for the people who make those choices. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid, it just makes your basis for decision making different than theirs.
Bharring wrote: You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.
But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.
It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.
Assault Marines don't make either of those units look bad.
Also Space Marine Bikers are bad because they're bad. You could nerf Shining Spears to kingdom come, and people will still tell you Scout Bikers > Regular Bikers
Part of the reason Scouts are considered so much better than regular Marines is because they're cheaper thus full FOC easier for CP maximization. Change CP generation to something like AoS or KT and the need for cheap units to fill slots becomes less of a thing.
They are plenty of valid for the people who make those choices. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them invalid, it just makes your basis for decision making different than theirs.
Any arbitrary reason like you listed is basically a "just because", which isn't valid for discussion. Sorry.
You still haven't told me how to use my non-Primaris Lt. entry because I'm not seeing the kit on the GW site...
They don't have a Captain or Chapter Master kit either, they have a "Commander" kit which can make all three.
And are you seriously trying to say that someone choosing to not proxy assault marines, who are painted as Assault Marines, as Vanguard Vets is the same thing as using a Commander kit to make a LT? Because we've already talked about paint schemes and unique unit markings being the important thing here, not the source of bits.
And for an LT, the only important thing is painting him up to have a veteran colored helmet with a white stripe:
Bits source and kitbashing isn't the same as actually proxying models. Or are you pretending the Fast Attack and Elite markings are the same thing now? Or that First Company Space Marines don't have unique company markings from the rest of the Marines? I mean, you can paint your dudes however you want, but the point remains that those sorts of things matter to most armies and to a lot of players, even if you don't give a diddly about it.
It's like you are trying to strawman every post I make just so you can claim to be right based on some metric that doesn't exist.
Bharring wrote: You say that, because Reapers make Devs look bad, and Spears make SM Bikers look bad.
But ASM and VV make Scorpions and Banshees look bad.
It cuts both ways. Neither more options nor fewer options makes a unit stronger on it's own. It depends on what those options are.
Assault Marines don't make either of those units look bad.
Also Space Marine Bikers are bad because they're bad. You could nerf Shining Spears to kingdom come, and people will still tell you Scout Bikers > Regular Bikers
Part of the reason Scouts are considered so much better than regular Marines is because they're cheaper thus full FOC easier for CP maximization. Change CP generation to something like AoS or KT and the need for cheap units to fill slots becomes less of a thing.
They're cheaper and actually fill a role of deployment shenanigans. Do a different CP system and it'll still be the same. Look at any non-Gladius list and you'd realize that.
That also has nothing to do with my post but okay.
I was pointing out the reason Scouts are considered to be superior, because if CP generation is removed as a thing, then unit durability becomes more of a factor for many players. Wanting a unit that can stay around longer while doing as much damage can be more important if you don't need to use cheap chaffe units to fill slots just to unlock bonuses.
It wasn't a counter to your post, but more a comment about the state of the game and where the problem is regarding this Scouts>Marine thing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 17:04:48
And for an LT, the only important thing is painting him up to have a veteran colored helmet with a white stripe:
I agree with your overall point, but that is not a lieutenant, it is a veteran sergeant...
Fair point. I blame google and laziness for grabbing a poor image selection (and not actively dealing with Marine paint schemes enough. I'm too busy dusting off my paint set for Tzeentch's boys at the moment and am facing the same sort of arguments about Rubrics: basically useless in top tournament level competetive settings with no look at lower levels of play, or effective ways to use them if you want to field them anyways).
Your fluff metric is the one that doesn't actually exist in game. My metric is unit entries which, ya know, are actually used in game. Seems like only one of those is concrete.
Also that's still not a non-Primaris Lt. In fact when I search the store I only get two Primaris options, both of which are for Blood and Dark Angels. What should I do as an Iron Hands player?
Also those are Commander kits. That's not an option in my codex. So I guess I'm stuck with Librarians and Chaplains huh?
No, it exists in the list building stage. The reasons why people choose X over Y are as numerous as the stars and only declaring yours as valid is a verbal slap in the face for everyone who doesn't agree with you. Which is outright stupid.
And again, paint scheme determines the LT, Captain or Chapter Master, not where you get the bits for your models from.
Or are you pretending there aren't guidelines out there on how you're supposed to mark units properly?
And before you try to say that GW hasn't given guidelines on how to mark things, here's an example of them showing you exactly how to mark things:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/02 17:18:39
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: List building stage is what goes into the game, not the fluff.
*ahem*
Moving on, I've stated this MANY TIMES now: choices players make aren't limited to optimization based on numbers, or even what the internet claims. We've even had examples of that posted in this very thread. Just because there are better choices to put into a list doesn't mean things won't be put into a list because you want to play them, or they fit a narrative in your head.
Once again, I'm definitely this sort of player and insisted on running Repentia during 5th edition when they were considered useless due to the Rage special rule. And yet I found ways to funnel them into my enemy effectively and tear apart their toys with them. Optimization at the time would say to just replace them with a unit of melta gun Dominions for tank busting, but I intentionally choice a unit I felt was fluffy for the army I was running (as the way I view Sisters I feel they would always have some number of Repentia seeking redemption during a conflict). This is what fluff informing list building looks like. It's quite different than how you build lists, but it's no less valid in how to choose units to play.
Heck, some armies are only started because people like the look of a particular model and will go out of their way to include said model in a list, even if it basically sucks.
And list building is just as important in the game as anything else, because it is what forms the core of what your army is and how they fight on the table. It defines the narrative you craft for yourself on why things are being punched up for and what you're fighting over.
You know, the things we do outside of tournaments, like planning an army for campaigns.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Assault Marines have no use over Vanguard. Simple as that. If you really want to, paint your Assault Marines with Vet markings or whatever. Just know not everyone dresses up their Vets with fancy markings and bling. Unit entry > silly fluff reasons that are made up barriers for yourself.
Paint scheme doesn't determine anything. Under your standards, I wouldn't even be able to paint Dante different because I'm not a fan of that much gold. If I paint over Calgar's Ultramarine design, he's clearly not an Ultramarine anymore!
See how silly and far you can take it?
Paint scheme is what determines what is what on the table. If you choose to skimp out on the details just because you want to swap models around that's on you, but if someone takes the time to paint up their stuff to a high level and bothers with those unit markings, then it's understandable that they may not feel as comfortable as you regarding swapping units around willy nilly.
Your choice to play strictly from a point of optimization doesn't invalidate mine to play from one where I build based on a narrative and lore over what is the best of the best choice at every turn.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Then why bother using the worse unit entry?
You've been given plenty of answers for this question before, but you refuse to accept anything other than running the most optimal list entries being a valid way to play and thus I don't think anyone needs to repeat things to you about how the game is more than just mathematical optimization for many of us.
Please by all means show that off. It's still unreasonable though
How? No one has demanded others to do that. This whole fething tangent is about you not grasping that if my colour scheme has specific way to signify veterans, then I'm not comfortable using models without such signifiers as veterans. I am not telling you to how to mark or not mark your veteran marines, that's your business.
Then why bother using the worse unit entry?
You've been given plenty of answers for this question before, but you refuse to accept anything other than running the most optimal list entries being a valid way to play and thus I don't think anyone needs to repeat things to you about how the game is more than just mathematical optimization for many of us.
It's an imaginary restriction on yourself though. It isn't a reason, let alone a GOOD reason.
A reason, even if considered a poor reason is still a reason regardless of where it comes from. I don't know why you don't seem to get it, but let me try spelling it out for you:
Not every human being shares the same metric for decision making. As such the weight of our choices vary, leading to very different choices and reasons for making said choices.
So a choice you'd never make, because to you it's invalid as an option, to others is the first, and possibly only choice.
In short: your metric is useless to anyone who isn't you and forcing it on others while decrying how they approach the game as "wrong" isn't the kind of attitude anyone wants to deal with in this game. Good luck getting games when you're too busy telling people how to build their army "correctly" to let them do what they find fun.
Now I'm going to go back to building my Space Goats for Kill Team instead of trading blows with someone who can't understand the viewpoints of others much less respect the choices they choose to make in a game that is built completely around arbitrary choices based around self imposed restrictions in terms of army selection, unit selection and even the colors we choose to paint our models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/03 01:34:14
WYSIWYG may not be an explicit rule, but it is a form of social contract in many games. I mean most of us are willing to let you proxy an Exalted Sorceror as Ahriman if you just want to try him out (or vice versa if you just want to play a cool model as a generic dude) but if every game you have to say your flamers are actually plasma and all of your grenade launchers are meltas, it's going to cause people to stop playing you eventually.
The markings on a model and its wargear are to allow both players to quickly identify what they're looking at without needing to stop and study the models. This is why painted models tend to be better to play against than grey plastic: it makes playing easier because you can more easily recognize what you're looking at instead of stopping to ask or need to take a closer look at the models.
Basically it stopped being a rule because it's become an expectation that when you look at a model that it'll be modeled to represent itself properly. There are exceptions (like if you want chainsword bayonetted bolters on your Assault Marines for a cool conversion to represent bolt pistol and chainsword, or if you don't model grenades on your basic guys when the entire squad comes with them), but when it comes to special equipment (vox, banners, icons, special weapons, ect) there is definitely an expectation that the models will be accurate representations of what they should be.
Likewise, if you paint your assault marines as a FA choice with the markings but spend every game telling people they're actually VVs, then eventually people are going to wonder when you're going to repaint them to represent the first company and the correct markings, or just get some actually VVs to play instead because they're going to get tired of spotting AM markings on your vets and needing to mentally correct themselves constantly.
If you have a simplier paint scheme that ignores such things (despite the Codex Astartes not approving this action), then the fact remains that you're going to need to make sure however you mark your models is still distinct enough that units can be told apart if they end up in a mixed melee or when setting them up next to each other to ensure you grab the correct models for casualties and movement. Which still means markings will remain important regardless of claims otherwise.
2018/08/03 15:13:50
Subject: Re:Is there any point in Assault Marines?
HoundsofDemos wrote: While i'll never ding anyone for going into painting things in great detail, no one in my area is going to expect someone to repaint a model when war gear wise there is practically no difference between the models standard wargear. If you have five guys with jump packs and BP/CS then play them as either is normal in my area. If someone expected different to me that's insane when most people do not paint their models to that level.
Congrats on having an environment where people don't push their painting as hard as some do?
It wasn't an argument to have people constantly repaint things, but more a point that if you paint to a high level with unit markings then it becomes like wargear: the occasional proxy is fine, but a constant proxy should be backed by the proper kit. Be it a flamer on your guy properly, or the right unit marking to promote your assault marines to vets then you should take the time to do it if you're going to constantly be using that proxy.
I mean no one appreciates constantly needing to remember that your flamers are plasma, your grenade launchers are meltas and all your power fists are actually power axes every week, like wise no one wants to have to constantly remember what unit is filling in for what this week just because you don't want to update the unit markings to reflect their new unit role.
That said, if you don't care to mark stuff out like that (which makes me wonder why you play Marines since that's part of the appeal: all the icongraphy they have), as long as your opponent can tell units apart when they're next to each other then your doing fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: The poster above said people would stop playing you if you didn't repaint your assault marines as VV. This seems a step too far. I wouldn't do that.
I find the whole "my melta is a plasma gun" more annoying, because it can feel like list tailoring.
On the other hand if I was playing a friend and he wanted 4 missile launchers say in a devastator squad, but the box forced him to have a hodgepodge of guns, I'd be okay with it rather than insisting he buys sufficient boxes to make it happen.
It was specificially in relation to having a high level of painting and then constantly proxying one unit as another, something that can cause the same level of confusion as proxies if it slips someone's mind during the middle of a game. If you have FA markings on your shoulder pads but proxy as VV all the time, then it's possible for someone to forget that they're actually VV and end up making a tactical mistake based on your proxy, which can cause people to be less likely to play you if you constantly do this kind of thing.
Also, if you want 4 missile launchers and play Marines you can get them easily from the Tactical box (same for Heavy Bolters) The real pain is getting 4 Lascannons for devastators.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/03 15:16:53
Bharring wrote: This is where the social contract becomes necessary:
A new player's HB/LC/MM/etc being a Grav Cannon once to give it a try before he buys, of course that's fine.
A guy who comes every week and plays popcans as droppods and little plastic army men as Marines, I'm not nearly as interested in spending my time in a game with that.
There really isn't one breakpoint that everyone shares in what they'll enjoy, or at least accept.
The argument in this thread, for the last 6 pages at least, is whether a player can reasonably hold *themselves* to *their own* standards on *their own* models. I don't get the hate and vitrol for those who hold themselves to higher WYSIWYG standards.
Oh I agree, holding yourself to a higher standard should be applauded, I was just pointing out that in some respects that paint schemes can be as important as wargear, and it's possible for it to cause the same confusion as any proxy, meaning that it can become harder to proxy if you have higher standards about your painting.
Cool conversions are always welcome as long as the conversions are consistent. If you're using pole axes as power axes across the entire army on your biker Marines, don't suddenly say some of them are actually power swords.
And Bharring hits the point well I feel about the whole technical accuracy < evocation < rule of cool. If you take the time to convert something cool, as long as it follows some kind of logic that stays consistent across your army you can have Orks riding Marines piggy back style as your bikers and I'd be okay with it.
The thing is at the end of the day for those of us who take the time to personalize and tweak our models beyond the bare minimum unit proxies become less and less likely because in some cases the unit stops being able to be used outside of the thing is was made for due to how specific the conversions are.
On a different note, after thinking about Devastators earlier, I'm kind of disappointed that I can't have a Rubric squad of Havocs with Soulreaper Cannons (or Heavy Warpflamers) as a heavy support. Grass is always greener I guess.
2018/08/03 17:08:38
Subject: Re:Is there any point in Assault Marines?
The Allfather wrote: They are are supposed to be recruits. Tactical squads naturally have been around longer. and served in the 8th company. They should cost little more than scouts.
Considering the extra mobility and identical statline to Tacticals, I'd say 1-2 points more than a Tactical since they can bop about the board faster and benefit from the fly key word.
The real issue then is what Tacticals should cost to fix them.
2018/08/03 17:16:32
Subject: Re:Is there any point in Assault Marines?
The Allfather wrote: They are are supposed to be recruits. Tactical squads naturally have been around longer. and served in the 8th company. They should cost little more than scouts.
Considering the extra mobility and identical statline to Tacticals, I'd say 1-2 points more than a Tactical since they can bop about the board faster and benefit from the fly key word.
The real issue then is what Tacticals should cost to fix them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If your list is gonna be that bad, might as well concede actually. I don't have time to waste playing bad lists.
I try to refrain from commenting on how people play the game, but honestly that attitude is fething atrocious.
If you have the option to play the unit as another, more excellent unit, and decide that you cannot because "fluff!!!!!1!" and nothing else outside your own dumb standards that will detract from the game experience, it's gonna be a waste of time as you might do dumb stuff in game too because it sounds "fun". I want to face a dangerous army, not a mishmash hodgepodge of whatever you painted.
Your attitude of looking down your nose at people for making choices that don't line up with being the beardiest goon in the room seem frankly is the sort of toxicity that no hobby group should ever have pushed onto it. Frankly how you get games outside of tournaments treating people this poorly amazes me.
