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.

Breton wrote:

With intercessors. You were specifically talking about Intercessors not Aggressors which was not honest then, and trying to twist it to Aggressors isn't honest now.

We have been talking about Aggressors/Eradicators and Intercessors this entire time, I've done the math for you showing you that Intercessors are by themselves (no buffs, or chapter or doctrine) already better than an Equivalent points value worth of Boyz. The argument being that since they are already BETTER than Boyz, why would you need a ridiculous unit of Aggressors to even exist? You can deflect all you want but the point remains that you have yet to make a valid argument for Aggressors or Eradicators to be so ridiculously OP. You've ranged from saying Intercessors aren't tac enough (proven false) to saying your transport options are limited and bad (proven false) to saying well that doesn't matter because you aren't being honest. seriously?

Breton wrote:

Correct Pyro, I just did the math above, but its a bit ridiculous that a SM player can take 3 units of 4 Aggressors for 540pts and completely eradicate an entire horde of boyz in 1 turn.

Without buffs that is about 80 dead boyz, with even a minor buff like a Lieutenant nearby it becomes 3 full mobz of boyz dead in 1 turn of shooting, or equivalent to 720pts or over 1/3rd of my army dead. Even if you gave each mob a painboy and a KFF its still a ridiculous amount of dead boyz. (With KFF and a painboy, a unit of 4 aggressors without buffs kills almost 18 boyz a turn)[/quote]

Isn't 18 60% of one mob?

Yes, a 4 man unit of Aggressors which cost 180pts is capable of gutting a unit of boyz, 3 of them combine to kill about 80 boyz a turn. that is 2 full mobz and 66% of another.

Is 18 60% of 30? Yep. I like how you just happily ignore the caveat you yourself highlighted WITH KFF AND PAINBOY. LOL. Yeah, if you add in 140pts of buffing characters they go from losing 26-27 Models a turn to 18ish So they lose 144pts with the help of 140pts of characters, so 380pts tied up to hold an objective for 1 turn because turn 2 they are dead. So long as they are completely within 9' of the Big Mek and 3' of the Painboy. For about the same price we can give those aggressors a Captain and a LT, and i have yet to come across a captain who wasn't buffed to be a chapter master. So now its 96 shots, 85 hits, and basically 50 wounds for 27 to 28 Dead boyz...or right back to where we were pre-buffs for everyone.

Breton wrote:
And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?

Yeah, if I bring 3 Big mekz with KFF and 3 Painboyz (420pts)I can make those 720pts of boyz survive for....2 turns against Aggressors, or 1 if you bring a Chapter Master and a LT. Amazing how you just hand out 3 HQ choices 3 elite choices and 420pts to make your point seem valid. And it really would only take 1 Chapter master since its fairly easy to fit 12 models in a 1 foot in diameter circle. So my super buffed orkz can survive until turn 2 against unbuffed aggressors or 1 turn against buffed aggressors...i mean, in fairness I would have about 3-5 boyz left out of 90 after morale and what not

I still can't believe I read a post advocating a turn one charge with sentinal powerlifters in 2020.

@ Admiral Halsey: I'm Sorry
And as I said, it's only in a vacuum and I'm fully aware that saying "it's hard to pull off" is an understatement. Then again, in theory (!!!) 9 WS2+ T10 AP-2 dD3 attacks for 135 points +1 CP seems to me currently the best IG can do.
The full payload Manticore (which also has a neat statline) while obviously with range and without the need for line of sight costs about the same and kills "just" 7×1/2×5/6x2/3 =35/18 ~2 gravis models.

On snipers/assassins, don't really get the counter play argument because in my experience in 40k stuff just dies, so it just seems this dislike that you can't run your list entirely as you would if those units didn't exist, which seems a bit like saying "I like tanks, the fact people can bring lascannons is bs".

In any case, we are what, days away, from the purpose of this thread. How nerfed to SM have to be for us to think its all good?

Because, perhaps odd combos aside, I'm looking at the Necron rules rollout and laughing.

Not sure how, but I think this is in completely the wrong thread.
Oh well.
Tbh they all turn into one after a while.

Tyel wrote:
On snipers/assassins, don't really get the counter play argument because in my experience in 40k stuff just dies, so it just seems this dislike that you can't run your list entirely as you would if those units didn't exist, which seems a bit like saying "I like tanks, the fact people can bring lascannons is bs".

In any case, we are what, days away, from the purpose of this thread. How nerfed to SM have to be for us to think its all good?

Because, perhaps odd combos aside, I'm looking at the Necron rules rollout and laughing.

Not sure how, but I think this is in completely the wrong thread.
Oh well.
Tbh they all turn into one after a while.

I would say: some amount?

They have to be not "primaris stuff exactly as good as it is now, most firstborn stuff super buffed up"?

So far, we have a speculated nerf to specifically aggressors, and a confirmed nerf to Salamanders/Master Crafters trait and now Long Range Marksmen trait. Also limits to captains/lieutenants. Also the CORE mechanic, which is still kind of a question mark as to what will be affected by that beyond "a bunch of vehicles nobody is currently taking in competitive lists anyway because what's good about marines has never been non-dread vehicles"

All that's pretty good stuff. But there's still the buff to Eradicators/melta stuff in general (including the crazy 8 melta/lascannon shot predator equivalent tank) and the buffs to allllllllllllllllllllllll that is firstborn marines incoming.

We also know there's a significant buff to DA chapter tactic (got a captain? Congrats, you've got yourself a rerollable 2+ to hit gunline, gee that sounds fun.)

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton:

Isn't 18 60% of one mob?

And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?

I mean... yes, that means 4 Aggressors (180 points, right? They were 45 per Aggressor or am I mistaken?) without any boni kill 18 boyz that are under two of the best sturdiness buffs they can get. That's 152 points of boyz or 84% of their points costs. And note that all those 30 boyz have to stand within the range of the custom forcefield. I personally would say that is pretty problematic.

This notion of "just over half of one squad" that seems to imply that they are not efficient at removing this horde is a bit misleading when I think about what other Codizes have to pull up to kill 18 boyz under both buffs.

Still and all that's quite a swing from "An entire horde of boys in 1 turn", to less than a single unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

Breton wrote:

With intercessors. You were specifically talking about Intercessors not Aggressors which was not honest then, and trying to twist it to Aggressors isn't honest now.

We have been talking about Aggressors/Eradicators and Intercessors this entire time, I've done the math for you showing you that Intercessors are by themselves (no buffs, or chapter or doctrine) already better than an Equivalent points value worth of Boyz.

I did the math "too". And I did it first. And shooty intercessors are better than fighty boys AT SHOOTING. And you still have a problem with honesty.
First you imply anyone who disagrees with you wants Intercessors to wipe out an entire squad of boys a turn.
Then you claim you were talking about Aggressors not Intercessors despite the quote proving otherwise.
Now you claim Intercessors are just plain better because of the math "you" did.
And didn't include the fighting math for an overall "Better" while my math pointed out it took four turns, as that was a slow but ballpark landing spot for equal points shooting vs equal points fight as the fight should be in Fight by turn 2 or turn 3.

The argument being that since they are already BETTER than Boyz, why would you need a ridiculous unit of Aggressors to even exist?

Because the fight oriented boys aren't going to spend four turns shooting instead of what they're built for? Oh wait, that's something someone honest would point out.
And Because as I said SM players have to trade Intercessors for specialists in a TAC list, meaning when they trade a squad of intercessors for Anti-Tank or Mobility, or what have you, they have to trade another squad of intercessors for Aggressors to regain that ROF lost.

You can deflect all you want but the point remains that you have yet to make a valid argument for Aggressors or Eradicators to be so ridiculously OP. You've ranged from saying Intercessors aren't tac enough (proven false) to saying your transport options are limited and bad (proven false) to saying well that doesn't matter because you aren't being honest. seriously?

And you're still lying. I never said Intercessors weren't TAC enough, I said they had to take Aggressors to make up for shortages in a TAC list. I mean I suppose you could say Intercessors with an Aux Grenade Launcher isn't Tac Enough - Unless you're going to lie about 6x20 Intercessors vs a BladeSwordHammer etc. in the near future. Seriously, if you're just going to lie, why are we doing this?

I mean all this does is you lie about what I said, I point it out, and everyone gets annoyed. Why do this?

I wonder why it is that all these amazing, top level players, will tell you that these units are top tier and are able to prove it by taking these very units to the very peak of competitive play.

Yet a couple of familiar-faced Dakkanauts in here can't even make them feel too strong for their casual FLGS meta.






I wonder what the difference is between these two sets of players, for them to have such a different perspective on the exact same unit.

Hmmm... whatever could it be?

 Nitro Zeus wrote:
I wonder why it is that all these amazing, top level players, will tell you that these units are top tier and are able to prove it by taking these very units to the very peak of competitive play.

Yet a couple of familiar-faced Dakkanauts in here can't even make them feel too strong for their casual FLGS meta.






I wonder what the difference is between these two sets of players, for them to have such a different perspective on the exact same unit.

Hmmm... whatever could it be?

They're really bad at the game as well as being completely delusional as to how much their own irrelevant bad players playing against other bad players experiences matter.

Which isn't to say that I'm a super great or competitive player, but I'm also not so arrogant as to think that my own subjective gaming experience with friends is even relevant when talking about what's good in the game, and I'm definitely not delusional enough to think I know better than top players.

Side note: Aggressors are fething disgusting. I nearly evaporated 26 Boyz charging me with overwatch alone, leaving like three left. Because I could reroll everything. It's absurd, and I actually felt dirty trying them out.

Yeah, that's basically the only real implication one gives others when they try to downplay these units.

Aggressors and Eradicators are both extremely powerful. To even suggest otherwise shows a complete disconnect with how 40k works.

Breton wrote:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton:

Isn't 18 60% of one mob?

And Wait, are you saying when your large mobs of boys get their buffs , the giant block of damage capable of wiping out "entire hordes of boys in one turn" suddenly wipes out.. just over half of one squad?

I mean... yes, that means 4 Aggressors (180 points, right? They were 45 per Aggressor or am I mistaken?) without any boni kill 18 boyz that are under two of the best sturdiness buffs they can get. That's 152 points of boyz or 84% of their points costs. And note that all those 30 boyz have to stand within the range of the custom forcefield. I personally would say that is pretty problematic.

This notion of "just over half of one squad" that seems to imply that they are not efficient at removing this horde is a bit misleading when I think about what other Codizes have to pull up to kill 18 boyz under both buffs.

Still and all that's quite a swing from "An entire horde of boys in 1 turn", to less than a single unit.

Lets make this as simple as possible. ZERO buffs for either side.

Those Aggressors kill almost an entire Mob in 1 turn. (26-27 boyz for 208 to 216pts)
Intercessors kill 7 a turn (56pts a turn).
If you add in the 140pts of Durability buffs (KFF and Painboy) than I will add in the chapter master and LT and the math stays about the same, about 26 dead boyz.

Most games have a 24' "No mans" land, boyz can only move 5 + D6 a turn. It will be at a minimum turn 2 before they are close enough to consider a charge against SM's. If boyz go first they will attempt to get to the middle objective and sit on it turn 2, no point advancing past, where as SM players can sit still turn 1 and shoot, turn 2 they can move up 6, rapid fire and than charge into combat where as i mentioned they do more than hold their own. So they are plenty capable of taking on choppy orkz by simply shooting the piss out of them at range turn 1 and finishing them in CC turn 2-3. I'm reasonably sure I've done the math for you as far as 25 Orkz vs 10 intercessors in CC, but basically it boils down to who goes first to see who wins. 25 boyz = 100 attacks, 66 hits, 33 wounds 5-6 damage, 2-3 dead Intercessors They retaliate for (assuming 7 left) 22 attacks, 14 hits 7 wounds, 6 dead Orkz. orkz hit back with 57 attacks, 38 hits, 19 wounds for 3 more dmg, 6 intercessors left, 13 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds about 4 dead orkz. This keeps going until both sides are basically mauled to death. In other words, Intercessors are AS good as similar value of boyz in CC, and if those intercessors get the charge off they will win because they deny the boyz their 1 round of +1 attacks from 20+ models. (Again, no buffs included in these calculations)

Breton wrote:

With intercessors. You were specifically talking about Intercessors not Aggressors which was not honest then, and trying to twist it to Aggressors isn't honest now.

We have been talking about Aggressors/Eradicators and Intercessors this entire time, I've done the math for you showing you that Intercessors are by themselves (no buffs, or chapter or doctrine) already better than an Equivalent points value worth of Boyz.

I did the math "too". And I did it first. And shooty intercessors are better than fighty boys AT SHOOTING. And you still have a problem with honesty.
First you imply anyone who disagrees with you wants Intercessors to wipe out an entire squad of boys a turn.
Then you claim you were talking about Aggressors not Intercessors despite the quote proving otherwise.
Now you claim Intercessors are just plain better because of the math "you" did.
And didn't include the fighting math for an overall "Better" while my math pointed out it took four turns, as that was a slow but ballpark landing spot for equal points shooting vs equal points fight as the fight should be in Fight by turn 2 or turn 3.

"wants intercessors to wipe out an entire squad of boyz a turn" No, what I actually said was that if you are arguing that need to take aggressors because Intercessors aren't good enough at shooting mobz then you are wrong. intercessors make back their points in slightly less than 4 turns of shooting. Aggressors do it in 1. What is the happy median than for you? Should Intercessors kill 25 orkz in 3 turns? 2? How many turns should it take intercessors to wipe out boyz by shooting at them? I posted the numbers, they are already capable of doing it, and they are as good in CC as those boyz, and in fact if they get 1 turn of shooting and charge or get charged they likely beat similar pts value of boyz in CC. So please, give me your opinion, how many turns of shooting should it take intercessors to kill a mob of boyz to make you accept nerfing aggressors so they aren't destroying mobz in 1 turn?

"Claim you were talking about aggressors not intercessors" yeah, Ive been talking about 3 units this entire time, pointing out that your basic troops choice is already damn good and capable making aggressors un needed, and ridiculously OP.
"claim intercessors are better" yeah...because they are. The only thing I can think of that Boyz are better at than Intercessors is holding an objective and only for 1 turn. And it has nothing to do with stats and everything to do with model count.

Breton wrote:

The argument being that since they are already BETTER than Boyz, why would you need a ridiculous unit of Aggressors to even exist?

Because the fight oriented boys aren't going to spend four turns shooting instead of what they're built for? Oh wait, that's something someone honest would point out.
And Because as I said SM players have to trade Intercessors for specialists in a TAC list, meaning when they trade a squad of intercessors for Anti-Tank or Mobility, or what have you, they have to trade another squad of intercessors for Aggressors to regain that ROF lost.

Again math directly above, in a real game scenario those intercessors get at least 2 turns of shooting against a Mob of boyz, and will likely get the charge off unless i want to abandon the objective to charge you, which wouldn't be that smart since I also just showed you that those boyz have a hard time in CC against intercessors.

And now your other argument, because you need mobility or anti-tank firepower you have to get rid of the unit that is better than the boyz unit at both those tasks....so why have troops at all? Why are players even bringing TAC units to begin with? Your argument is based on "Well I want to be as good or better than everyone else's armies in every category so in order to do so I need to be able to mulch everything in the game so Intercessors aren't good enough". The entire concept of TAC is tactical flexibility. You aren't asking for tactical flexibility, you are asking for units that are so utterly OP that you can mulch any competitive build in 1-2 turns.

Breton wrote:

You can deflect all you want but the point remains that you have yet to make a valid argument for Aggressors or Eradicators to be so ridiculously OP. You've ranged from saying Intercessors aren't tac enough (proven false) to saying your transport options are limited and bad (proven false) to saying well that doesn't matter because you aren't being honest. seriously?

And you're still lying. I never said Intercessors weren't TAC enough, I said they had to take Aggressors to make up for shortages in a TAC list. I mean I suppose you could say Intercessors with an Aux Grenade Launcher isn't Tac Enough - Unless you're going to lie about 6x20 Intercessors vs a BladeSwordHammer etc. in the near future. Seriously, if you're just going to lie, why are we doing this?

And the circle continues. Intercessors aren't good enough at slaying hordes of infantry (They are capable of doing this just not fast enough to your liking) so you have to have aggressors which do that job in literally 1 turn. And Intercessors aren't doing enough damage against vehicles so therefore you need Eradicators...which do that job in 1 turn.....Are you assuming I am saying you can't take any other units in the codex besides intercessors? Is that where this ridiculous argument is coming from? No, the point I am making, as well as about 99% of dakkadakka is that Aggressors and Eradicators are utterly OP at what they do. These units are making back their points in 1 turn of shooting and doing their jobs so ridiculously well that its not even worth playing against. Honestly, If i show up to a game and set up an ork army and my opponent has 3 units of aggressors, it will not even be remotely fun because hes just invalidated a third of my army in 1 turn, and that is before you even get into the other 3/4ths of his list that hes going to shoot me with.

SM's are ridiculously OP, a lot of this has to do with Aggressors and Eradicators as well as a host of other things. Instead of accepting this opinion which is shared by basically everyone in the game, including tournament players who are winning events with these very units, you choose to say you "need them" because intercessors aren't going to be enough...nobody said you couldn't take other units, hell nobody is saying you can't take aggressors or eradicators, we are just saying they need to be HEAVILY tuned down because they are broken right now.

 Void__Dragon wrote:


Side note: Aggressors are fething disgusting. I nearly evaporated 26 Boyz charging me with overwatch alone, leaving like three left. Because I could reroll everything. It's absurd, and I actually felt dirty trying them out.

That level of success is well above the average - unless you were using flamers?

(I'm not saying they're not strong)

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:


Side note: Aggressors are fething disgusting. I nearly evaporated 26 Boyz charging me with overwatch alone, leaving like three left. Because I could reroll everything. It's absurd, and I actually felt dirty trying them out.

That level of success is well above the average - unless you were using flamers?

(I'm not saying they're not strong)

In just overwatch that is ridiculously good rolls

SemperMortis wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:


Side note: Aggressors are fething disgusting. I nearly evaporated 26 Boyz charging me with overwatch alone, leaving like three left. Because I could reroll everything. It's absurd, and I actually felt dirty trying them out.

That level of success is well above the average - unless you were using flamers?

(I'm not saying they're not strong)

In just overwatch that is ridiculously good rolls

Looking at the odds, assuming Tactical Doctrine, CM, Lt., and no durability buffs on the Boyz...

Aggressors.......Percent Odds of Killing 26+ Boys
3...................................0.02%
4...................................1.60%
5...................................16.29%
6...................................50.51%

So, they've actually got a good chance of wiping that many Boys in Overwatch with the Bolters. It can get better, too-if you're Fists, you get 2 hits on every six for the Boltstorm Gauntlets (but not the Grenades) which will significantly increases damage.

Oh, and 6 Aggressors (with the above buffs) have about a 20% chance of killing all 30 in Overwatch.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Looking at the odds, assuming Tactical Doctrine, CM, Lt., and no durability buffs on the Boyz...

Aggressors.......Percent Odds of Killing 26+ Boys
3...................................0.02%
4...................................1.60%
5...................................16.29%
6...................................50.51%

So, they've actually got a good chance of wiping that many Boys in Overwatch with the Bolters. It can get better, too-if you're Fists, you get 2 hits on every six for the Boltstorm Gauntlets (but not the Grenades) which will significantly increases damage.

Oh, and 6 Aggressors (with the above buffs) have about a 20% chance of killing all 30 in Overwatch.

Right....so 410 points and 2 CP to kill 240 against a careless opponent.

I get marines are strong, but they're being beaten (and not by one single type of list from a single faction) and these anecdotes and overly massaged math hammer scenarios don't do anyone any favors.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Looking at the odds, assuming Tactical Doctrine, CM, Lt., and no durability buffs on the Boyz...

Aggressors.......Percent Odds of Killing 26+ Boys
3...................................0.02%
4...................................1.60%
5...................................16.29%
6...................................50.51%

So, they've actually got a good chance of wiping that many Boys in Overwatch with the Bolters. It can get better, too-if you're Fists, you get 2 hits on every six for the Boltstorm Gauntlets (but not the Grenades) which will significantly increases damage.

Oh, and 6 Aggressors (with the above buffs) have about a 20% chance of killing all 30 in Overwatch.

Right....so 410 points and 2 CP to kill 240 against a careless opponent.

I get marines are strong, but they're being beaten (and not by one single type of list from a single faction) and these anecdotes and overly massaged math hammer scenarios don't do anyone any favors.

In Overwatch. You know, a step a lot of people used to skip because it did basically nothing. And that's not even as buffed up as they could be.

Their damage goes up by nearly three times in regular shooting, or one squad can wipe 75 Boys in a single phase. Without adding any Chapter buffs. Off-hand, Fists would increase that to 84. Salamanders, if you use their +1 Wound strat, net just shy of 100.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Looking at the odds, assuming Tactical Doctrine, CM, Lt., and no durability buffs on the Boyz...

Aggressors.......Percent Odds of Killing 26+ Boys
3...................................0.02%
4...................................1.60%
5...................................16.29%
6...................................50.51%

So, they've actually got a good chance of wiping that many Boys in Overwatch with the Bolters. It can get better, too-if you're Fists, you get 2 hits on every six for the Boltstorm Gauntlets (but not the Grenades) which will significantly increases damage.

Oh, and 6 Aggressors (with the above buffs) have about a 20% chance of killing all 30 in Overwatch.

6 get 144 shots, hitting on 6s so 24 hits, rerolling all misses (Chapter master), for another 20 hits 44 hits for 22 wounds, rerolling 7 for 3.5 ish more so 25 ish wounds which works out to 20-21 dead Orkz, or 25ish if -1 AP wow that is ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Right....so 410 points and 2 CP to kill 240 against a careless opponent.

I get marines are strong, but they're being beaten (and not by one single type of list from a single faction) and these anecdotes and overly massaged math hammer scenarios don't do anyone any favors.

Well the 2 CP is spent regardless because why wouldn't you? but yeah, i get your point, but 6 of them is ridiculously strong and its 240pts dead on the ENEMY's turn. Those 6 are slaying 40 boyz (320pts) worth of Orkz a turn without buffs, add in tac/dev and its worse, add in rerolls and its ridiculous. the only thing surprising to me is why they aren't brought more often.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Looking at the odds, assuming Tactical Doctrine, CM, Lt., and no durability buffs on the Boyz...

Aggressors.......Percent Odds of Killing 26+ Boys
3...................................0.02%
4...................................1.60%
5...................................16.29%
6...................................50.51%

So, they've actually got a good chance of wiping that many Boys in Overwatch with the Bolters. It can get better, too-if you're Fists, you get 2 hits on every six for the Boltstorm Gauntlets (but not the Grenades) which will significantly increases damage.

Oh, and 6 Aggressors (with the above buffs) have about a 20% chance of killing all 30 in Overwatch.

Right....so 410 points and 2 CP to kill 240 against a careless opponent.

I get marines are strong, but they're being beaten (and not by one single type of list from a single faction) and these anecdotes and overly massaged math hammer scenarios don't do anyone any favors.

a CARELESS opponent? What did he do wrong here? He made the charge with his assault unit in his assault army, against a shooty unit from a shooty army. What’s careless about this other than the fact that the Aggressors get to do exactly this - kill 26 of them?

Also no it’s not 410 pts. That’s not a cost here. You’re still getting MORE THAN your 410 pts worth of Aggressors in your own turn. This is in OVERWATCH, in your opponents turn. Absurd.

Nobody is saying Marines can’t be beaten. Jesus Christ dude you’re in denial. Why is it ALWAYS you, Xenos, Martel or Karol? You guys are like the four hoursemen of Space Marine downplay.

Yeah, I think it's hard to say that Marines aren't massively over tuned at the moment. Certain units more so than others. This could change with codex creep but then we'll just get codex 2.0 But this is nothing new, marines have frequently been top tier armies and occasionally lower tier armies. We can hope GW listens to the complaints but little more.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

a CARELESS opponent? What did he do wrong here? He made the charge with his assault unit in his assault army, against a shooty unit from a shooty army. What’s careless about this other than the fact that the Aggressors get to do exactly this - kill 26 of them?

Also no it’s not 410 pts. That’s not a cost here. You’re still getting MORE THAN your 410 pts worth of Aggressors in your own turn. This is in OVERWATCH, in your opponents turn. Absurd.

Nobody is saying Marines can’t be beaten. Jesus Christ dude you’re in denial. Why is it ALWAYS you, Xenos, Martel or Karol? You guys are like the four hoursemen of Space Marine downplay.

I'm not in denial. text removed. Reds8n If no one is saying marines can't be beaten why are we on page 37? Why is almost every thread a referendum on marines?

What did he do wrong? He FED a unit that he knew would die without a plan. In an edition where overwatch likely happens once per turn. In an edition where killing units isn't always required. If they didn't charge then they're still on the board next turn and require removal.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Nobody is saying Marines can’t be beaten. Jesus Christ dude you’re in denial. Why is it ALWAYS you, Xenos, Martel or Karol? You guys are like the four hoursemen of Space Marine downplay.

lmfao beautiful quote.

Although to be fair, at least Martel and Daedaluls have reasoning. Karol is just like me gk me good and xenos can't post without hyperbole.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

a CARELESS opponent? What did he do wrong here? He made the charge with his assault unit in his assault army, against a shooty unit from a shooty army. What’s careless about this other than the fact that the Aggressors get to do exactly this - kill 26 of them?

Also no it’s not 410 pts. That’s not a cost here. You’re still getting MORE THAN your 410 pts worth of Aggressors in your own turn. This is in OVERWATCH, in your opponents turn. Absurd.

Nobody is saying Marines can’t be beaten. Jesus Christ dude you’re in denial. Why is it ALWAYS you, Xenos, Martel or Karol? You guys are like the four hoursemen of Space Marine downplay.

I'm not in denial. If no one is saying marines can't be beaten why are we on page 37? Why is almost every thread a referendum on marines?

What did he do wrong? He FED a unit that he knew would die without a plan. In an edition where overwatch likely happens once per turn. In an edition where killing units isn't always required. If they didn't charge then they're still on the board next turn and require removal.

Honestly, handwaving balance in the name of objectives is pretty gak. If we were to say, focus more on killpoints the game would be *extremely* favoured to the flavour of marines. Ork Boyz wouldn't exist etc etc.
I've always found creating balance that relies on games ending early is bad design, especially more so when orks can only win by slow rolling on objectives.

 Eonfuzz wrote:


Honestly, handwaving balance in the name of objectives is pretty gak. If we were to say, focus more on killpoints the game would be *extremely* favoured to the flavour of marines. Ork Boyz wouldn't exist etc etc.
I've always found creating balance that relies on games ending early is bad design, especially more so when orks can only win by slow rolling on objectives.

I'm not handwaving balance at all. It seems some people just can't handle someone not being of the same exact opinion as theirs.

And what is your opinion on the strength of marines relative to other factions, exactly?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
[

I'm not in denial.If no one is saying marines can't be beaten why are we on page 37? Why is almost every thread a referendum on marines?

Honestly, we're on Page 37 because this is about the third or fourth different topic in the thread, Eradicators played out 20 or so pages ago.

What did he do wrong? He FED a unit that he knew would die without a plan. In an edition where overwatch likely happens once per turn. In an edition where killing units isn't always required. If they didn't charge then they're still on the board next turn and require removal.

He had a unit that needs to get thrown in. What "he did wrong" was to try and take out Rock with Scissors. 8 Mek Guns with a Smasha Gun is also about 270 points, and will decimate 6 Aggressors. For the same price you can get 4.5 Kustom Mega-Kannons and do about the same. They're arguing their worst unit for the encounter vs the opponent's unit designed for such an encounter.

Basically taking my point about a TAC list needing some anti-"horde" to make up for lost power from Anti-tank/etc and throwing it full speed reverse by pretending the Ork army only has 30 strong mobs of boys.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
And what is your opinion on the strength of marines relative to other factions, exactly?

They're the best and easiest faction available, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

That level of success is well above the average - unless you were using flamers?

(I'm not saying they're not strong)

It's not.

On average I'd have actually wiped the entire squad.

In Overwatch. On his turn.

It's fething absurd my man.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

That level of success is well above the average - unless you were using flamers?

(I'm not saying they're not strong)

It's not.

On average I'd have actually wiped the entire squad.

In Overwatch. On his turn.

It's fething absurd my man.

What's fething absurd isn't even that.

Let's momentarily accept the premise that Aggressors are supposed to be dedicated anti-horde units. My problem with them is not that they can wipe a horde; they're not alone in being able to do this. Let's even concede, for the sake of argument, that they're allowed to do so during overwatch using flame weapons and that isn't hideously broken.

My problem with them is that they should not, being anti-horde units, then also be able to turn around and cripple if not outright destroy any vehicle of less than T8/3+ with those same weapons - and that's without being Salamanders; If they're Salamanders under optimal conditions (standing still, Tactical Doctrine, max squad size) and they burn 3CP worth of strats (4CP if you count Overwatch or the strat that makes them count as standing still) they have a slightly better than 50% chance of destroying a Knight.

144 shots, all hits
5+ to wound: 48 wounds (Assuming no LT rerolls!)
-1 AP: 4+ armor save: 24 wounds

And THAT doesn't even count the fact that for some reason they all get powerfists on top of that and could punch any surviving vehicles apart. Antihorde unit my arse.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
And what is your opinion on the strength of marines relative to other factions, exactly?

They're the best and easiest faction available, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

apparently there's no room for nuance in between "Marines are actually UNDERPOWERED and if you can't beat them you need to learn to play" and "MARINES ARE UNBEATABLE AND RUINING THE GAME"

honestly this entire drama is rediculas, marines are getting a new codex in less then 2 weeks. we have no idea what the state of the codex will be.

BrianDavion wrote:


honestly this entire drama is rediculas, marines are getting a new codex in less then 2 weeks. we have no idea what the state of the codex will be.

Of course it's ridiculous. We're mostly grown adults arguing about the rules for absurdly overpriced plastic models in a setting so far over the top it needs a damn spacesuit. That doesn't mean we can't all come together and care passionately about those rules to the point of mental illness.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:


honestly this entire drama is rediculas, marines are getting a new codex in less then 2 weeks. we have no idea what the state of the codex will be.

Of course it's ridiculous. We're mostly grown adults arguing about the rules for absurdly overpriced plastic models in a setting so far over the top it needs a damn spacesuit. That doesn't mean we can't all come together and care passionately about those rules to the point of mental illness.

But... I took my medication today!

 CEO Kasen wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:


honestly this entire drama is rediculas, marines are getting a new codex in less then 2 weeks. we have no idea what the state of the codex will be.

Of course it's ridiculous. We're mostly grown adults arguing about the rules for absurdly overpriced plastic models in a setting so far over the top it needs a damn spacesuit. That doesn't mean we can't all come together and care passionately about those rules to the point of mental illness.

I thoroughly enjoy your posts. Kudos. That was a good pre-bedtime chuckle.