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.

How do you get to 24" of those reapers without them shooting at you? So they get 2 rounds of shooting vs your one. Your one round of shooting is at -2 (you moved your heavy grav cannon to get in range and they are altoric) so more realistically your numbers look like:

1.7 -> 2 marines dead turn 1, 2 marines dead turn 2. You shoot back with your grav at a -2 so...4 x .333 x .666 x .83 = 75ish% chance of killing 1. Or their autarch has one of those 2d6 no LOS weapons and you die on turn 2...7 x .75 (native re-roll 1) x .5 x .66 = 1.7 just from that gun so 3 marines dead turn 1...

Oh and they'll be parked in cover because, you know they can shoot 48", move and shoot with no penalty or use a strat to move in the shooting phase or one of the million other reasons that make the trash you threw out worthless in any discussion of relative power of the units involved in the comparison.

Oh and those same reapers are more effective against significantly more targets.

CWE works without it's troops doing anything because the rest of their units are sooo good and their one troop choice that is good is really good (-2 to hit rangers with snipers for less than tac squads are really good). The rest of the marine units are terrible as well as tacs (maybe devs are middle of the road)

Look at the ATC/ITC lists and think to yourself why no one is using tacs (maybe one list has a few). Now if those are the best players in the world using the best lists they can come up with as a team either they know something you don't or you know something they don't.

At this point you guys are trolling asserting that tacs are on the same level as reapers or saying that tacs are better than aspect warriors so they and by extension the rest of the marine book is fine.

Plus, Reapers aren't troops. Reapers are really, really good. They're not great at removing Marines, but they are great at removing a lot of other things.

Yes, CWE is really really good. And Marines are actually in the bottom half now. But there's 4 troops in the CWE book alone that are equal to or worse than Marine troops.

(Edit - this line of discussion is based on the claim that there are practically no troops in the game worse than Marine troops. So discounting troops - even when accurately showing that CWE is more OP than SM - doesn't refute the premise.)

Bharring wrote:
Plus, Reapers aren't troops. Reapers are really, really good. They're not great at removing Marines, but they are great at removing a lot of other things.

Yes, CWE is really really good. And Marines are actually in the bottom half now. But there's 4 troops in the CWE book alone that are equal to or worse than Marine troops.

I already explained why that's not important.

Very, very few people in any of these threads are saying the Marine book is fine. We're saying "there are places where they aren't the worst". Or we're saying "this specific claim is not actually true". There is a huge difference between claims like "SM are the most fragile army in the game" and "SM need a buff".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"I already explained why that's not important."
"SM are the worst troops" -> "These troops are worse than SM troops, therefore SM are not the worst troops" -> "But other things in that army are better" -> What?

How does the argument that non-troops are better somehow support SM being worse troops than troops that are worse for them?

Obviously, GK are more fragile than marines. But when facing dozens of dissy cannon shots, marines give up points REALLY fast. Maybe not the fastest, but REALLY fast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Very, very few people in any of these threads are saying the Marine book is fine. We're saying "there are places where they aren't the worst". Or we're saying "this specific claim is not actually true". There is a huge difference between claims like "SM are the most fragile army in the game" and "SM need a buff".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"I already explained why that's not important."
"SM are the worst troops" -> "These troops are worse than SM troops, therefore SM are not the worst troops" -> "But other things in that army are better" -> What?

How does the argument that non-troops are better somehow support SM being worse troops than troops that are worse for them?

Because other marine slots are directly derived from the troops. Eldar troops might be worse than marine troops, it's just irrelevant.

"Eldar troops might be worse than marine troops, it's just irrelevant."
When discussing whether Marines are the worst troop in the game, it is not irrelevant.

It's almost like we're arguing different things. You're arguing CWE > SM. I'd agree. I'm arguing SM Tacs are not the worst troop in the game. You just agreed with that (by pointing out GK).

So don't we both agree with both claims:
-SM are *not* the worst troop in the game
-SM are worse than CWE on the whole
?

SM are not the worst troop, but them being poor/bad has a tremendous effect on the rest of the codex not seen in Xeno codices.

Their poor status guarantees poor FA, poor heavy, poor elites. Therefore, this effect can largely be fixed only at the troop level.

Tack this on top of no chapter tactics on vehicles, and it's a mess.

Scions are better marines than marines in every meaningful way. It's really frustrating.

Eldar are stuck allying in Kabalites for good troops, just like marines are stuck with guardsmen. The main difference is in the rest of the codex. So, in this way, a troop to troop comparison in irrelevant between Eldar and space marines.

bananathug wrote:
How do you get to 24" of those reapers without them shooting at you? So they get 2 rounds of shooting vs your one. Your one round of shooting is at -2 (you moved your heavy grav cannon to get in range and they are altoric) so more realistically your numbers look like:

1.7 -> 2 marines dead turn 1, 2 marines dead turn 2. You shoot back with your grav at a -2 so...4 x .333 x .666 x .83 = 75ish% chance of killing 1. Or their autarch has one of those 2d6 no LOS weapons and you die on turn 2...7 x .75 (native re-roll 1) x .5 x .66 = 1.7 just from that gun so 3 marines dead turn 1...

Oh and they'll be parked in cover because, you know they can shoot 48", move and shoot with no penalty or use a strat to move in the shooting phase or one of the million other reasons that make the trash you threw out worthless in any discussion of relative power of the units involved in the comparison.

Oh and those same reapers are more effective against significantly more targets.

CWE works without it's troops doing anything because the rest of their units are sooo good and their one troop choice that is good is really good (-2 to hit rangers with snipers for less than tac squads are really good). The rest of the marine units are terrible as well as tacs (maybe devs are middle of the road)

Look at the ATC/ITC lists and think to yourself why no one is using tacs (maybe one list has a few). Now if those are the best players in the world using the best lists they can come up with as a team either they know something you don't or you know something they don't.

At this point you guys are trolling asserting that tacs are on the same level as reapers or saying that tacs are better than aspect warriors so they and by extension the rest of the marine book is fine.

Oh, you mean simplistic claims aren't modeling the whole truth then, right? Hmmm... perhaps certain posters could take note of that, and we could get beyond those pointless claims. That would be nice.

For example, why in all these claims are the Tac marines just assumed to all be wielding bolters and firing at the cheapest things around, usually without doing anything else? That's not how you'd be using them, so why use the model? Why not give them a heavy weapon and assume it's shooting at something that gives a better return on points? Why? Because laziness.

Because a single heavy weapon doesn't do anything?

So the argument has boiled down to how bad are marines vs are marines bad or not?

That's fair. I think the answer to that depends on your local meta and how much of your units are you willing to shelve.

How much of a fix you need depends on what you play against. Lists like those at the ATC/ETC or in a tourney meta, OMG so broken please help me I need movie marines (me/martel).

More casual and varied metas, a couple tweeks here and there and they will be fine, good generalship and tactics can make up for the small power difference (Bharr and Insect)?

Am I picking up what you guys/gals are putting down?

How often does the other crowd see 40+ disintegrator shots?

Banana,
I think we can agree that the difference is in the understanding magnitude of how underpowered Marines are. You/Martel understand it to be larger than I understand it to be.

But most of my posts were about specific claims I believed to be invalid, not about the overall power of the codex. To that end, I'm not sure you and I disagreed all that often. It just looked like we did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel,
40+ Disintegrator shots are an awful lot of Raiders after you've filled out your 3 Ravagers.

 Insectum7 wrote:


For example, why in all these claims are the Tac marines just assumed to all be wielding bolters and firing at the cheapest things around, usually without doing anything else? That's not how you'd be using them, so why use the model? Why not give them a heavy weapon and assume it's shooting at something that gives a better return on points? Why? Because laziness.

Things like assessing an unit output devoid of target or against a generic statline like MEQ or GEQ has the merit of forming a baseline, like the Predator standing still vs moving or how many lasgun shots are needed to get the same result as a boltgun or meltagun. These are objective quantities useful to get a ballpark performance to point or model ratio and see what army has the most efficient troop. This is the data needed for a player to do 2 things: informed decisions when making their list and informed decisions when choosing what to do in battle, what to shoot at what and what move or not.

Giving an heavy weapon to a Tac Squad, together with a special weapon and a combiweapon, but the squad into the situation where ranges don't match. The heavy weapon would like to get still, the special weapon to get close and double tap (because it will always be plasma let's face it). Only the Grav cannon is confortable with the 24" range of the rest of the squad. You can do some "crazy stuff" like combat squadding 2x10 man squads and put the 2x5 with special weapons in a rhino and the 2x5 with heavy weapon in the backline. But at that point, isn't it better to just get 4 veterans with 4 plasma and a dev squad with 4 heavy weapons and a razorback? It's like what, 438 points for the first option vs 370 for the second options. The combat squad thing is really nice in theory, but in practice, the codex itself offers better options to do the job.

Then I agree that we need a better way to formulate how the motion of tactics works, to get a feel for real life scenarios. The whole decisional sequence and how usual adversaries dieal with it. Because those dark reapers should usually have already wiped out a couple of units before you can actually touch them at 24". Be it either first or second turn. Even if I fear their Shining Spear the most. Arguably they are the best unit in the whole 40k, in the price/performance ratio.

bananathug wrote:
So the argument has boiled down to how bad are marines vs are marines bad or not?

Yes, but also trying to understand what Marines should be doing worthwhile and unique and how to achieve it. Amidts the "noo they suck" - "noo they don't".

Bharring wrote:

40+ Disintegrator shots are an awful lot of Raiders after you've filled out your 3 Ravagers.

Each ravager can put out 9 of them. So after 3x3 ravagers, it's like 3,4 ravagers to get to 40. So not doable with the 3 datasheet. BUT you have flyers. The Razorwing comes with 2, so 6 shots each. Get another 3 and you're at 54 total with 3 ravager, 3 raiders and 3 razorwing.

bananathug wrote:
So the argument has boiled down to how bad are marines vs are marines bad or not?

That's fair. I think the answer to that depends on your local meta and how much of your units are you willing to shelve.

How much of a fix you need depends on what you play against. Lists like those at the ATC/ETC or in a tourney meta, OMG so broken please help me I need movie marines (me/martel).

More casual and varied metas, a couple tweeks here and there and they will be fine, good generalship and tactics can make up for the small power difference (Bharr and Insect)?

Am I picking up what you guys/gals are putting down?

Insect just lives in Casual City and refuses to believe anything, including math. Bharring understands the issues here and there at least.

Insectum literally plays with 10 man tac squads in drop pods with the most expensive possible loadout. 2 combi plas and a grav cannon.

271 points.

For that cost in a tau army (keep in mind tau aren't even that good)

You can make a full batallion

With a commander with 4 plasma guns (Keep in mind this loadout sucks but still wrecks marines)
a Cadre fireblade
and 15 firewarriors.

For each tac squad built like this I can make another battalion

For the cost of that squad You can take a full IG batallion and a basalisk....


Like seriously. Marines are doomed. The magnitude is unbearably off.

This is an abolute joke.

Bharring wrote:
Banana,
I think we can agree that the difference is in the understanding magnitude of how underpowered Marines are. You/Martel understand it to be larger than I understand it to be.

But most of my posts were about specific claims I believed to be invalid, not about the overall power of the codex. To that end, I'm not sure you and I disagreed all that often. It just looked like we did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel,
40+ Disintegrator shots are an awful lot of Raiders after you've filled out your 3 Ravagers.

Sorry, 30+.

bananathug wrote:
So the argument has boiled down to how bad are marines vs are marines bad or not?

That's fair. I think the answer to that depends on your local meta and how much of your units are you willing to shelve.

How much of a fix you need depends on what you play against. Lists like those at the ATC/ETC or in a tourney meta, OMG so broken please help me I need movie marines (me/martel).

More casual and varied metas, a couple tweeks here and there and they will be fine, good generalship and tactics can make up for the small power difference (Bharr and Insect)?

Am I picking up what you guys/gals are putting down?

That sounds reasonable. I'll say right off the bat I know my meta isn't as competitive as it could be. But that comes with two big asterisks. A: It was recently more competitive, including regular tournament types (and I did pretty well then). And B: I don't think the current army I'm using is the most competitive.

So I can see that my local meta can be more competitive, but also that I've got room to adjust, and I'm currently finding a lot of success with the basic codex, no FW.

I hear Endgame in the east bay is pretty hardcore, if I had the time I'd go check it out. That's just a hard sell at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Insect just lives in Casual City and refuses to believe anything, including math. Bharring understands the issues here and there at least.

I believe the way math is used on here most of the time basically sucks. Proof of that being my "mathematical proof" that Tac squads are "better" than Dark Reapers.

Insectum - tactical squads do not have the tools to engage a dark reaper unit. For the cost of 1 CP - they can protect them from alpha strike and deep strike 48 inches away from you - for you to do it it Costs an 85 point drop pod.

For the cost of 2 CP they can shoot you up really good with forwarning.


Or they can just hide out of LOS to insure they fire first.

Plus the dark reapers aren't needed to shoot at tactical marines - they will just kill your pathetic 10 man tactical with what I like to call (garbage firepower) Which is stuff that only shoots at you because their is nothing else in range. Marines do pretty poorly against even very small amounts of firepower.

CapRichard wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


For example, why in all these claims are the Tac marines just assumed to all be wielding bolters and firing at the cheapest things around, usually without doing anything else? That's not how you'd be using them, so why use the model? Why not give them a heavy weapon and assume it's shooting at something that gives a better return on points? Why? Because laziness.

Things like assessing an unit output devoid of target or against a generic statline like MEQ or GEQ has the merit of forming a baseline, like the Predator standing still vs moving or how many lasgun shots are needed to get the same result as a boltgun or meltagun. These are objective quantities useful to get a ballpark performance to point or model ratio and see what army has the most efficient troop. This is the data needed for a player to do 2 things: informed decisions when making their list and informed decisions when choosing what to do in battle, what to shoot at what and what move or not.

Giving an heavy weapon to a Tac Squad, together with a special weapon and a combiweapon, but the squad into the situation where ranges don't match. The heavy weapon would like to get still, the special weapon to get close and double tap (because it will always be plasma let's face it). Only the Grav cannon is confortable with the 24" range of the rest of the squad. You can do some "crazy stuff" like combat squadding 2x10 man squads and put the 2x5 with special weapons in a rhino and the 2x5 with heavy weapon in the backline. But at that point, isn't it better to just get 4 veterans with 4 plasma and a dev squad with 4 heavy weapons and a razorback? It's like what, 438 points for the first option vs 370 for the second options. The combat squad thing is really nice in theory, but in practice, the codex itself offers better options to do the job.

I would argue that conclusion pretty heavily. Devastators are awesome, yes. But Veterans armed with Specials are a no-go for me, because of the premium on the individual models. Even though I have to take the occasional -1 to hit on a moving Grav-Cannon on Tacticals, the cheaper bodies and the larger, more robust unit with more flexible deployment options makes up for it. My Sternguard stick to their fancy Bolters, my Command Squad sticks with Storm Bolters. The Specials are on Tacs and I can shift them around on a battle-by-battle basis. It's a thin margin of difference, but it's totally in favor of the Tacs from where I stand.

CapRichard wrote:

Then I agree that we need a better way to formulate how the motion of tactics works, to get a feel for real life scenarios. The whole decisional sequence and how usual adversaries dieal with it. Because those dark reapers should usually have already wiped out a couple of units before you can actually touch them at 24". Be it either first or second turn. Even if I fear their Shining Spear the most. Arguably they are the best unit in the whole 40k, in the price/performance ratio.

Honestly I would have probably already shot the Dark Reapers away with Devastators, since they're such a high damage output, but relatively soft target. The mathematical model is just to show how bad the "vs. mathematical model as proof of balance".

I think the math is very useful when building an army and looking at opportunity cost. I absolutely use it all the time. It also helps dispel a few myths. Like it shows that Dark Reapers are very nasty, but weirdly not that great against basic marines. That's a very useful thing to know. But when considering balance across codexes, the "vs." model (where two units face off against each other) is actually quite misguided.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Insectum - tactical squads do not have the tools to engage a dark reaper unit. For the cost of 1 CP - they can protect them from alpha strike and deep strike 48 inches away from you - for you to do it it Costs an 85 point drop pod.

For the cost of 2 CP they can shoot you up really good with forwarning.


Or they can just hide out of LOS to insure they fire first.

Plus the dark reapers aren't needed to shoot at tactical marines - they will just kill your pathetic 10 man tactical with what I like to call (garbage firepower) Which is stuff that only shoots at you because their is nothing else in range. Marines do pretty poorly against even very small amounts of firepower.

10 Dark Reapers only kill about 6 marines out of cover. It's not that scary. It means I could drop Devs with Grav next to them, and the Grav Cannons would still be alive to fire back.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Banana,
I think we can agree that the difference is in the understanding magnitude of how underpowered Marines are. You/Martel understand it to be larger than I understand it to be.

But most of my posts were about specific claims I believed to be invalid, not about the overall power of the codex. To that end, I'm not sure you and I disagreed all that often. It just looked like we did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel,
40+ Disintegrator shots are an awful lot of Raiders after you've filled out your 3 Ravagers.

Sorry, 30+.

Nah I've run a list with 40+ Disintegrators. 3 rav (375) 3 raider (270) 3 razrowings (405)...boom - 48 Dessie shots. That kills 18 terminators in a single turn or 21 primaris marines or 21 tacticals. It also kills 2 lemonruss. That's just a little more than half their army too at 1050 points.

 Insectum7 wrote:

bananathug wrote:
So the argument has boiled down to how bad are marines vs are marines bad or not?

That's fair. I think the answer to that depends on your local meta and how much of your units are you willing to shelve.

How much of a fix you need depends on what you play against. Lists like those at the ATC/ETC or in a tourney meta, OMG so broken please help me I need movie marines (me/martel).

More casual and varied metas, a couple tweeks here and there and they will be fine, good generalship and tactics can make up for the small power difference (Bharr and Insect)?

Am I picking up what you guys/gals are putting down?

That sounds reasonable. I'll say right off the bat I know my meta isn't as competitive as it could be. But that comes with two big asterisks. A: It was recently more competitive, including regular tournament types (and I did pretty well then). And B: I don't think the current army I'm using is the most competitive.

So I can see that my local meta can be more competitive, but also that I've got room to adjust, and I'm currently finding a lot of success with the basic codex, no FW.

I hear Endgame in the east bay is pretty hardcore, if I had the time I'd go check it out. That's just a hard sell at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Insect just lives in Casual City and refuses to believe anything, including math. Bharring understands the issues here and there at least.

I believe the way math is used on here most of the time basically sucks. Proof of that being my "mathematical proof" that Tac squads are "better" than Dark Reapers.

Dark Reapers suck at shooting Gaunts. You're not proving a point at all.
Also I'm sure that math of yours doesn't use a -1 To Hit huh?

^I don't remember and it doesn't matter, point by point the marines still come out way ahead.

No really, you're actually proving my point wiht the statement about Gaunts. If Dark Reapers can be a good unit even though they suck at shooting Gaunts. . . then Tac Squads can be good even if they're not ideal at shooting Guard.

The problem for MEQ is that you take an overcosted 13 point chassis, and then bling it up.

Flash forward and you get a T4, 3+ save 1 wound model which costs 30~ points.

This is horrible. Its provides your opponent - equipped with almost anything - some incredibly efficient shooting/assault/psychic.

An optimised army will destroy a blinged out MEQ army in about 2 turns. Especially if they are not Raven Guard.

You could fire a grav cannon hitting on 4's and 2 plasma guns probably not within 12 inches of them because eldar have things call wave serpants and rangers that keep you from deep striking their back line. So you can kill about 2 reapers in return. This is assuming they don't do anything to buff the reapers defense like...use and army trait or stratagems. 271 points to kill 2 reapers is not good dude.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I don't remember and it doesn't matter, point by point the marines still come out way ahead.

No really, you're actually proving my point wiht the statement about Gaunts. If Dark Reapers can be a good unit even though they suck at shooting Gaunts. . . then Tac Squads can be good even if they're not ideal at shooting Guard.

Then what are they ideal shooting at?

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I don't remember and it doesn't matter, point by point the marines still come out way ahead.

No really, you're actually proving my point wiht the statement about Gaunts. If Dark Reapers can be a good unit even though they suck at shooting Gaunts. . . then Tac Squads can be good even if they're not ideal at shooting Guard.

Dark reapers aren't utilizing anything that makes them good against a tac squad. Their preferred targets are bike and things that rely on negatives to hit to survivie. I much prefer Fire prisms for the roll of busting things like marines. 320 points for 2 of them. 1 CP to reroll all hits and wounds...They average 10 meq NP. Plus they can wreck anything - including flyers/ heavy tanks/ and titans. Even war walkers with starcannons I prefer - as they are reasonably tough and still have good firepower.

A 20 man +1 to hit gardian unit nearly wipes a 10 man tactical even without guide or doom. If I roll slightly above average they are dead. If you are doomed you are automatically dead. Oh yeah - this is one of the worst units in their codex too.

 Insectum7 wrote:

CapRichard wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


For example, why in all these claims are the Tac marines just assumed to all be wielding bolters and firing at the cheapest things around, usually without doing anything else? That's not how you'd be using them, so why use the model? Why not give them a heavy weapon and assume it's shooting at something that gives a better return on points? Why? Because laziness.

Things like assessing an unit output devoid of target or against a generic statline like MEQ or GEQ has the merit of forming a baseline, like the Predator standing still vs moving or how many lasgun shots are needed to get the same result as a boltgun or meltagun. These are objective quantities useful to get a ballpark performance to point or model ratio and see what army has the most efficient troop. This is the data needed for a player to do 2 things: informed decisions when making their list and informed decisions when choosing what to do in battle, what to shoot at what and what move or not.

Giving an heavy weapon to a Tac Squad, together with a special weapon and a combiweapon, but the squad into the situation where ranges don't match. The heavy weapon would like to get still, the special weapon to get close and double tap (because it will always be plasma let's face it). Only the Grav cannon is confortable with the 24" range of the rest of the squad. You can do some "crazy stuff" like combat squadding 2x10 man squads and put the 2x5 with special weapons in a rhino and the 2x5 with heavy weapon in the backline. But at that point, isn't it better to just get 4 veterans with 4 plasma and a dev squad with 4 heavy weapons and a razorback? It's like what, 438 points for the first option vs 370 for the second options. The combat squad thing is really nice in theory, but in practice, the codex itself offers better options to do the job.

I would argue that conclusion pretty heavily. Devastators are awesome, yes. But Veterans armed with Specials are a no-go for me, because of the premium on the individual models. Even though I have to take the occasional -1 to hit on a moving Grav-Cannon on Tacticals, the cheaper bodies and the larger, more robust unit with more flexible deployment options makes up for it. My Sternguard stick to their fancy Bolters, my Command Squad sticks with Storm Bolters. The Specials are on Tacs and I can shift them around on a battle-by-battle basis. It's a thin margin of difference, but it's totally in favor of the Tacs from where I stand.

CapRichard wrote:

Then I agree that we need a better way to formulate how the motion of tactics works, to get a feel for real life scenarios. The whole decisional sequence and how usual adversaries dieal with it. Because those dark reapers should usually have already wiped out a couple of units before you can actually touch them at 24". Be it either first or second turn. Even if I fear their Shining Spear the most. Arguably they are the best unit in the whole 40k, in the price/performance ratio.

Honestly I would have probably already shot the Dark Reapers away with Devastators, since they're such a high damage output, but relatively soft target. The mathematical model is just to show how bad the "vs. mathematical model as proof of balance".

I think the math is very useful when building an army and looking at opportunity cost. I absolutely use it all the time. It also helps dispel a few myths. Like it shows that Dark Reapers are very nasty, but weirdly not that great against basic marines. That's a very useful thing to know. But when considering balance across codexes, the "vs." model (where two units face off against each other) is actually quite misguided.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Insectum - tactical squads do not have the tools to engage a dark reaper unit. For the cost of 1 CP - they can protect them from alpha strike and deep strike 48 inches away from you - for you to do it it Costs an 85 point drop pod.

For the cost of 2 CP they can shoot you up really good with forwarning.


Or they can just hide out of LOS to insure they fire first.

Plus the dark reapers aren't needed to shoot at tactical marines - they will just kill your pathetic 10 man tactical with what I like to call (garbage firepower) Which is stuff that only shoots at you because their is nothing else in range. Marines do pretty poorly against even very small amounts of firepower.

10 Dark Reapers only kill about 6 marines out of cover. It's not that scary. It means I could drop Devs with Grav next to them, and the Grav Cannons would still be alive to fire back.

Except 10 dark reapers as normally buffed unless you can deny the buff kill 9 marines in a single round of shooting at best your marines are shooting back with a -1 probably -2 to hit grav cannon for 1 reaper.

There is a good reason why deepstriking against eldar with large dark reaper units is a bad idea.

Ice_can wrote:
There is a good reason why deepstriking against eldar with large dark reaper units is a bad idea.

When you use drop pods you're forced to shoot at the drop pod with forewarned if I recall correctly. So you can safely drop near them with 2x 5 dev 2x 4 grav if you wanted.

Or, if I land in cover the Reapers are back down to 6 again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CapRichard wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I don't remember and it doesn't matter, point by point the marines still come out way ahead.

No really, you're actually proving my point wiht the statement about Gaunts. If Dark Reapers can be a good unit even though they suck at shooting Gaunts. . . then Tac Squads can be good even if they're not ideal at shooting Guard.

Then what are they ideal shooting at?

Haha, Dark Reapers.

Really anything that Plasma and Grav is good against, which is a lot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CapRichard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
There is a good reason why deepstriking against eldar with large dark reaper units is a bad idea.

When you use drop pods you're forced to shoot at the drop pod with forewarned if I recall correctly. So you can safely drop near them with 2x 5 dev 2x 4 grav if you wanted.

That a FAQ somewhere? That'd be handy.

It's in the rulebook faq

https://whc-cdn.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/warhammer_40000_rulebook_en-1.pdf

Page 5