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.

 General Annoyance wrote:
Identical weapon in fact if I recall correctly - S8, AP3, Large Blast, 72"? Obviously the tradeoff is piss poor Ork accuracy and the fact that it's an upgrade you have to pay a fair amount for.

No, not identical, just similar. Specifically, the Ork weapon is 24".

No, I do not have the new Ork codex, nor have I read it. I only have the 4th edition one. But GW does not change this kind of thing in this kind of codex.

 Traditio wrote:

Go through your codex. Go through the space marine codex. Go through any modern codex.

Individually speaking, how many models, in and of themselves, are "good" relative to the competitive meta which are 6+ edition releases? Prior to 6th?

Sure, I'll bite.


Of the 10 new tyranids released since the start of 6th edition, 2 see any time in competitive lists. (Mucolid spores and hive crones).

Of the ~35 pre-6th tyranids, about 9 commonly feature in competitive lists. Tyrants, rippers, lictors, venomthropes, gargoyles, harpies (admittedly as a tax unit), spore mines, mawlocs, and malanthropes. (YMMV, but close enough)

Most people would rather have a LRBT than 150 points of crisis suits with no weapons (and lots of expensive upgrades to get 150 points in as few models as possible), therefore LRBTs are not terrible!

 Ashiraya wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
Identical weapon in fact if I recall correctly - S8, AP3, Large Blast, 72"? Obviously the tradeoff is piss poor Ork accuracy and the fact that it's an upgrade you have to pay a fair amount for.

No, not identical, just similar. Specifically, the Ork weapon is 24".

No, I do not have the new Ork codex, nor have I read it. I only have the 4th edition one. But GW does not change this kind of thing in this kind of codex.

Apparently we're both wrong to an extent the datasheet for their use in 7th (they weren't put in the codex at launch) states that they can only take a Killkannon, which is the thing that's mounted on Battlewagons - S7, AP3, 5" blast, 24".

So now they're even worse But I guess it is a hell of a lot cheaper than an LRBT, and it can now hold onto its transport capacity, so I could potentially see them being taken over an LRBT.

You still only have front armour 11, and "Don't Press Dat" makes a return

In the modern game, everything gets compared to Tactical Marines (Thus MEQ, for Marine Equivilent)

Going back a long ways, the baseline was the Imperial Guardsman, whose statline was the basis of the Rogue Trader "How much should this model cost?" metrics.

As such, when it comes to footsloggers, those are my measuring sticks. (Which hurts when you compare, say, 60 points of Guardsmen with flashlights vs 60 points of Ork Boys with Choppas and Sluggas, but, there ya go.)

The question is what kind of marine. For Tacs in "modern games" only cost 3 points each when taken in the right formation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This makes the old saying you are better of grots kinda moot. Since ehm you know they are the same point cost now.

 Peregrine wrote:
Most people would rather have a LRBT than 150 points of crisis suits with no weapons (and lots of expensive upgrades to get 150 points in as few models as possible), therefore LRBTs are not terrible!

Why'd you write your comment like that?!

Now all he'll do is quote

 Peregrine wrote:
LRBTs are not terrible!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So I guess it's okay for Tradito to compare units that are a different role and points costs but it's not if we do it since earlier he said:

 Traditio wrote:


That doesn't prove that 85 point whirlwinds are bad. It only shows that they are inferior to those other options. To show that 85 point whirlwinds are bad, you'd have to show that the other options are well-balanced and appropriately costed in terms of points, and the whirlwind is STILL inferior for its points.

I already proved it and he ignored me

It's been proven several times and yet people still bite at the bit to get in on the conversation that isn't actually happening in these threads. There's a different set of rules a certain poster lives by and that poster is exempt from them. We should really stop engaging.