I got tabled BEFORE MY FIRST TURN?

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.

**daedalus**

Martel732 wrote:

I'm saying melee power armor lists can't afford the tools in 8th and simultaneously have enough bodies to get the tools where they need to be. Berserkers might be an exception to this, but even they suffer mobility problems.

They're pretty good though. Check this thread here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/741897.page

**Galef**

Wonderwolf wrote:
Inversely, if you can use stratagems multiple times before the actual game ("outside a phase"), couldn't counter it by re-rolling the seize initiative roll for as long as you have command points?

Being able to use "infinite" Command points does nothing to override the "can never re-roll and re-roll" general rule. Once you have re-rolled the Seize, the second roll is final.

**Arkaine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Arkaine wrote:
BoomWolf wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Grey Knights aren't a real army, then they shouldn't have a codex. They do have a codex, so presumably GW expects them to be a legitimate, stand-alone army.

Am I to point out that for a duration, ASSASSINS had a codex?

Codex=/=stand alone competitive army.

Gk can stand on thier own as a casual/friendly army, but expecting a high specialized counter force (counter daemons in this case) to also be TAC viable is silly.
Just like expecting assassins to be stand alone viable.

I'm not sure I'm in agreement with your idea that Assassins can't be stand alone viable. The assassins this edition range from 70pts to 90pts possessing 4++ invulns and better stats/abilities than most HQs in the game. They're CHEAPER and MORE POWERFUL than a Chaos Lord and the only benefit the lord gets over them is his reroll aura, which they don't need since they reroll things innately. One even possesses a bloody Melta Bomb!! Bye bye tanks.

I think if you stick an army of Culexus assassins up front as the screeners, the enemy can only shoot at them using BS 6+. Every other unit in the army is untargetable due to Character rules in the shooting phase. So your invisible army marches forward while supported by invulnerable-save-ignoring Vindicares that snipe all your characters until the Eversor force gets into CQC range where it is undoubtedly the most cost effective close combat unit in the game, even possessing individual suicide vests that will mortal wound to death the remaining forces they engage, all for 70pts each.

I think a pure assassin list is totally doable. They just wouldn't have any stratagems. Yet. (prays for Officio Assassinorum codex)

So, uh, your army, who are the HQ's? Or are you just bringing 3 assassins and have 0 CP?

Check the assassin datasheets. Unlike Magnus or Ahriman or other unique, they are not limited to one per army. Also there are four assassins, the fourth screws with CP usage and deep strikes close by. You would field an entire zerg of assassins and since you lack stratagems anyhow don't require CP. Losing the rerolls on characters who innately reroll and fire a bunch of times isn't terrible, especially since only one can reroll per shooting phase with it. If you desperately want the rerolls, you're welcome to modify the idea by adding cheap HQs into a bunch of 6 Elite 1 HQ vanguards.

**Unit1126PLL**

Arkaine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Arkaine wrote:
BoomWolf wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Grey Knights aren't a real army, then they shouldn't have a codex. They do have a codex, so presumably GW expects them to be a legitimate, stand-alone army.

Am I to point out that for a duration, ASSASSINS had a codex?

Codex=/=stand alone competitive army.

Gk can stand on thier own as a casual/friendly army, but expecting a high specialized counter force (counter daemons in this case) to also be TAC viable is silly.
Just like expecting assassins to be stand alone viable.

I'm not sure I'm in agreement with your idea that Assassins can't be stand alone viable. The assassins this edition range from 70pts to 90pts possessing 4++ invulns and better stats/abilities than most HQs in the game. They're CHEAPER and MORE POWERFUL than a Chaos Lord and the only benefit the lord gets over them is his reroll aura, which they don't need since they reroll things innately. One even possesses a bloody Melta Bomb!! Bye bye tanks.

I think if you stick an army of Culexus assassins up front as the screeners, the enemy can only shoot at them using BS 6+. Every other unit in the army is untargetable due to Character rules in the shooting phase. So your invisible army marches forward while supported by invulnerable-save-ignoring Vindicares that snipe all your characters until the Eversor force gets into CQC range where it is undoubtedly the most cost effective close combat unit in the game, even possessing individual suicide vests that will mortal wound to death the remaining forces they engage, all for 70pts each.

I think a pure assassin list is totally doable. They just wouldn't have any stratagems. Yet. (prays for Officio Assassinorum codex)

So, uh, your army, who are the HQ's? Or are you just bringing 3 assassins and have 0 CP?

Check the assassin datasheets. Unlike Magnus or Ahriman or other unique, they are not limited to one per army. Also there are four assassins, the fourth screws with CP usage and deep strikes close by. You would field an entire zerg of assassins and since you lack stratagems anyhow don't require CP. Losing the rerolls on characters who innately reroll and fire a bunch of times isn't terrible, especially since only one can reroll per shooting phase with it. If you desperately want the rerolls, you're welcome to modify the idea by adding cheap HQs into a bunch of 6 Elite 1 HQ vanguards.

So I don't understand what you're on about, but matched play games are limited to 3 detachments and without HQs you can only bring them in the Auxiliary Detachment, so you can only bring 3 assassins to a Matched Play game.

The 0 CP is just a neat note, not really that important.

**Martel732**

Special snowflake units don't prove the general case. That's not how induction works.

**Arkaine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not sure what ever the devil you're on about with CPs, I never mentioned them once.

So this direct quote is you not mentioning CP once?

"So, uh, your army, who are the HQ's? Or are you just bringing 3 assassins and have 0 CP?"

**Unit1126PLL**

Martel732 wrote:
Special snowflake units don't prove the general case. That's not how induction works.

However, it only takes a single example to disprove an entire generalization. That is how flawed generalizations work.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arkaine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not sure what ever the devil you're on about with CPs, I never mentioned them once.

So this direct quote is you not mentioning CP once?

"So, uh, your army, who are the HQ's? Or are you just bringing 3 assassins and have 0 CP?"

You're right, I mentioned them.

But the CP thing isn't the issue - the issue is you can only have 3 assassins unless you bring something from another army.

**Martel732**

Not exactly. Those are called "outliers". Trends of hundreds of data points are still trends if a dozen or so lie off the trendline.

**Arkaine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I don't understand what you're on about, but matched play games are limited to 3 detachments and without HQs you can only bring them in the Auxiliary Detachment, so you can only bring 3 assassins to a Matched Play game.

I don't recall ever saying Matched Play. I said standalone army. Word Bearers suck in Matched Play as well, doesn't make them less viable elsewhere.

**Unit1126PLL**

Martel732 wrote:
Not exactly. Those are called "outliers". Trends of hundreds of data points are still trends if a dozen or so lie off the trendline.

Yes but your statement was "power armour melee is useless in 8th." That's not a measured conclusion of a study, that's an overgeneralization and is outright wrong.

**JNAProductions**

Assassins don't have rerolls on hits. At all.

The Eversor rerolls wounds with his gun and Gauntlet.

And... That's about it.

**Arachnofiend**

RogueApiary wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Grey Knights aren't a real army, then they shouldn't have a codex. They do have a codex, so presumably GW expects them to be a legitimate, stand-alone army.

Sorry bud, but your teamkilling Mary Sues are best played as auxiliaries in a competitive environment. You can't reasonably expect an army designed to screw over a single type of opponent (Demons) to also be balanced against Xenos/other Imperium. Whether you think your increased ability vs demons is worth sucking vs everything else is a separate matter.

At least you're not as bad as the Deathwatch, where even winning a casual game is an uphill fight. Don't even have any anti xenos abilities to justify being terrible at everything.

What do you mean "mine"? If it isn't obvious I play Thousand Sons. And for the record I think making GK's especially good against daemons is remarkably stupid, and that their anti-daemon stuff should be dialed back so they can just be "hyper-elite psyker marines".

**Martel732**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Not exactly. Those are called "outliers". Trends of hundreds of data points are still trends if a dozen or so lie off the trendline.

Yes but your statement was "power armour melee is useless in 8th." That's not a measured conclusion of a study, that's an overgeneralization and is outright wrong.

Non-berserker power armor melee, then. As if that changes the problem at hand.

**Unit1126PLL**

Arkaine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
So I don't understand what you're on about, but matched play games are limited to 3 detachments and without HQs you can only bring them in the Auxiliary Detachment, so you can only bring 3 assassins to a Matched Play game.

I don't recall ever saying Matched Play. I said standalone army. Word Bearers suck in Matched Play as well, doesn't make them less viable elsewhere.

Ah, I see.

Most people talk about Matched Play when they talk about viability.

Yes, assassins are a stand alone army in Open and Narrative Play, just like Grey Knights can be. The argument was "in competitive play, being an army doesn't mean you don't soup." And then you brought up assassins as if it was some kind of counterpoint to that argument.

Not sure why you'd not talk about matched play, if you were addressing that argument.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Not exactly. Those are called "outliers". Trends of hundreds of data points are still trends if a dozen or so lie off the trendline.

Yes but your statement was "power armour melee is useless in 8th." That's not a measured conclusion of a study, that's an overgeneralization and is outright wrong.

Non-berserker power armor melee, then. As if that changes the problem at hand.

It does change the problem at hand. It proves that a more expensive unit isn't "turned off" by a less expensive unit, if you equip it right, use it right, or have access to tools to try to make it work (e.g. the Alpha Legion stratagem in this very thread).

I.E., they work if you try.

I'm sorry BA don't have a codex. Neither do my Sororitas, I can commiserate with you.

Here's a question, if the fluff doesn't matter, why play BA?

**Martel732**

I'm not, currently. I'm playing red marines with no chapter tactics.

If you think the BA codex is going to fix anything for them, I've got some swamp land for you. The GK codex didn't fix their problems, and the BA have the exact same problem.

Berserkers work because of a unique rule that helps leverage their cost against cheaper, more numerous models. No other power armor unit has any such rule. None are likely to get such a rule. It's not a matter of "trying". It's a matter of math.

**Purifying Tempest**

Martel732 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
Not exactly. Those are called "outliers". Trends of hundreds of data points are still trends if a dozen or so lie off the trendline.

Yes but your statement was "power armour melee is useless in 8th." That's not a measured conclusion of a study, that's an overgeneralization and is outright wrong.

Non-berserker power armor melee, then. As if that changes the problem at hand.

If berserkers prove anything here it is that guns are overrated. Drop the guns, man-mode with a chainsword and chainaxe, collect tears!

Also: Armor is useless in 8th. Let's stop pretending that it is good for something, other than holding paint, any more!

We clearly need a bunch of armorless conscripts running around with kitchen cutlery. Warhammer 40k 9th edition... Hell's Kitchen style.

**Arkaine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ah, I see.

Most people talk about Matched Play when they talk about viability.

Yes, assassins are a stand alone army in Open and Narrative Play, just like Grey Knights can be. The argument was "in competitive play, being an army doesn't mean you don't soup." And then you brought up assassins as if it was some kind of counterpoint to that argument.

Not sure why you'd not talk about matched play, if you were addressing that argument.

What are you talking about? Yet again these things that weren't said. The argument was referring to screening units and this being Screenhammer with Grey Knights lacking screeners, and therefore being forced to soup. Ergo they aren't a real army because they have to soup to not get tabled.

It never had anything to do with Matched Play and the argument I addressed was the similar argument that assassins can't stand alone without being forced to soup. Which isn't the case since they are quite formidable even without soup.

**Unit1126PLL**

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not, currently. I'm playing red marines with no chapter tactics.

If you think the BA codex is going to fix anything for them, I've got some swamp land for you. The GK codex didn't fix their problems, and the BA have the exact same problem.

Berserkers work because of a unique rule that helps leverage their cost against cheaper, more numerous models. No other power armor unit has any such rule. None are likely to get such a rule. It's not a matter of "trying". It's a matter of math.

So why not play Chaos? Red marines sounds like berzerkers to me, and renegade berzerkers can even advance and charge.

**Martel732**

I don't have the models for it, and frankly, I don't want to buy the chaos codex. I also don't have the cultists which make those kinds of lists work. Chaos has other tools loyalists don't, not just effective melee power armor units.

**Unit1126PLL**

Arkaine wrote:
BoomWolf wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If Grey Knights aren't a real army, then they shouldn't have a codex. They do have a codex, so presumably GW expects them to be a legitimate, stand-alone army.

Am I to point out that for a duration, ASSASSINS had a codex?

Codex=/=stand alone competitive army.

Gk can stand on thier own as a casual/friendly army, but expecting a high specialized counter force (counter daemons in this case) to also be TAC viable is silly.
Just like expecting assassins to be stand alone viable.

I'm not sure I'm in agreement with your idea that Assassins can't be stand alone viable. The assassins this edition range from 70pts to 90pts possessing 4++ invulns and better stats/abilities than most HQs in the game. They're CHEAPER and MORE POWERFUL than a Chaos Lord and the only benefit the lord gets over them is his reroll aura, which they don't need since they reroll things innately. One even possesses a bloody Melta Bomb!! Bye bye tanks.

I think if you stick an army of Culexus assassins up front as the screeners, the enemy can only shoot at them using BS 6+. Every other unit in the army is untargetable due to Character rules in the shooting phase. So your invisible army marches forward while supported by invulnerable-save-ignoring Vindicares that snipe all your characters until the Eversor force gets into CQC range where it is undoubtedly the most cost effective close combat unit in the game, even possessing individual suicide vests that will mortal wound to death the remaining forces they engage, all for 70pts each.

I think a pure assassin list is totally doable. They just wouldn't have any stratagems. Yet. (prays for Officio Assassinorum codex)

This was your original post, Akraine.

You are quoting a post that specifically calls out "competitive" armies. If you weren't talking about a competitive army, then you missed the point of his post, I think.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't have the models for it, and frankly, I don't want to buy the chaos codex. I also don't have the cultists which make those kinds of lists work. Chaos has other tools loyalists don't, not just effective melee power armor units.

Presumably you have chainsword + BP space marines, yes?

And chaos has... berzerkers... you know, that effective melee power armour unit we were just talking about.

I can buy you the ebook of the codex if you want.

**Arkaine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
This was your original post, Akraine.

You are quoting a post that specifically calls out "competitive" armies. If you weren't talking about a competitive army, then you missed the point of his post, I think.

I think you're misinformed and reaching here, continually inventing things that haven't been stated. Now you're calling Narrative not really competitive, as though people don't try to win there either. What next? Power levels result in non-competitive games too? He quotes competitive and casual/friendly. That's all. You're the only one here associating casual with non-Matched Play and competitive with Matched Play only. Many tournaments do favor the alternate rule sets for they all provide different formats for play, like enabling multiple psykers or effective summoning or removing the limitation on CP expenditure, allowing for a truly competitive style that some armies and legions and lists rightly depend on. But sure, let's go with YOUR definition of competitive. I'm the one that quoted the post and I know to which point I was addressing, not your (or his) concept of Matched Play viability.

**Martel732**

"Presumably you have chainsword + BP space marines, yes? "

Not enough. I'd have to rip off dozens and dozens of jump packs. It's just not worth it to me. Especially not for an edition that I'll probably end up sitting out after they screw over BA. Again. Because I hate the vanilla play style.

**Unit1126PLL**

Arkaine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
This was your original post, Akraine.

You are quoting a post that specifically calls out "competitive" armies. If you weren't talking about a competitive army, then you missed the point of his post, I think.

I think you're misinformed and reaching here, continually inventing things that haven't been stated. Now you're calling Narrative not really competitive, as though people don't try to win there either. What next? Power levels result in non-competitive games too? He quotes competitive and casual/friendly. That's all. You're the only one here associating casual with non-Matched Play and competitive with Matched Play only. Many tournaments do favor the alternate rule sets for they all provide different formats for play, like enabling multiple psykers or effective summoning or removing the limitation on CP expenditure, allowing for a truly competitive style that some armies and legions and lists rightly depend on. But sure, let's go with YOUR definition of competitive. I'm the one that quoted the post and I know to which point I was addressing, not your (or his) concept of Matched Play viability.

I see!

Then yes, assassins are a competitively viable stand-alone army in your version of reality.

I'll remember that next time someone asks for advice on a competitive army in the army list forum. All assassins, no HQ's, is pretty powerful indeed.

**Arkaine**

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Then yes, assassins are a competitively viable stand-alone army in your version of reality.

How rude.

**Unit1126PLL**

Martel732 wrote:
"Presumably you have chainsword + BP space marines, yes? "

Not enough. I'd have to rip off dozens and dozens of jump packs. It's just not worth it to me. Especially not for an edition that I'll probably end up sitting out after they screw over BA. Again. Because I hate the vanilla play style.

I'd happily play you with your jump packs still on.

But yeah, I mean, if you don't actually want to play the game, I can't help you want to play it.

Honestly though I think if you wanna play a red-painted assault army, zerkers are your go-to.

**daedalus**

Arkaine wrote:
You're the only one here associating casual with non-Matched Play and competitive with Matched Play only.

I think I make that association too, actually.

Also, so does GW:

BRB, page 19:

MATCHED PLAY
Many players enjoy the more
competitive element of the
Warhammer 40,000 hobby, playing
games to see who can come out
on top.

I observe it's the only place that the word "competitive" comes up in reference to a play style.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

Then yes, assassins are a competitively viable stand-alone army in your version of reality.

I'll remember that next time someone asks for advice on a competitive army in the army list forum. All assassins, no HQ's, is pretty powerful indeed.

I like this reality more actually. Can you imagine how stoked Marmatag is going to be when we tell him he gets all of his GK powers now?

**Martel732**

There is also the bitter taste of expectation. The expectation that I wouldn't have to do crap like this in 8th. If GW tanks my faction, or any faction for that matter, three editions in a row, then they clearly don't want me playing their game. So I won't.

**MechaEmperor7000**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Arkaine wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
This was your original post, Akraine.

You are quoting a post that specifically calls out "competitive" armies. If you weren't talking about a competitive army, then you missed the point of his post, I think.

I think you're misinformed and reaching here, continually inventing things that haven't been stated. Now you're calling Narrative not really competitive, as though people don't try to win there either. What next? Power levels result in non-competitive games too? He quotes competitive and casual/friendly. That's all. You're the only one here associating casual with non-Matched Play and competitive with Matched Play only. Many tournaments do favor the alternate rule sets for they all provide different formats for play, like enabling multiple psykers or effective summoning or removing the limitation on CP expenditure, allowing for a truly competitive style that some armies and legions and lists rightly depend on. But sure, let's go with YOUR definition of competitive. I'm the one that quoted the post and I know to which point I was addressing, not your (or his) concept of Matched Play viability.

I see!

Then yes, assassins are a competitively viable stand-alone army in your version of reality.

I'll remember that next time someone asks for advice on a competitive army in the army list forum. All assassins, no HQ's, is pretty powerful indeed.

Funny thing was that there was someone complaining about an assassin army where due to everyone being a character, no one could shoot at anyone as long as the assassins remained at the exact distance from all enemy units (apparently it was due to you not being allowed to shoot at a character unless he was the closest, but if they're all equally close none of them are "closest").

However that one had a SM HQ per Vanguard Detachment, so it was "pure" assassins either.

Also Assassins had TWO codexes to themselves, during an era where BAs and DAs didn't have on their own. Does that mean BAs and DAs are meant to be supplementary forces?

**Martel732**

BAs are actually inverse supplementary forces. They make lists WORSE.

**JNAProductions**

If multiple characters are equidistant, you get to choose which one you shoot.