Switch Theme:

An end to Era, the death of the space marine boogieman.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Been Around the Block




 JNAProductions wrote:


And, can someone who's more up-to-date on older tournament scenes let me know, how did Marines do in top placing for 6th? 5th? Earlier?



My memories of the third edition tournament scene, at least in central and northern england was that they did quite poorly. GW staff tournaments were often won by Eldar or Tyranids until chaos 3.5 was released.


In 4th edition marines absolutely had a build. Assault cannon spam. Only 4 shots, but 6s rended and that was a big deal. If you took the max number of land speeders all armed with assault cannons the opponent could do almost nothing. Landspeeders were skimmers and so were only getting glancing hits, and the eldar pinning attacks from rangers that were the bane of 4th edition couldn't effect the vehicles. I went to two 'ardboyz tournaments in the US in the early 2000s and landspeeder spam marines did well both times. 4th edition missions were quite a bit different than the design GW went for in 5th. Also in those days we were playing with 2500 point armies.

In fifth edition we obviously had space wolves and grey knights that were good at different times. How broad is your definition of marine?

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/04/15 05:15:01


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 Canadian 5th wrote:

You were making it sound like 20+ man boyz squads never got to touch your tactical squads. It's not as cut and dry as just saying that they shouldn't ever hit you with a full-strength unit while you're defending.
Occasionally big squads would hit, but if you're set up for a functional counter attack then it's not really an issue. And if your Tacs manage to get away and there's a big squad of Orks all bunched up for Flamer hits it's good news for me.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Whirlwinds and Vindicators were pretty great for either spooking people from clumping up or dissuaded from advancing down corridors. Plasma Cannons too, once they were available again in 4th.

Vindicators are stuck with 24" range single-shot weapons and only effective if you go first. If you go second and aren't able to hide them, they're like as not to be stunned and then they don't threaten anything.

Plus, anybody running transports just wouldn't care about a Whirlwind and even if a Vindicator did take out a Rhino or Razorback that was a better outcome than it hitting anything that actually matters. You'd have scared me far more if you invested in assault canons and dreadnoughts because those could have an impact on more aspects of my army.
Well you're on record for not having played 3rd ed so I can forgive you a little bit. Assault Cannons were not good in 3rd ed. They had only 3 shots and no Rending, just S6 AP4. The Whirlwind vs. Ork Trukks however had S5 AP4, rerolled Armor Pen because of Ordinance, hit Open-Topped Vehicles twice because of Blast, Got a +1 on the Damage Chart because Open-Topped, and rolled on the Ordinance damage table. If you rolled a 6 to Pen out of those four dice, there was a 2-in-3 chance of destroying the vehicle, and a 1-in-3 chance of killing everyone on board along with it. Even glancing it had a 1-in-3 chance of destroying the vehicle. Whirlwinds made Ork players sweat. They were also cheap, only 75 points. Oh yeah and it also had a chance of Pinning with a -1 Ld. modifier. An excellent buy if you were good at guessing ranges (I was).

In 4th Ed Assault Cannons came into fashion like gangbusters. I had three in my army, in addition to a Vindicator, a Whirlwind, and 25 Tacticals (two squads with Las and one with H-Plasma for the Blast.) Plus Assaults, Vet-Devs, Scouts, etc.

I like how you say the Vindicator 24" range was short (it's also the same range as the Assault Cannon) and yet it's assumed that Orks will just cross that distance without taking fire. Like anything the object is to ensure that only a few hit you at any given time. Don't stop the whole army, just stop enough so that the ones that get to you do so piecemeal and you're able to chew them up before the next wave hits.

My most successful army in 3rd Ed. was maxed out on Tacticals. 6x10 with Las/Flamer (occasionally Plasma). 3rd was the edition I learned to love Tacticals and the Power Armor Swarm.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Xenomancers wrote:

A brief period where they get new rules before other armies did. You do realize 7.5 ynnari would literally never lose a game with those busted rules - if the edition did not die right after that - it would have been top 10 ynnari every time in 7.5. It was a joke. Also - gladius did not win by destroying its opponent. It was a horde list that could only win on objectives. Playing with it I was tabled multiple times by deathstars I could not possibly destroy.


Nonesense. Adepticon 2017 was won by Tzeentch Daemons literally 3-4 weeks before 8th Edition was released. It had 2 Ynnari in the top 10, but nothing remotely comparable to, say, Marines 2.0 at the January 2020 LVO or so.

Adepticon 2017 also had a mixed White Scars/Dark Angels list, a Space Wolves/Blood Angels list and an Ultramarines lists in the Top 10, as well as 2 more Marine lists (one with Cotaez) in the Top 16.
The very tail of 7th, a second before 8th released, Marines actually outperformed Ynnari in the, at the time, biggest tournament in the world.





This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/15 05:33:05


 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 Insectum7 wrote:
Well you're on record for not having played 3rd ed so I can forgive you a little bit. Assault Cannons were not good in 3rd ed. They had only 3 shots and no Rending, just S6 AP4. The Whirlwind vs. Ork Trukks however had S5 AP4, rerolled Armor Pen because of Ordinance, hit Open-Topped Vehicles twice because of Blast, Got a +1 on the Damage Chart because Open-Topped, and rolled on the Ordinance damage table.[/qy If you rolled a 6 to Pen out of those four dice, there was a 2-in-3 chance of destroying the vehicle, and a 1-in-3 chance of killing everyone on board along with it. Even glancing it had a 1-in-3 chance of destroying the vehicle. Whirlwinds made Ork players sweat. They were also cheap, only 75 points. Oh yeah and it also had a chance of Pinning with a -1 Ld. modifier. An excellent buy if you were good at guessing ranges (I was).

In 4th Ed Assault Cannons came into fashion like gangbusters. I had three in my army, in addition to a Vindicator, a Whirlwind, and 25 Tacticals (two squads with Las and one with H-Plasma for the Blast.) Plus Assaults, Vet-Devs, Scouts, etc.

I like how you say the Vindicator 24" range was short (it's also the same range as the Assault Cannon) and yet it's assumed that Orks will just cross that distance without taking fire. Like anything the object is to ensure that only a few hit you at any given time. Don't stop the whole army, just stop enough so that the ones that get to you do so piecemeal and you're able to chew them up before the next wave hits.

My most successful army in 3rd Ed. was maxed out on Tacticals. 6x10 with Las/Flamer (occasionally Plasma). 3rd was the edition I learned to love Tacticals and the Power Armor Swarm.

I think my thoughts just slipped into 4th by default. I didn't really play 3rd edition and the site I use to load older books was down so I couldn't confirm the rules.

However, IIRC, BA Rhino rush was the king of 3rd edition. I'm not sure if it was running maxed out squads of tacs in those rhinos or if they could get something else in there.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






^It was actually my spammed Tacs that I found to be the best defense against the Rhino rush. The line of Lascannons could fire one at a time and react to the effects any former hits made. The first time I fielded the army the opposing BA army just stopped in it's tracks as most of the Rhinos were dead, immobilized or stunned. It turned into a turkey shoot and the BA player gave up in the first turn.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Insectum7 wrote:
 Canadian 5th wrote:

You were making it sound like 20+ man boyz squads never got to touch your tactical squads. It's not as cut and dry as just saying that they shouldn't ever hit you with a full-strength unit while you're defending.
Occasionally big squads would hit, but if you're set up for a functional counter attack then it's not really an issue. And if your Tacs manage to get away and there's a big squad of Orks all bunched up for Flamer hits it's good news for me.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Whirlwinds and Vindicators were pretty great for either spooking people from clumping up or dissuaded from advancing down corridors. Plasma Cannons too, once they were available again in 4th.

Vindicators are stuck with 24" range single-shot weapons and only effective if you go first. If you go second and aren't able to hide them, they're like as not to be stunned and then they don't threaten anything.

Plus, anybody running transports just wouldn't care about a Whirlwind and even if a Vindicator did take out a Rhino or Razorback that was a better outcome than it hitting anything that actually matters. You'd have scared me far more if you invested in assault canons and dreadnoughts because those could have an impact on more aspects of my army.
Well you're on record for not having played 3rd ed so I can forgive you a little bit. Assault Cannons were not good in 3rd ed. They had only 3 shots and no Rending, just S6 AP4. The Whirlwind vs. Ork Trukks however had S5 AP4, rerolled Armor Pen because of Ordinance, hit Open-Topped Vehicles twice because of Blast, Got a +1 on the Damage Chart because Open-Topped, and rolled on the Ordinance damage table. If you rolled a 6 to Pen out of those four dice, there was a 2-in-3 chance of destroying the vehicle, and a 1-in-3 chance of killing everyone on board along with it. Even glancing it had a 1-in-3 chance of destroying the vehicle. Whirlwinds made Ork players sweat. They were also cheap, only 75 points. Oh yeah and it also had a chance of Pinning with a -1 Ld. modifier. An excellent buy if you were good at guessing ranges (I was).

In 4th Ed Assault Cannons came into fashion like gangbusters. I had three in my army, in addition to a Vindicator, a Whirlwind, and 25 Tacticals (two squads with Las and one with H-Plasma for the Blast.) Plus Assaults, Vet-Devs, Scouts, etc.

I like how you say the Vindicator 24" range was short (it's also the same range as the Assault Cannon) and yet it's assumed that Orks will just cross that distance without taking fire. Like anything the object is to ensure that only a few hit you at any given time. Don't stop the whole army, just stop enough so that the ones that get to you do so piecemeal and you're able to chew them up before the next wave hits.

My most successful army in 3rd Ed. was maxed out on Tacticals. 6x10 with Las/Flamer (occasionally Plasma). 3rd was the edition I learned to love Tacticals and the Power Armor Swarm.

You forgot in 3rd assault cannons could jam as well, if you rolled 3 1's and become useless the rest of the game. They were pretty bad but I was told all the time how " Assault cannons are what make loyalist marines better then chaos " when chaos had its 3.5 codex. Yeah, I felt stronger alright.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






They made up for it with their 4th Ed iteration, which was their most powerful second only to 2nd edition, when they were arguably the best weapon in the game.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

Someone said a few pages ago that 30 boyz have 120 attacks at WS3+. It's true, on paper. In a real game those orks get just 40-60 attacks though, as positioning more than 10-15 boyz within melee range is phisically impossible.

And of course we're also assuming that the pistol/ccw unit with T-shirt saves doesn't get decimated before succeeding the charge roll. With 11 casualties on a 30 man squad the unit of 19 dudes will likely get 30ish attacks on the charge.

3rd edition was a very different game, at that time I was only interested in painting and collecting the models as I was too young to appreciate the game properly. I've played lots of 3rd edition games during 7th era though. Not many orks used to strike against marines on average, definitely not multiple large squads. Typically it was the couple of burnas (power weapons in combat) and the nob that did most of the job, with the standard guys being basically ablative wounds. After 3rd, when boyz couldn't have burnas anymore, all units of boyz were basically squads of single heavy hitter, the nob, and 9+ ablative wounds to shield him. That's how boyz have been mostly played for at least 15 years.

Orks 7000
Space Wolves 4000
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Blackie wrote:
Someone said a few pages ago that 30 boyz have 120 attacks at WS3+. It's true, on paper. In a real game those orks get just 40-60 attacks though, as positioning more than 10-15 boyz within melee range is phisically impossible.

And of course we're also assuming that the pistol/ccw unit with T-shirt saves doesn't get decimated before succeeding the charge roll. With 11 casualties on a 30 man squad the unit of 19 dudes will likely get 30ish attacks on the charge.

3rd edition was a very different game, at that time I was only interested in painting and collecting the models as I was too young to appreciate the game properly. I've played lots of 3rd edition games during 7th era though. Not many orks used to strike against marines on average, definitely not multiple large squads. Typically it was the couple of burnas (power weapons in combat) and the nob that did most of the job, with the standard guys being basically ablative wounds. After 3rd, when boyz couldn't have burnas anymore, all units of boyz were basically squads of single heavy hitter, the nob, and 9+ ablative wounds to shield him. That's how boyz have been mostly played for at least 15 years.


Blackie, they know, everyone knows, the problem is convincing Xenomancer that his army wasn't ever garbage tier is physically impossible. According to him Ork boyz have been on the cutting edge of OP since 4th edition and the only true way to compare the two units is by comparing 10 bolter shots at 24' range to 120 close combat attacks.

I have to wonder what the motivation is behind his constant rants that Space Marines were always weak/garbage tier except for that one bright spot in 8.5 My best guess, and I emphasize guess, is that he is a bad player and refused to acknowledge his skill level and instead blames his chosen army by saying they were bad and they needed buffs. My opinion is reinforced by his statements of late, such as Aggressors without their Shoot twice rule being garbage. And his constant refusal to see any statistic beyond W/L ratio because it validates his opinion. The supreme irony being that it only further validates my guess that he is a bit salty about his skill level since other players were able to take that same army and finish in the top 8 at Majors and GTs or actually win the whole thing. My favorite was him saying Space Marines weren't top tier in 7th edition with their free razorbacks list

 Xenomancers wrote:
It is utterly idiotic...like 8.5 ironhands idiotic to include this rule. I can assure you within 1 month it will be nerfed too...to only be DA characters...which is fine for a free rule that no other marines get...

Just cant stand these snow flake marines anymore.
 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 Blackie wrote:
And of course we're also assuming that the pistol/ccw unit with T-shirt saves doesn't get decimated before succeeding the charge roll. With 11 casualties on a 30 man squad the unit of 19 dudes will likely get 30ish attacks on the charge.

Yeah, because those Boyz were I2, and almost everyone else was I3 or greater, with the noted Astartes being I4. It was made even lower when Overwatch was introduced to lose out on 2-3 more.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




Xenomancers wrote:First of all I will just point out. I play Ultramarines no matter what. I'm not gonna play white scars cause they have been rules. Because I have honor. But it literally doesn't matter. What can razor spam do against - fateweaver? Or a unit with 2++ reroll saves? You just lose man.


For the peanut gallery, here's Xenomancers arguing that he'll play blue Iron Hands to get the better rules...

Even for you, man, the dishonest framing's pretty brazen.

Spoiler:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Drager wrote:
I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.
You win the prize for best post.


The best post that fits your wants/needs from your POV. I think that anyone else reading this thread will look at the below and consider it the best advice to pass on, as it tackles the perceptions of others looking in on this thread rather than simply internalising the justification for your choice.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.

If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.

What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.

Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.

So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.


Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others. Chapter tactics aren't about fluff. I can play Ultramarines with with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines. They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want - most have nothing to do with fluff anyways. The only real issue is special characters which is much more of a problem with marines than any other army (most their builds are centered around them). Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that. "Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer". I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense. Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.

   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Catulle wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:First of all I will just point out. I play Ultramarines no matter what. I'm not gonna play white scars cause they have been rules. Because I have honor. But it literally doesn't matter. What can razor spam do against - fateweaver? Or a unit with 2++ reroll saves? You just lose man.


For the peanut gallery, here's Xenomancers arguing that he'll play blue Iron Hands to get the better rules...

Even for you, man, the dishonest framing's pretty brazen.

Spoiler:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Drager wrote:
I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.
You win the prize for best post.


The best post that fits your wants/needs from your POV. I think that anyone else reading this thread will look at the below and consider it the best advice to pass on, as it tackles the perceptions of others looking in on this thread rather than simply internalising the justification for your choice.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.

If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.

What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.

Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.

So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.


Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others. Chapter tactics aren't about fluff. I can play Ultramarines with with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines. They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want - most have nothing to do with fluff anyways. The only real issue is special characters which is much more of a problem with marines than any other army (most their builds are centered around them). Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that. "Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer". I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense. Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.

To be fair, people’s opinions change. If Xeno admits that he spoke wrong, that’s not inherently hypocrisy-it could easily be growth.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:

To be fair, people’s opinions change. If Xeno admits that he spoke wrong, that’s not inherently hypocrisy-it could easily be growth.


It could be growth...except that was very recently said and the fact that I don't think xenomancer has ever gone an entire thread this long without complaining that his Marines were Bottom Tier garbage at some mystical point in time ....sometimes claiming 8th edition as an example of how bad Marines were.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






Catulle wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:First of all I will just point out. I play Ultramarines no matter what. I'm not gonna play white scars cause they have been rules. Because I have honor. But it literally doesn't matter. What can razor spam do against - fateweaver? Or a unit with 2++ reroll saves? You just lose man.


For the peanut gallery, here's Xenomancers arguing that he'll play blue Iron Hands to get the better rules...

Even for you, man, the dishonest framing's pretty brazen.

Spoiler:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Drager wrote:
I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.
You win the prize for best post.


The best post that fits your wants/needs from your POV. I think that anyone else reading this thread will look at the below and consider it the best advice to pass on, as it tackles the perceptions of others looking in on this thread rather than simply internalising the justification for your choice.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.

If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.

What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.

Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.

So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.


Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others. Chapter tactics aren't about fluff. I can play Ultramarines with with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines. They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want - most have nothing to do with fluff anyways. The only real issue is special characters which is much more of a problem with marines than any other army (most their builds are centered around them). Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that. "Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer". I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense. Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.

Well I see that he says that he CAN play IH, though not that he DOES/DID, unless I missed something.

" I can play Ultramarines with with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules "

The rest of the post appears to make excuses for not sticking with the principles he espouses in his other post though.
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Insectum7 wrote:
Catulle wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:First of all I will just point out. I play Ultramarines no matter what. I'm not gonna play white scars cause they have been rules. Because I have honor. But it literally doesn't matter. What can razor spam do against - fateweaver? Or a unit with 2++ reroll saves? You just lose man.


For the peanut gallery, here's Xenomancers arguing that he'll play blue Iron Hands to get the better rules...

Even for you, man, the dishonest framing's pretty brazen.

Spoiler:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:
Drager wrote:
I find it really strange that people care so much about which rules are tied to which paint scheme. Playing Ultramarines with Iron Hands rules seems fine to me, the rules are a framework of mathematical bonuses and don't constrain the creativity and fluff of the battle. I find it sad that only those who paint a neutral colour scheme get to play the game for a reasonable amount of money under this paradigm. Personally I don't play marines and all my Eldar are custom painted so it doesn't matter to me as it can't affect me, except in making my games less fun as my opponent is forced to play something other than what they want to or be faced with social approbation. I don't understand why there is any difference using one chapter's rules over another. If the chapter tacitcs were given generic names and you just picked which to use for your dudes no one would complain and it would be mechanically identical, the fact that they called something Ultramarines Chapter Tactic instead of Chapter Tactic 3 makes so much difference to people is bonkers.
You win the prize for best post.


The best post that fits your wants/needs from your POV. I think that anyone else reading this thread will look at the below and consider it the best advice to pass on, as it tackles the perceptions of others looking in on this thread rather than simply internalising the justification for your choice.

Medicinal Carrots wrote:You thought you were an Ultramarines player, but it turns out you're not. You're a Space Marine powergamer. There's nothing wrong with being a Space Marine powergamer, it's just another way to play. You got used to Ultramarines being the top dog of codex marines, and now that they may not be, your actual identity is conflicting with your perceived identity. You can no longer have your cake and eat it too.

If you want to be an Ultramarines player, play Ultramarines. Use the models you like, or build the best Ultramarines list you can, or whatever you have fun with. Sometimes playing the underdog is more fun. To win with a sub-optimal army vs an army with better rules, you have to be a better player, or get lucky. Each individual win is more of an accomplishment.

If you want to be a Space Marine powergamer, pick whatever rules you think are best, and build the most efficient list you can if that's what you have fun with. If you love optimizing and finding all the nifty combos and then seeing your grand plans come to fruition, that's great. Being able to win consistently, even with a higher tier army, takes a skilled player as well.

What you can't do is play a specific subfaction and also always have the best rules. Sometimes you'll be the best subfaction in the codex, sometimes you won't. So you suck it up and play a sub-optimal subfaction that you identify with and have fun. Or you suck it up and play a faction other than the one you identify with to get the best rules and you have fun. Or you mope and complain and don't have fun.

Marines get this the worst because they have the most history of dedicated subfaction rules and the most supplements for those subfactions. There have been decades for people to fall in love with Ultramarines, or Raven Guard, or Salamanders. Chaos Marines get it some too with the Legions. Eldar, Chaos Daemons, and maybe Guard a bit too, but to a lesser extent than even CSM. The other factions? Up until recently, there weren't rules for Hive Fleets, or Septs, or whatever. People haven't had a chance to tie their identity to a subfaction on the tabletop, so they built an army of their dudes. Now that they have options, they don't feel beholden to one choice, since they haven't spent years or decades building an army dedicated to that choice. They don't see the subfactions as an identity.

So go be an Ultramarines player, or be a Space Marine powergamer, or start a new army. Just have fun, and don't worry so much about it.


Sorry no. Some ideas are just better than others. Chapter tactics aren't about fluff. I can play Ultramarines with with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules and it doesn't affect ether players gaming experience of interacting with Ultramarines. They are just bonus rules and you chose the ones you want - most have nothing to do with fluff anyways. The only real issue is special characters which is much more of a problem with marines than any other army (most their builds are centered around them). Saw a post the other day that most seemed to agree with. Special characters should not be trait specific units - lots of people agreed with that. "Power gamer" is also a really pathetic term. This game is 80% list selection - if you are playing the game you are a "power gamer". I wonder if in MTG people get called powergamers for using the best cards? LOL - nonsense. Really the guy that wrote that post agrees with me more than not. He probably wants to play a fluffy army and not get destroyed by power gamers....guess what would help a lot with that? If faction rules weren't so wildly unbalanced.

Well I see that he says that he CAN play IH, though not that he DOES/DID, unless I missed something.

" I can play Ultramarines with with every model having a U on it's shoulder using Ironhands rules "

The rest of the post appears to make excuses for not sticking with the principles he espouses in his other post though.

Nice catch Insectum.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Fair enough. I wouldn't rag on someone for switching armies or subfactions (it's a game for fun-if you and your opponent are having fun, who cares about sticking to one force?) but if that's what you stick to, good on you, Xeno.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Charistoph wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
And of course we're also assuming that the pistol/ccw unit with T-shirt saves doesn't get decimated before succeeding the charge roll. With 11 casualties on a 30 man squad the unit of 19 dudes will likely get 30ish attacks on the charge.

Yeah, because those Boyz were I2, and almost everyone else was I3 or greater, with the noted Astartes being I4. It was made even lower when Overwatch was introduced to lose out on 2-3 more.
LOL Orks doubled their imitative on the charge and marines had 1 freaking attack in these editions - pretty sure orks had 3 with cc weapons. Orks even did more ranged damage too because they had assault weapons with 2 shots and rapid fire 24" weapons were ultra terrible. 2 shots on 5's to hit is always better than 1 shot on 3's to hit.

Just stop. You are just wrong if you think a a tactical marine was useful. They were avoided like the plague for a reason - literally terrible unit. This has literally been an omnipresent complaint from all marine players.

Right now. With marines having a 9th edd codex to an orks 8th edition codex it is a really unfair comparison and I agree a tactical marine is a better choice compared to a boy atm. Yet orks still do way more damage per point "on paper" ... That can not be disregarded. This unit can literally deep strike charge turn 1 and obliterate almost any unit in the game that has no 2+ save with just average rolls. A tactical squad can't do that.


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 JNAProductions wrote:
Fair enough. I wouldn't rag on someone for switching armies or subfactions (it's a game for fun-if you and your opponent are having fun, who cares about sticking to one force?) but if that's what you stick to, good on you, Xeno.

I actively encourage switching subfaction rules because there's no reason you should be punished for choosing the incorrect color scheme.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Xenomancers wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
And of course we're also assuming that the pistol/ccw unit with T-shirt saves doesn't get decimated before succeeding the charge roll. With 11 casualties on a 30 man squad the unit of 19 dudes will likely get 30ish attacks on the charge.

Yeah, because those Boyz were I2, and almost everyone else was I3 or greater, with the noted Astartes being I4. It was made even lower when Overwatch was introduced to lose out on 2-3 more.
LOL Orks doubled their imitative on the charge and marines had 1 freaking attack in these editions - pretty sure orks had 3 with cc weapons. Orks even did more ranged damage too because they had assault weapons with 2 shots and rapid fire 24" weapons were ultra terrible. 2 shots on 5's to hit is always better than 1 shot on 3's to hit.

Just stop. You are just wrong if you think a a tactical marine was useful. They were avoided like the plague for a reason - literally terrible unit. This has literally been an omnipresent complaint from all marine players.

Right now. With marines having a 9th edd codex to an orks 8th edition codex it is a really unfair comparison and I agree a tactical marine is a better choice compared to a boy atm. Yet orks still do way more damage per point "on paper" ... That can not be disregarded. This unit can literally deep strike charge turn 1 and obliterate almost any unit in the game that has no 2+ save with just average rolls. A tactical squad can't do that.

Well, 120 S4 attacks (discounting the Nob, but assuming they somehow make it all into combat) hitting on a 3+ gets you...

80 hits.
80/3 wounds against T5-7
80/9 failed saves against a 3+, or just shy of 9 points of damage

A 30-man Boys Squad just barely kills a minimum Gravis squad. Unless you spend a Command Point to make them 2+, which halves damage.

They DON'T kill a minimum Bladeguard squad.

They do kill a minimum Tactical Squad-they actually kill just over six and a half MEQ on the charge.

Edit: This, of course, assumes you somehow get all 30 Boys in range. Which is... Unlikely, to say the least.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/16 16:04:12


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran



London

 Xenomancers wrote:
2 shots on 5's to hit is always better than 1 shot on 3's to hit.


Well, mathematically not so much, but it depends on the modifiers. If you expect to normally be getting +1 multiple 5+ shots are better (the two shots go from an average of 2/3s of a hit to 1 hit, while the 3+ goes to 5/6), but if you expect negatives 2x5+ is worse (1/3 of a hit vs 1/2 a hit for the 3+).
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






The_Real_Chris wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
2 shots on 5's to hit is always better than 1 shot on 3's to hit.


Well, mathematically not so much, but it depends on the modifiers. If you expect to normally be getting +1 multiple 5+ shots are better (the two shots go from an average of 2/3s of a hit to 1 hit, while the 3+ goes to 5/6), but if you expect negatives 2x5+ is worse (1/3 of a hit vs 1/2 a hit for the 3+).

There were no -1 to hit modifiers in these editions (there were units you could only hit on a 6 though....). We talking about like...4/5 edition. These people are trying to argue that tactical squads weren't always terrible until now. The idea that a marine unit - which costs more points - that does anything better than their armies horde troop unit - just blows their mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
 Blackie wrote:
And of course we're also assuming that the pistol/ccw unit with T-shirt saves doesn't get decimated before succeeding the charge roll. With 11 casualties on a 30 man squad the unit of 19 dudes will likely get 30ish attacks on the charge.

Yeah, because those Boyz were I2, and almost everyone else was I3 or greater, with the noted Astartes being I4. It was made even lower when Overwatch was introduced to lose out on 2-3 more.
LOL Orks doubled their imitative on the charge and marines had 1 freaking attack in these editions - pretty sure orks had 3 with cc weapons. Orks even did more ranged damage too because they had assault weapons with 2 shots and rapid fire 24" weapons were ultra terrible. 2 shots on 5's to hit is always better than 1 shot on 3's to hit.

Just stop. You are just wrong if you think a a tactical marine was useful. They were avoided like the plague for a reason - literally terrible unit. This has literally been an omnipresent complaint from all marine players.

Right now. With marines having a 9th edd codex to an orks 8th edition codex it is a really unfair comparison and I agree a tactical marine is a better choice compared to a boy atm. Yet orks still do way more damage per point "on paper" ... That can not be disregarded. This unit can literally deep strike charge turn 1 and obliterate almost any unit in the game that has no 2+ save with just average rolls. A tactical squad can't do that.

Well, 120 S4 attacks (discounting the Nob, but assuming they somehow make it all into combat) hitting on a 3+ gets you...

80 hits.
80/3 wounds against T5-7
80/9 failed saves against a 3+, or just shy of 9 points of damage

A 30-man Boys Squad just barely kills a minimum Gravis squad. Unless you spend a Command Point to make them 2+, which halves damage.

They DON'T kill a minimum Bladeguard squad.

They do kill a minimum Tactical Squad-they actually kill just over six and a half MEQ on the charge.

Edit: This, of course, assumes you somehow get all 30 Boys in range. Which is... Unlikely, to say the least.

I think I mentioned...2+ save is what kills this units damage potential. You also aren't giving them the ardboys...which pretty much every ork player does as a no brainer choice.

puts 18 unsaved wounds without a knob to meq.
Assault intercessors fighting twice only do 13 unsaved wounds to meq.

Again. The ork boys do MORE damage.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/16 16:22:31


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL Orks doubled their imitative on the charge and marines had 1 freaking attack in these editions - pretty sure orks had 3 with cc weapons.

Which rule was that again? Fleet of Foot or Furious Charge?

While I never had the 3rd or 4th Ed rulebook, I've had the 5th-7th, and Orks never had that capacity during those times.

Also consider that it was a while before Orks had Stikkbombs as standard.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Orks even did more ranged damage too because they had assault weapons with 2 shots and rapid fire 24" weapons were ultra terrible. 2 shots on 5's to hit is always better than 1 shot on 3's to hit.

If you're assuming pistol and CCW (which was the premise), then no, they only had 1 shot at 12" on a 5+. And while that Rapid Fire was one shot, that was one shot at 24" on a 3+, while Orks had to be at 18" to do those two shots.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just stop. You are just wrong if you think a a tactical marine was useful. They were avoided like the plague for a reason - literally terrible unit. This has literally been an omnipresent complaint from all marine players.

Actually I was stating one of the issues of Ork Boyz, I never was stating the advantages of the Tactical, aside from Initiative. I've never actually used them myself, as the only Marines I used were Chaos and Templars, and the Crusader Squads were superior in overall flexibility.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think I mentioned...2+ save is what kills this units damage potential. You also aren't giving them the ardboys...which pretty much every ork player does as a no brainer choice.

puts 18 unsaved wounds without a knob to meq.
Assault intercessors fighting twice only do 13 unsaved wounds to meq.

Again. The ork boys do MORE damage.
'ArdBoys gives them a 5+ save. No one takes 'ArdBoys. No one.

If you mean SKARBoys, that's Goff only.

But yes, they will ALMOST kill a 10-man Squad of MEQ if they're S5.

Whereas Assault Intercessors do anywhere from 2/3rds of a wound per man per fight, to as much as 1.8 unsaved wounds at D2, letting them (if they fight twice) kill as many as 38 Marines on average with fighting twice.

Edit: Goff Boys, assuming they also have their Chapter Tactic, actually do...

120 attacks
80 hits, 20 extra attacks for +40/3 hits, for 280/3 total
560/9 wounds
560/27 failed saves, or close to 21 failed saves.

So a Goff Skarboy Squad with 30 Boys that makes it entirely into CC will kill ONE ten-man MEQ Squad.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/16 16:29:27


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Charistoph wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
LOL Orks doubled their imitative on the charge and marines had 1 freaking attack in these editions - pretty sure orks had 3 with cc weapons.

Which rule was that again? Fleet of Foot or Furious Charge?

While I never had the 3rd or 4th Ed rulebook, I've had the 5th-7th, and Orks never had that capacity during those times.

Also consider that it was a while before Orks had Stikkbombs as standard...


He's thinking of 4e-vintage Furious Charge granting +1I in addition to +1S. Orks got I3 on the charge, but never better than that. They also had S3 on profile in 4e, so your vast number of Ork attacks got to hit on 4s and wound on 4s into the Marine's 3+ save, so we're still talking an average of ~12 attacks to kill a Marine when charging (~18 if you didn't get the charge).

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Xenomancers wrote:
Yet orks still do way more damage per point "on paper" ... That can not be disregarded.


Here you repeat a bogus claim that was debunked pages ago and then tack on a 'can not be disregarded'.

Tacticals and Intercessors currently do comparable damage with shooting per point as Shoota Boyz.

Assault Intercessors do more damage per point than Slugga Boyz in Assault doctrine, comparable otherwise.

The only way you can construe Orks doing 'way more damage per point' is with this contrived comparison between Slugga Boyz and Intercessors caught in melee, or cherry-picking a Goff-only upgrade. And that's just a straight up dishonest apples-to-oranges argument.

Also, Orks never doubled their initiative. Furious Charge gave you +1I, so they were still hitting after Marines. Also, getting 30 Boyz into melee is, and has always been, far more difficult than getting 10 Marines into melee. Also, they were only S4 and A3 on the charge, so after that first round of combat their performance dropped significantly. So, yknow, lots of context missing there on top of the false claims.

And it's really funny how you assert that Tacticals were always terrible and describe it as 'an omnipresent complaint from all marine players'... In a thread with a Marine player who's been around since the old days asserting that no, they were actually useful.

Just... stop.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/16 16:43:46


 
   
Made in gb
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot




UK

As a person who played Marines in 3rd and 4th I can also confirm that Tacticals were fine.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Oh, I goofed. You can actually get an average of just over three dead MEQ per fight phase per Assault Intercessor, with the right buffs.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

catbarf wrote:Tacticals and Intercessors currently do comparable damage with shooting per point as Shoota Boyz.

Assault Intercessors do more damage per point than Slugga Boyz in Assault doctrine, comparable otherwise.

To be fair, I do think that he was talking about Tacticals in much earlier editions, to which Intercessors don't apply, and Tacticals today have a lot more advantages than they did in 3rd and 4th, while the Boyz' haven't changed all that much in the same time frame. The improvements to Rapid Fire weapons with 5th are nice enough, but the changes in 6th on (when Overwatch was implemented) actually are rather impressive.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Charistoph wrote:
To be fair, I do think that he was talking about Tacticals in much earlier editions


That part of the discussion stemmed from Xeno claiming that Orks currently, in comparison to Marines, make up for much lower durability per point by having double (!) the damage output per point. Which is nonsense.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/16 18:04:16


 
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 catbarf wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
Yet orks still do way more damage per point "on paper" ... That can not be disregarded.


Here you repeat a bogus claim that was debunked pages ago and then tack on a 'can not be disregarded'.

Tacticals and Intercessors currently do comparable damage with shooting per point as Shoota Boyz.

Assault Intercessors do more damage per point than Slugga Boyz in Assault doctrine, comparable otherwise.

The only way you can construe Orks doing 'way more damage per point' is with this contrived comparison between Slugga Boyz and Intercessors caught in melee, or cherry-picking a Goff-only upgrade. And that's just a straight up dishonest apples-to-oranges argument.

Also, Orks never doubled their initiative. Furious Charge gave you +1I, so they were still hitting after Marines. Also, getting 30 Boyz into melee is, and has always been, far more difficult than getting 10 Marines into melee. Also, they were only S4 and A3 on the charge, so after that first round of combat their performance dropped significantly. So, yknow, lots of context missing there on top of the false claims.

And it's really funny how you assert that Tacticals were always terrible and describe it as 'an omnipresent complaint from all marine players'... In a thread with a Marine player who's been around since the old days asserting that no, they were actually useful.

Just... stop.

I literally just did the math and gave you the results.
120 x 2/3 = 80
80 x 2/3 = 53 1/3
53 1/3 x 1/3 = 17 2/3

9 dead intercessors. Without even using the goff trait or a nob upgrade. Just the +1 str stratagem which is basically auto include.

It is not even necessary to do this math. though. You only need to compare the number of attacks. Orks are getting 12 attacks for 21 points where a marine is only getting 3 (they both have 4 str attacks that hit on 3's)...it is beyond common sense that they do more damage in melee. It is literally by a factor of 4.

Assault intercessors can fight twice for 2 cp and have better ap and 4 attacks at 19 points each but even when they fight twice they only to 13 2/3 wounds to meq.
82 x 2/3 = 54 2/3
54 2/3 x 1/2 = 27 1/3
27 1/3 x 1/2 = 13 2/3

It would be 18 in assault doctrine. Plus keep in mind that is fighting twice! Which I believe the orks can also do. So Quite literally - the orks do twice as much damage.

There is also no viable delivery method outside of BT advance and charge (which is also really easy to avoid).

Orks just da jump (which is pretty close to being an automatic spell) and then you get a reroll charge).








Automatically Appended Next Post:
 catbarf wrote:
 Charistoph wrote:
To be fair, I do think that he was talking about Tacticals in much earlier editions


That part of the discussion stemmed from Xeno claiming that Orks currently, in comparison to Marines, make up for much lower durability per point by having double (!) the damage output per point. Which is nonsense.
It is actually 3/4 times more melee damage. Not twice.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/16 18:18:16


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: