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.

They're also, by nature of not being SMs, usually better against things designed to be hard for SMs to kill.

Many armies have access to snipers as troops.
Bladestorm auto wounds on 6, fake-rends on 6
Sniper auto wounds on 4, fake-rends on 6

Snipers are usually are heavy 1, but 2x-3x the range.

Bladestorm is better against t3-, but worse against t5+. A lot worse (not double unless t6+ and the AS is twice or less the alternative save).

Most snipers are only a little cheaper than DAs, but if Bladestorm were really rocking peoples' socks so hard, wouldn't we see more snipers? Sitting 36" away from the target is amazing for survivability, especially on frail models.

Ranges past 24" tend to be worth heavy, and fewer shots. That said, half the shots is kinda a stretch. But so is 36" vs 12"/18".

So, if Bladestorm were enough to make Guardians/DAs 'worth it', while Marines and Guardsmen aren't, why don't we see more Snipers?

(When Tau last updated, people went crazy for 7ppm snipers at 24", but I don't see them all that frequently.)

Bharring wrote:

Most snipers are only a little cheaper than DAs, but if Bladestorm were really rocking peoples' socks so hard, wouldn't we see more snipers? Sitting 36" away from the target is amazing for survivability, especially on frail models.

Well, possibly it depends on what snipers people have available and their opportunity cost. e.g. Any snipers that aren't Troops are already competing for FoC slots and, considering the hefty nerfs to sniper rifles, may simply not be worth it (contrast with DAs and Guardians - who are troops and thus can provide AP2 without needing to compete with more specialised units).

Another example is IG - they have access to cheap snipers in the form of SWSs (which I believe are used), but these are only available if you're taking a Platoon. So, any army taking only veterans won't include any.

There's also mobility - DAs and Guardians can advance and still fire, whilst snipers are basically stuck in place if they want to shoot.

Finally, some armies just don't have good sniper options. My cheapest option is an unit of 5 elites who can take all of 1 sniper rifle between them (and cost 70pts minimum). If I want a second sniper rifle, I need to add another 70pt unit or an 80+pt HQ.


Also, virtually all snipers (with the possible exception of the Vindicare and Deathmarks) seem to suffer from confused roles. Sniper rifles are generally 1-shot weapons, yet their profiles basically demand that they be taken in large quantities in order to be effective. This is rarely an option. Contrast that with Guardians and DAs, who can put out far more shots.

Yeah, comparisons to Deathmarks and Sniper Drone Teams are a bit off.

But what about Kroot?
Scouts?
Rangers?
(Not sure what slot Ratlings are)

I'm not saying they are necessarily as effective as Guardians or DAs, but I'd think they'd be in the same league?

When shooting things that boltguns are good against, sure, twice the shots, but if the point is that its a tax because you don't need anything that's good at what boltguns are good at, wouldn't the argument further state that that comparison doesn't matter?

On the other hand, for the things Bladestorm hurts that Bolters don't?
Against t6+ 3+/5++ (cover or invuln), Sniper is 2x Bladestorm
Against t6+ 3+/4++ snipers win by even more
Against things like Demons, at t6+ 5++ -or anywhere else armor doesn't matter -, Snipers do 3x what Bladestorm does.

The problem is the meta is heavy with 2+/5++, which Bladestorm does do more than half what Sniper does.

And, in all these situations, Snipers are much further away than Bladestorm. And then there is always Precision.

Bladestorm can be taken en masse, sure, but usually at less than 2x the shots.

I'm not saying Snipers are great or Bladestorm is terrible. I'm saying that, if it really were because Bladestorm lets them do something, while other 'troop tax' units don't, you'd see more snipers.

And their absence, to me, makes me think that that isn't the reason. But that perception may be the reason.

(Yes, it may be +5/10 ppm over 'least tax', but DAs are +14points and Guardians are +39points over 'least tax'.)

Ratlings are Elites.

Tactical marines are embarrasingly bad. I dont think Ive ever lost a game to a marine/ terminators based army and I play medium power list at best. I won a game against a list that had too many tacs using (afair) one venomthrope, a CC carnifex, swarmlord with guard, warriors some gants genestealers and broodlords in 6th edition... on a completly empty table. And no he wasnt shooting melta at gants or running to assault the swarmlord which are the only serious mistake he could make I think. We played on an empty table because the game before he lost as well but there was a huge ass home made ruin in the middle and I said 'it's all terrain man, let's play without it and you'll see'. I had no words of comfort the second time.

Seeing tac marines I think easy mode. Bolter ones are just dead weight and one heavy weapon per 10 is not enough. Black templars squads for example make more sense with 1 HW per 5 but it still doesnt fix them, which imo makes standard ones quite pathetic from that perspective.

And how does that compare to Guardians/DAs?

@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

More than 50% of the time when I list swap, I table my own BA. Of course, the counter argument to this is that I know BA inside and out.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

More than 50% of the time when I list swap, I table my own BA. Of course, the counter argument to this is that I know BA inside and out.

They should also know their list inside and out, and if they regularly win with said list versus your army and then you do the same, then the issue is more likely to be with your army (at least in the context of dealing with that list).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

More than 50% of the time when I list swap, I table my own BA. Of course, the counter argument to this is that I know BA inside and out.

They should also know their list inside and out, and if they regularly win with said list versus your army and then you do the same, then the issue is more likely to be with your army (at least in the context of dealing with that list).

It depends. When I swap with meq lists, I can usually win on either side. Swapping with Eldar/Tau has been a disaster for BA on both sides.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
@Plumbumbarum: Marines get a special and a heavy, and can combat squad to allow the heavy to basically sit on an objective tossing shots out (usually a missile launcher since frag and krak are still decent) while the special rolls around doing it's own thing.

Honestly I can't comment on your game because I don't know exactly how it all was played, but perhaps you should try swapping lists. If you still win then you know it's not his list.

More than 50% of the time when I list swap, I table my own BA. Of course, the counter argument to this is that I know BA inside and out.

They should also know their list inside and out, and if they regularly win with said list versus your army and then you do the same, then the issue is more likely to be with your army (at least in the context of dealing with that list).

It depends. When I swap with meq lists, I can usually win on either side. Swapping with Eldar/Tau has been a disaster for BA on both sides.

Issue might be how you're building your army then. Or how they're building theirs. We've seen you complain about issues with the folks you play against though, so any one of those problems could also the source of the issue.

And that leads to my point (again): Bladestorm, in a vacuum isn't bad. Most things, on their own, aren't bad. It's when a whole stack of things pile up together (like well kitted out Riptides plus a lack of LOS blocking terrain) that things get bad.

I won't deny somethings are stronger than others, but I think some people get overly focused on hating a codex as a whole that they ignore the things the codex isn't doing wrong, or actually has working against it.

Is any unit with JSJ or battle focus easier or harder to deal with if there is LOS blocking terrain? I feel that convincing people to use more LOS blocking terrain wont' help vs JSJ or battle focus units.

Also, I let them rebuild the BA how ever they like because I have like 6000 pts of them. We more codex swap than straight army swap.

Martel732 wrote:
Is any unit with JSJ or battle focus easier or harder to deal with if there is LOS blocking terrain? I feel that convincing people to use more LOS blocking terrain wont' help vs JSJ or battle focus units.

Also, I let them rebuild the BA how ever they like because I have like 6000 pts of them. We more codex swap than straight army swap.

LOS Blocking terrain would prevent the Riptide from getting a full 5' LoS anywhere on the board. When you restrict how many units it can potentially engage at once you can force it to take less optimal targets.

Same for Battle Focus, there is a limit to how far out they can effect in a turn and if you're using your own maneuverability properly you can reduce or negate their targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RE: Codex Swap might be the issue. If they aren't proficient in building a list they could be building a sub-optimal BA list to fight their own army without knowing it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is any unit with JSJ or battle focus easier or harder to deal with if there is LOS blocking terrain? I feel that convincing people to use more LOS blocking terrain wont' help vs JSJ or battle focus units.

Also, I let them rebuild the BA how ever they like because I have like 6000 pts of them. We more codex swap than straight army swap.

LOS Blocking terrain would prevent the Riptide from getting a full 5' LoS anywhere on the board. When you restrict how many units it can potentially engage at once you can force it to take less optimal targets.

Same for Battle Focus, there is a limit to how far out they can effect in a turn and if you're using your own maneuverability properly you can reduce or negate their targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RE: Codex Swap might be the issue. If they aren't proficient in building a list they could be building a sub-optimal BA list to fight their own army without knowing it.

As long as they can get one target, they are good to go, I think. Or don't you agree? I mean, the Riptide vaporizes every unit in the BA codex.

"If they aren't proficient in building a list they could be building a sub-optimal BA list to fight their own army without knowing it."

No one can even agree what an optimal BA list even is. Be honest, how scared of BA are you with Sisters? I'm guessing not very.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Is any unit with JSJ or battle focus easier or harder to deal with if there is LOS blocking terrain? I feel that convincing people to use more LOS blocking terrain wont' help vs JSJ or battle focus units.

Also, I let them rebuild the BA how ever they like because I have like 6000 pts of them. We more codex swap than straight army swap.

LOS Blocking terrain would prevent the Riptide from getting a full 5' LoS anywhere on the board. When you restrict how many units it can potentially engage at once you can force it to take less optimal targets.

Same for Battle Focus, there is a limit to how far out they can effect in a turn and if you're using your own maneuverability properly you can reduce or negate their targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
RE: Codex Swap might be the issue. If they aren't proficient in building a list they could be building a sub-optimal BA list to fight their own army without knowing it.

As long as they can get one target, they are good to go, I think. Or don't you agree? I mean, the Riptide vaporizes every unit in the BA codex.

"If they aren't proficient in building a list they could be building a sub-optimal BA list to fight their own army without knowing it."

No one can even agree what an optimal BA list even is. Be honest, how scared of BA are you with Sisters? I'm guessing not very.

Blood Angels scare the crap out of my tank company because of the Assault after Deepstrike formation if you bring 3 flyers and 3 tactical squads.

I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

Martel732 wrote:
I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

It isn't crappy against 10 LRBTs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

It isn't crappy against 10 LRBTs.

Without a priori knowledge that 10 LRBTs are coming, I maintain that it is indeed a crappy formation. You have to consider the entire field in such an analysis.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

It isn't crappy against 10 LRBTs.

Without a priori knowledge that 10 LRBTs are coming, I maintain that it is indeed a crappy formation.

It is crappy in some situations and good in others.

All it takes to disprove a general statement is a specific counter example.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

It isn't crappy against 10 LRBTs.

Without a priori knowledge that 10 LRBTs are coming, I maintain that it is indeed a crappy formation.

It is crappy in some situations and good in others.

All it takes to disprove a general statement is a specific counter example.

That's not really true. If it is crappy in 80% of situations, and good in 20%, that means it's crappy because the odds are stacked so heavily against you. Each specific data point just adds to the data set, and disproves nothing.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I think that formation is actually kinda crappy. The tax is too high to be useful in general. I haven't even bothered to order the White Dwarf off of Black Library because I don't think I'd ever use it.

It isn't crappy against 10 LRBTs.

Without a priori knowledge that 10 LRBTs are coming, I maintain that it is indeed a crappy formation.

It is crappy in some situations and good in others.

All it takes to disprove a general statement is a specific counter example.

That's not really true. If it is crappy in 80% of situations, and good in 20%, that means it's crappy because the odds are stacked so heavily against you. Each specific data point just adds to the data set, and disproves nothing.

I maintain that crappy is still an overgeneralization.

I think there are far too many opposing lists where the three tactical squads will just drag you down too much to be competitive. That, and the Stormravens aren't really that good at supplying consistent firepower, as they have the flier movement restrictions. It's around 1000 pts of units that don't really contribute much.

Interestingly, if the formation had 30 models with bladestorm, that would at least bring efficacy vs monstrous creatures.

A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

And what do you mean "doesn't contribute much?!" They contribute the ability to assault after deep-striking, literally skipping over the problem that assault armies have with getting shot on the way in.

Like, that's pretty incredible.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

Fair enough. That's my main point rephrased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

And what do you mean "doesn't contribute much?!" They contribute the ability to assault after deep-striking, literally skipping over the problem that assault armies have with getting shot on the way in.

Like, that's pretty incredible.

Except they are tac squads. And there are too many lists that don't care about being assaulted by tac marines. Yes, LRBTs care about the krak grenades, but lists like Orks and Tyranids are just licking their chops. And as I said, those Stormravens aren't doing that much damage to an enemy list.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

Fair enough. That's my main point rephrased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

And what do you mean "doesn't contribute much?!" They contribute the ability to assault after deep-striking, literally skipping over the problem that assault armies have with getting shot on the way in.

Like, that's pretty incredible.

Except they are tac squads. And there are too many lists that don't care about being assaulted by tac marines. Yes, LRBTs care about the krak grenades, but lists like Orks and Tyranids are just licking their chops.

The assaulting units don't have to be tac squads. They could be assault terminators or vanguard veterans or anyone who deepstrikes. Hell, they could be any BA model in a pod.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

Fair enough. That's my main point rephrased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

And what do you mean "doesn't contribute much?!" They contribute the ability to assault after deep-striking, literally skipping over the problem that assault armies have with getting shot on the way in.

Like, that's pretty incredible.

Except they are tac squads. And there are too many lists that don't care about being assaulted by tac marines. Yes, LRBTs care about the krak grenades, but lists like Orks and Tyranids are just licking their chops.

The assaulting units don't have to be tac squads. They could be assault terminators or vanguard veterans or anyone who deepstrikes. Hell, they could be any BA model in a pod.

That's true, but you don't have that many points left over to work with. There's also some debate about the legality of how this formation works, which is a super headache and just not worth it to me.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

Fair enough. That's my main point rephrased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
A better term, perhaps, would be "situational" - as in, "it's so situational that I don't recommend taking it in a TAC setting"

And what do you mean "doesn't contribute much?!" They contribute the ability to assault after deep-striking, literally skipping over the problem that assault armies have with getting shot on the way in.

Like, that's pretty incredible.

Except they are tac squads. And there are too many lists that don't care about being assaulted by tac marines. Yes, LRBTs care about the krak grenades, but lists like Orks and Tyranids are just licking their chops.

The assaulting units don't have to be tac squads. They could be assault terminators or vanguard veterans or anyone who deepstrikes. Hell, they could be any BA model in a pod.

That's true, but you don't have that many points left over to work with. There's also some debate about the legality of how this formation works, which is a super headache and just not worth it to me.

My friend runs the 1st Company detachment and that Formation, so he brings the formation (3 ravens and 3 tac squads) and 4 terminator squads with captain (iirc). He deploys nothing, goes second. Bottom of 1, rolls for the formation, boosts the stormravens in 36". I can't shoot him because I lack AA weapons. Top of 2, 4ish deep striking terminator squads and 3 tac marine squads hit my tanks.

That doesn't sound like "not enough points for alot). Hell, last game he brought even more terminators, because we played 2500.

Martel732 wrote:
Be honest, how scared of BA are you with Sisters? I'm guessing not very.

I fear no army. I go into every game with the intent of giving it my all and at the very least trying to learn where I can improve.

Besides, they're little plastic (or metal, or resin) people. What do I realistically have to be afraid of them over?

30 Bladestorm models as a 'tax' would be good against slow MCs, sure. But 30 Tacs as a tax are good against 30 Bladestorm models. Or 10 Rhinos.

Lots of things in the BA codex scares the hell out of my footdar.

(And only a few models can battle focus after shooting 24". Only things shooting farther and battle focusing are large-footprint War Walkers, and certain never-seen HQ options.)

Martel732 wrote:
Is any unit with JSJ or battle focus easier or harder to deal with if there is LOS blocking terrain? I feel that convincing people to use more LOS blocking terrain wont' help vs JSJ or battle focus units.

Also, I let them rebuild the BA how ever they like because I have like 6000 pts of them. We more codex swap than straight army swap.

Please not with the LOS blocking terrain! It literally solves nothing. All it does is mitigate the advantage of turn 1 which hurts you 50% of the time too. As martel has pointed out repeatedly - UNITS THAT CAN MOVE AFTER THEY SHOOT GAIN MORE BENEFIT FROM LOS BLOCKING TERRAIN THAT UNITS THAT DON'T. To my knowledge not a single space marine units can do this (minus a few formations that can do it conditionally and 1 time only). Tau and Eldar have tons of units that can do this...stop trying to convince martel more cover, more LOS blocking is good. In reality. Marines would function best in a 0 cover environment because their basic armor save is good. Before games start I always argue for less cover...mainly because I don't think it's fair that weak 5 point model roll the same denial dice as my expensive 20 point strike squads do or even my 32 point terms in most cases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
30 Bladestorm models as a 'tax' would be good against slow MCs, sure. But 30 Tacs as a tax are good against 30 Bladestorm models. Or 10 Rhinos.

Lots of things in the BA codex scares the hell out of my footdar.

(And only a few models can battle focus after shooting 24". Only things shooting farther and battle focusing are large-footprint War Walkers, and certain never-seen HQ options.)

30 blade-storm models ace MC before they get to you usually.