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.

 blood ravens addiction wrote:

 BBAP wrote:
All with lasguns too. Some dude killed Ghaz'kull with lasguns so they're obvs broken. GW pls nerf ok ty

Aaaaaand how do you nerf a lasgun exactly? Make it weaker? That makes it cheaper, which means I get more of them and can kill Ghazghkull easier. Make it stronger? Hardly any difference, perhaps 1 point higher per model. It'll just make it easier.

You can't nerf a lasgun.

Heresy! Lasguns are made on the Nerf Forge World!

TheCustomLime wrote:But if you have to rely on overpowered weapons to kill a unit that makes that unit overpowered. I should be able to take a TAC lists with missile launchers marines in rhinos and destroy Baneblades in a well balanced game.

The "standard" load-out for a 10 man squad of tactical marines is a rhino, a flamer and a missile launcher. That was the loadout that was expressedly encouraged in the 5th edition codex. In the 5th edition codex, if you had a 10 man squad, you could switch out 2 boltguns for a missile launcher and flamer for free. That was the weapons configuration that came with the Assault on Black Reach boxed set. 10 man tactical marine squad with flamer and missile launcher is literally what GW pushed through 5th edition.

Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?

Ditto if I play dark angels tactical squads with a plasma gun and plasma cannon. That's literally what GW marketed.

I don't think that I should be able to win all the time with that. But yes, it seems perfectly reasonable to have a fair shot if that's what I'm using.

Yes, the flamer is an anti-infantry weapon. Yes, the missile launcher is an anti-vehicle weapon.

So if I use those things, why shouldn't I have roughly a 50/50 shot when GW itself basically told me: "This is what you should be using" for most of the time that 40k has been around?

Because the scale has gotten out of whack. Because power creep. And because you like the fact that your new, expensive toys win you games without any real strategic effort on your part.

No. Using teleporting grav centurions doesn't make you a "good" player.

Ditto if you use a bane blade, an imperial knight or a wraithknight.

That doesn't make you a good player.

It just means that you brought something to the table that should never have been introduced to the "normal" game in the first place.

If missile launchers is what GW has consistently told me that I should use, and missile launchers can't reliably kill it, then no, it doesn't belong on the table.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
But hey, mock me all you want.

Eventually, you'll be mocking me...and have practically nobody to play with. Because with GW's ridiculous prices and the ridiculous shifts in power balance, few people will have the ability or the desire to keep up.

 Traditio wrote:


The "standard" load-out for a 10 man squad of tactical marines is a rhino, a flamer and a missile launcher. That was the loadout that was expressedly encouraged in the 5th edition codex. In the 5th edition codex, if you had a 10 man squad, you could switch out 2 boltguns for a missile launcher and flamer for free. That was the weapons configuration that came with the Assault on Black Reach boxed set. 10 man tactical marine squad with flamer and missile launcher is literally what GW pushed through 5th edition.

Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?

In case you missed it, this IS NOT 5th ed anymore.

 Traditio wrote:

Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?

Because now you have nothing to deal with heavy infantry or anything more durable than a few rhinos reliably. The flamer is anti LIGHT infantry weapon, not an anti ALL infantry weapon. The ML is anti light vehicle weapon, not an anti flyer/heavy tank/Everything weapon.

 Traditio wrote:

I don't think that I should be able to win all the time with that. But yes, it seems perfectly reasonable to have a fair shot if that's what I'm using.

Not if that's the extent of your special/heavy weapons. If you build a gak list, expect it to perform like gak.

 Traditio wrote:

Yes, the flamer is an anti-infantry weapon. Yes, the missile launcher is an anti-vehicle weapon.

see above.

 Traditio wrote:

So if I use those things, why shouldn't I have roughly a 50/50 shot when GW itself basically told me: "This is what you should be using" for most of the time that 40k has been around?

Two things here. 5th ed was not the majority of time 40k was around, and the times have changed. Stop living in 5th ed.

 Traditio wrote:

Because the scale has gotten out of whack. Because power creep. And because you like the fact that your new, expensive toys win you games without any real strategic effort on your part.

No. Using teleporting grav centurions doesn't make you a "good" player.

Ditto if you use a bane blade, an imperial knight or a wraithknight.

That doesn't make you a good player.

Neither does building a bad list then whining everyone else is OP. Neither does refusing to adapt in anyway shape or form and blaming everyone and thing besides yourself.

 Traditio wrote:

If missile launchers is what GW has consistently told me that I should use, and missile launchers can't reliably kill it, then no, it doesn't belong on the table.

So LAND RAIDERS do not belong on the table then? Terminators either? Meganobs? Any squad of infantry properly spaced out? AV13? Anything with an invul save? Do you realize how dumb that sounds? You just eliminated everything inthe game but the lightest vehicles AND marine squads pretty much.

 Traditio wrote:

But hey, mock me all you want.

Eventually, you'll be mocking me...and have practically nobody to play with. Because with GW's ridiculous prices and the ridiculous shifts in power balance, few people will have the ability or the desire to keep up.

It's the price hike, not the poor balance that's really been driving players away, and preventing new players from starting.

In the mean time, we'll keep laughing at all of your "the sky is falling!" threads, insane ideas on "balance" (aka "the latest thing that beat my 5th ed army/does ONE thing better than C:SM/I deem randomly unfair")

In case you missed it, this IS NOT 5th ed anymore.

Even in Fifth that combo was meh, they were the CHEAPEST options for a reason.

Also it seems like he desires that everyone be able to win with what just comes out a box? Does he believe that nobody should have options either?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

In case you missed it, this IS NOT 5th ed anymore.

Even in Fifth that combo was meh, they were the CHEAPEST options for a reason.

It wasn't just 5th edition. 10 man tactical squad with flamer and missile launcher was the marketed standard load-out at least since 2nd edition. I'm willing to bet that it was probably true for rogue trader.

Also it seems like he desires that everyone be able to win with what just comes out a box?

Why shouldn't I?

If that's what GW marketed, why shouldn't I have as good a chance of winning with that as with anything else?

Does he believe that nobody should have options either?

Yes. You should be able to play how you want. And regardless of what you use, you should have roughly a 50/50 chance of winning, independently of player skill.

You shouldn't be able to pull the newest OP gak from the latest edition, plop it on the table, and say: "I just started playing this morning, but I win. Good game."

 Traditio wrote:
The "standard" load-out for a 10 man squad of tactical marines is a rhino, a flamer and a missile launcher. That was the loadout that was expressedly encouraged in the 5th edition codex. In the 5th edition codex, if you had a 10 man squad, you could switch out 2 boltguns for a missile launcher and flamer for free. That was the weapons configuration that came with the Assault on Black Reach boxed set. 10 man tactical marine squad with flamer and missile launcher is literally what GW pushed through 5th edition.

In case you haven't noticed it's currently 7th edition, not 5th. How things used to work in 5th edition is irrelevant.

And it's a bad argument anyway. An upgrade being "free" doesn't mean that it's meant to be the standard, it just means that certain upgrades are considered to have a value of zero points compared to the bolter they replace. The missile/flamer combination was only "encouraged" if you assume that you want the cheapest possible tactical squads. Even back in 5th edition most of us realized that missile/flamer was not the default option. Melta guns were the standard special weapon, not flamers, because flamers had very little value. So not only are you trying to make an absurd argument based on obsolete rules, you're doing it with revisionist history about a version of the game that only exists in your own mind.

Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?

For the same reason that I can't expect to win games with Marbo in my IG army, put 10-man squads in my Vendettas, or start my entire army in reserve: because the rules have changed since 5th edition.

If missile launchers is what GW has consistently told me that I should use, and missile launchers can't reliably kill it, then no, it doesn't belong on the table.

Missile launchers have never been able to reliably kill everything. Even back in 5th edition LRBTs, Land Raiders, terminators, etc, were virtually immune to missile launchers. It is not reasonable to declare that anything your "decent at several things, great at none of them" weapon can't reliably kill is "cheese" and insist that it be removed from the game. If you want to kill heavy tanks you take things like grav weapons, lascannons, and melta guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Traditio wrote:
And regardless of what you use, you should have roughly a 50/50 chance of winning, independently of player skill.

This is a terrible argument. If I bring an army that has literally no weapon capable of damaging a tank should I have a 50/50 chance of winning a game of 40k? If I take a Tau army that has no ranged weapons (lots of crisis suits with multiple shield generators) should I have a 50/50 chance of winning? If I take a naked captain and two naked 5-man tactical squads (and no other units) in a 2000 point game should I have a 50/50 chance of winning? Of course not. If you fail at the strategic aspect of list building and show up with a poorly designed army you should expect to lose as a result. The game can not and should not cater to your demands to be able to get away with making bad choices because "that's how it worked in 5th edition".

 Traditio wrote:

Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?

How is it? There is a reason why that loadout is the cheapest and it has nothing to do with it being the standard.

I don't think that I should be able to win all the time with that. But yes, it seems perfectly reasonable to have a fair shot if that's what I'm using.

Provided the enemy only brings light infantry and light armour, sure.

Yes, the flamer is an anti-infantry weapon. Yes, the missile launcher is an anti-vehicle weapon.

Light hordes. At best.

So if I use those things, why shouldn't I have roughly a 50/50 shot when GW itself basically told me: "This is what you should be using" for most of the time that 40k has been around?

Because they are utter gak when compared to the other options?

Because the scale has gotten out of whack. Because power creep. And because you like the fact that your new, expensive toys win you games without any real strategic effort on your part.

Yes it has, but that is not your problem here.

Ditto if you use a bane blade,

That doesn't make you a good player.

A Baneblade? You have issue with the Baneblade? Oh hell Tradito, just quit now. The Baneblade is extremely weak when compared to other LoW.

If missile launchers is what GW has consistently told me that I should use, and missile launchers can't reliably kill it, then no, it doesn't belong on the table.

GW never told you to use them. And your Missile Launchers are utter crap against heavy armour, so why should you expect to win? Stop whining and grow a pair.

 Traditio wrote:

The "standard" load-out for a 10 man squad of tactical marines is a rhino, a flamer and a missile launcher. That was the loadout that was expressedly encouraged in the 5th edition codex. In the 5th edition codex, if you had a 10 man squad, you could switch out 2 boltguns for a missile launcher and flamer for free. That was the weapons configuration that came with the Assault on Black Reach boxed set. 10 man tactical marine squad with flamer and missile launcher is literally what GW pushed through 5th edition.

No, it wasn't 'standard'. It was the cheapest loadout, and was only one possible loadout, amongst many. Thst doesn't make it 'standard'. If anything, the only 'standard' is that tac. Squads come in sizes of 5-10, and marines carry bolters as their longarms. In any case, what the fifth edition codex rules said have nothing to do with things - in case you hadn't noticed, things change.

 Traditio wrote:

Why shouldn't I expect to be able to win games with tactical marines with flamers, missile launchers and rhinos when that's precisely what GW marketed until the advent of 6th edition?

Because that's not what gw marketed? It's only what you wished gw marketed, based on your own hysterically skewed perspective,

In any case, I could get behind that argument in the lore and tabletop, if marines with flamers, mission launchers and rhinos was literally all you had as options and represented the entirety of the codex, but no, codex:marines has, and has had, through all its previous incarnations, far more stuff to use. Even in the lore, marines use plenty other stuff than just relying on your napoleonics in spaaaace.

 Traditio wrote:

Ditto if I play dark angels tactical squads with a plasma gun and plasma cannon. That's literally what GW marketed.

And yet, their codex has plenty other options too. Being the first legion. They're famously for plasma, nowhere does it say they'd use it instead of everything else.

By the way, you do realise, to use your own argument, that dark angels are far more famous fr their death wing and raven wing elements? They're very much marketed around that. So you should be all for lots of bikes and deep striking terminators?

 Traditio wrote:

I don't think that I should be able to win all the time with that. But yes, it seems perfectly reasonable to have a fair shot if that's what I'm using.

So then by that reasoning, I should be able to take an army of scouts with knives and win half my games.

Lol, but no. In any game with the breadth of options as 40k, no, you shouldn't be able to 'just win with that'. It can play a part, certainly, in the greater scheme of things. Rhino marines have a role, but they shouldn't encompass everything about the game - it is far too big for that.But that also implies the acknowledgement and acceptance of the validity of the rest of the space marine armoury.

 Traditio wrote:

Yes, the flamer is an anti-infantry weapon. Yes, the missile launcher is an anti-vehicle weapon.

So if I use those things, why shouldn't I have roughly a 50/50 shot when GW itself basically told me: "This is what you should be using" for most of the time that 40k has been around?
.

Flamers are for light infantry, missile launchers are limited anti vehicles. They can't do the whole job on their own, nor should they. There's far more out there, and marines have far more tools in their armoury to deal with those things thst flamers and missile launchers can't do all by themselves. Hmm, it's almost like marines have specialist solutions to problems using other tools beyond just missile launchers and flamers. Things thst they are happy to use and things that are readily available.

By all means use your missile launchers and flamers. Just bear in mind, they're only part of the bigger picture. And can you point me To where gw told you 'this is what you should be using'? Because I very much doubt thst this is a thing.

 Traditio wrote:

Because the scale has gotten out of whack. Because power creep. And because you like the fact that your new, expensive toys win you games without any real strategic effort on your part.

Lol. Says the person who wants his marines with bolters to just gun down everything and win games without any strategic effort on his part. And who wants to do this in a game where no one else has any cool toys. You are self absorbed, Entitled, and selfish. And a poor player with a terrible attitude.

 Traditio wrote:

No. Using teleporting grav centurions doesn't make you a "good" player.
.

Course it does. If you teleport them into the right place and they accomplish their goals, then yes, you made a good play.

And point of order: not using teleporting grav cents doesn't make you a better, or somehow superior player either.

 Traditio wrote:

Ditto if you use a bane blade, an imperial knight or a wraithknight.
That doesn't make you a good player.

Using them right makes you a good player.

 Traditio wrote:

It just means that you brought something to the table that should never have been introduced to the "normal" game in the first place.

Says who now? I prefer smaller scale games myself, like infinity and warmachine, but folks are not wrong for wanting to field super heavies. Things like Titans are some of the most iconic images of 40k. And they're amazing centrepieces, or even justmthings to paint.

 Traditio wrote:

If missile launchers is what GW has consistently told me that I should use, and missile launchers can't reliably kill it, then no, it doesn't belong on the table.

Lol, but no. Missile launchers are one option to one unit, amongst a whole codex. If missile launchers from your tac.squads can't kill it, then chances are that it's probably not the right tool for the job. And it's not like those missile armed tac.squads don't have other support elements and specialist weapons available to them, along with the various delivery methods to apply said weapons to bad guys. It's almost like they emthought about this...

The only thing thst doesn't belong in the table is your stinking self-absorbed attitude, your entitlement, your vindictiveness and small mindedness, and your martyrdom complex.

 Traditio wrote:

But hey, mock me all you want.

You're far too entertaining for that.

 Traditio wrote:

Eventually, you'll be mocking me...and have practically nobody to play with. Because with GW's ridiculous prices and the ridiculous shifts in power balance, few people will have the ability or the desire to keep up.

Lol, but no. I have other games, and I have good groups that I play with where we approach the game in a way where those silly things don't really don't cause any havoc.

It wasn't just 5th edition. 10 man tactical squad with flamer and missile launcher was the marketed standard load-out at least since 2nd edition. I'm willing to bet that it was probably true for rogue trader.

Considering White Dwarf Space Marine armies weren't filled with Tacticals with Flamers/Missile launchers.. There's no such thing as a standard loadout.

This guy is crazy. Do you actually think that you should always have a 50% chance of winning? Also flamers are useless and the only time I've seen them do some actual damage is in a 10 man squad. Why don't you play 30k which doesn't have formation cheese. And you really only see marines so everything is nice and fair.

Traditio I'd love to play a fame against you
Il bring my tau and wipe you off the board just to watch you cry just like the immature so and so you are
Do the world a favor quit the hobby your irritating

25 points for a guardsman with a lasgun.

Last time I checked every 10 point model beat guardsmen, unless the points have changed drastically since I've came back? I've not got any new codices so I'm not sure, but isn't a tac marine around 14-15 points? Even with FRFSRF 10 guardsmen do not beat 10 tac marines. Even if they fired first and had a plasma gun and plasma pistol and had rapid fire they'd still either lose or draw.

Unless you were being sarcastic of course, then sorry.

NivlacSupreme wrote:
This guy is crazy. Do you actually think that you should always have a 50% chance of winning? Also flamers are useless and the only time I've seen them do some actual damage is in a 10 man squad. Why don't you play 30k which doesn't have formation cheese. And you really only see marines so everything is nice and fair.

Nah he'd hate 30k. His flamers will be even more useless and his missile launchers will still be questionable.

Indeed he'd probably come back in a few days complaining about the Typhon...

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

NivlacSupreme wrote:
This guy is crazy. Do you actually think that you should always have a 50% chance of winning? Also flamers are useless and the only time I've seen them do some actual damage is in a 10 man squad. Why don't you play 30k which doesn't have formation cheese. And you really only see marines so everything is nice and fair.

Nah he'd hate 30k. His flamers will be even more useless and his missile launchers will still be questionable.

Indeed he'd probably come back in a few days complaining about the Typhon...

And devs all with a heavy weapon. And primarchs. and spartans. and Admech MCs. And other legions' special units.

 Traditio wrote:
You shouldn't be able to pull the newest OP gak from the latest edition, plop it on the table, and say: "I just started playing this morning, but I win. Good game."

Find an experienced player with a balanced army who's played against one of these things before and try it out. It won't work.

 blood ravens addiction wrote:
25 points for a guardsman with a lasgun.

Last time I checked every 10 point model beat guardsmen, unless the points have changed drastically since I've came back? I've not got any new codices so I'm not sure, but isn't a tac marine around 14-15 points? Even with FRFSRF 10 guardsmen do not beat 10 tac marines. Even if they fired first and had a plasma gun and plasma pistol and had rapid fire they'd still either lose or draw.

Unless you were being sarcastic of course, then sorry.

This whole thread is very, very sarcastic, don't worry.

 blood ravens addiction wrote:
25 points for a guardsman with a lasgun.

Last time I checked every 10 point model beat guardsmen, unless the points have changed drastically since I've came back? I've not got any new codices so I'm not sure, but isn't a tac marine around 14-15 points? Even with FRFSRF 10 guardsmen do not beat 10 tac marines. Even if they fired first and had a plasma gun and plasma pistol and had rapid fire they'd still either lose or draw.

Unless you were being sarcastic of course, then sorry.

I'm being serious. Do you know how many Tactical Marines I've lost to cheesy Guardsman and their OP Lasguns? I demand they be nerfed!

(I'm joking. Just parodying typical "Timmy" attitudes towards balance)

Oh! Right, I see.

Keep it up then lads

Missile launchers have been unplayable garbage since 3rd. They weren't usable in 5th.

Martel732 wrote:
Missile launchers have been unplayable garbage since 3rd. They weren't usable in 5th.

No dude, they were the standard. GW marketed them and in 5th ed they were the benchmark-nay! the acme- of heavy weapons in a well balanced and cinematic battle. Anything that a single missile launcher couldn't destroy in a single turn was OP and it still stays so.

Wow. I didn't know terminators were broken this whole time.

Why are people still responding to him? Its obvious he is either an autist (not a insult mind you) or a troll. Either way its lame to make fun of mental illness and even lamer to feed a obvious troll. At this point I think everyone and anyone can brush this post off. But I would be lying if I did not admit I get a perverse pleasure in reading Tradito tripe. It is like a car accident rubbernecker. Does that make me a bad person? It sure feels like it does. :(

Just trying to point out some realities here.

Lord Kragan wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Missile launchers have been unplayable garbage since 3rd. They weren't usable in 5th.

No dude, they were the standard. GW marketed them and in 5th ed they were the benchmark-nay! the acme- of heavy weapons in a well balanced and cinematic battle. Anything that a single missile launcher couldn't destroy in a single turn was OP and it still stays so.

Indeed. The glory days of two-man Long Fang Packs halting entire mech armies with their single Missile Launcher and combi-Flamer Pack Leader seem so long ago. Game broken. Pls nerf ok gw ty

Also, why should anyone care what gw markets? Missile launchers were good in 2nd vs elite infantry and mcs, but were still sketchy vs vehicles.

Martel732 wrote:
Also, why should anyone care what gw markets? Missile launchers were good in 2nd vs elite infantry and mcs, but were still sketchy vs vehicles.

You still have yet to answer if I am bad person or not. I need the validation like I need to read Tactics : Tradito (spelling).

Table wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Also, why should anyone care what gw markets? Missile launchers were good in 2nd vs elite infantry and mcs, but were still sketchy vs vehicles.

You still have yet to answer if I am bad person or not. I need the validation like I need to read Tactics : Tradito (spelling).

you missed the I. think tradition minus the N.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 BBAP wrote:
I played a game against an Astroglide Militarium player earlier today. Now normally I have no problem beating the Guard with my nigh-invincible auto-regrouping Space Marines with their 10 Rhinos and BS4 special weapons, but then my opponent pulled out something called a "Stormsword".

It looked like an RC toy rather than something appropriate for 40k. It was huge. Worse, the thing had like 4 guns on it, and even though I used some of the free Krak grenades my MEQ dudes get to inflict a couple HP damage on it, I couldn't stop it shooting! It Stunned one of my Rhinos and ran over muh Devastator Sergeant!

Models like this have absolutely no place in 40k and I think it should be banned. It only costs 600-odd points too, which is undercosted for a non-SM vehicle with 4 guns on it.

This made me laugh profusely. The StormSword is good, but... it's not new and it's legal.

I am in your camp as far as whether it "should" be... But the Land of Should is a lonely place. No one lives there, people only pas through.

In this case, it just means you gotta embrace meltas and Grav Guns a lot more.Adapt and overcome.

But if you have to rely on overpowered weapons to kill a unit that makes that unit overpowered. I should be able to take a TAC lists with missile launchers marines in rhinos and destroy Baneblades in a well balanced game.

Eh...no? While Missile luanchers WILL glance it, the sheer volume of missiles necessary is fairly ridiculous.

The Land of Should doesn't actually exist. No one EATS the way they should, no one SLEEPS as much as they should and life isn't a "Should" situation.

You have to adjust.

Bud, I don't play much anymore, but even I have to agree that your taking things too far. You took a bad list. Before I even play a game, me and my opponent sit down and talk lists. He wants to bring vehicles, fine. I let him decide on how many he wants to bring, then I come up with a number for what I am willing to field to oppose that. I want to bring infantry hordes, I let him know about how much will hit the field, and let him come up with a response. By the end of 10 minutes, we have lists that should be fairly equal on scale. Try that next time.

On the subject of guardsman for all ye sarcastic people in the audience... remember that even termagants get an armor save. Nerf them harder.

Wow....he actually took the bait.