Switch Theme:

We've seen the ITC results, but what about Dakkas results so far?  [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 de
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I think we do need this thread now. If only because data = evidence, and not anecdotes.

I mean, nobody should be taking the results from this thread very seriously as evidence of the relative power of various armies. I wanted to add an "obviously" in there but I guess maybe it's not. Someone on the last page is even purporting to provide confidence intervals. These are incredibly misleading and should not be used. There are so many uncontrolled variables here which are likely to produce weird correlations, and so many other sources of uncertainty, that this is just garbage in garbage out. Win-loss records are a fun thing to look at to get maybe a sense of what some people's experience with 8th has been so far, but they're not actually useful for anything.
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 Vector Strike wrote:

you want to ban the Y'vahra? It costs almost 400p! It is costed almost as much as a knight, for half its resistance!
It used to be 240p, lol

plasma scions are much more problematic to the game than y'vahra


Yes but this can magically appear within 9" of anything on the board, and can unload realistically more devastating firepower than an imperial knight, and has a much better invulnerable save, that can be 3++ in melee. I would much sooner bring this than an Imperial Knight of any kind. Let's not even forget the drones, for when someone gets a wound through with anti-tank weaponry from range...

Imperial Knights get riggity-rocked in melee by the right units. Draigo can solo a knight. Nova charged, this deals 7 expected wounds against Draigo in overwatch, slaying him.

These are astoundingly badass, if you're a Tau player and you're arguing against this thing, I can't even, it's beyond fantastic.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/21 00:59:59


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain






A Protoss colony world

Just had a game today:
Dark Angels vs. Genestealer Cult
We played the Kill Points mission from the Eternal War section of the BRB.
DA Victory, 14 points to 12. I had 4 characters left on the table after turn 7, he had a bunch of vehicles and a squad of Acolytes.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/21 03:05:54


My armies (re-counted and updated on 11/1/23, including modeled wargear options):
Dark Angels: ~15000 Astra Militarum: ~1200 | Adeptus Custodes: ~1900 | Imperial Knights: ~2000 | Sisters of Battle: ~3500 | Leagues of Votann: ~1200 | Tyranids: ~2600 | Stormcast Eternals: ~5000
Check out my P&M Blogs: ZergSmasher's P&M Blog | Imperial Knights blog | Board Games blog | Total models painted in 2023: 40 | Total models painted in 2024: 7 | Current main painting project: Dark Angels
 Mr_Rose wrote:
Who doesn’t love crazy mutant squawk-puppies? Eh? Nobody, that’s who.
 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Saw a game of Blood Angels vs Death Guard while visiting a GW to get my nephew some cadian shock troops.

Blood Angels Win vs Death Guard Lose

Unrelated, I've now got my 9 year old nephew hooked on plastic crack.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/21 01:36:47


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Water-Caste Negotiator





 Marmatag wrote:
 Vector Strike wrote:

you want to ban the Y'vahra? It costs almost 400p! It is costed almost as much as a knight, for half its resistance!
It used to be 240p, lol

plasma scions are much more problematic to the game than y'vahra


Yes but this can magically appear within 9" of anything on the board, and can unload realistically more devastating firepower than an imperial knight, and has a much better invulnerable save, that can be 3++ in melee. I would much sooner bring this than an Imperial Knight of any kind. Let's not even forget the drones, for when someone gets a wound through with anti-tank weaponry from range...

Imperial Knights get riggity-rocked in melee by the right units. Draigo can solo a knight. Nova charged, this deals 7 expected wounds against Draigo in overwatch, slaying him.

These are astoundingly badass, if you're a Tau player and you're arguing against this thing, I can't even, it's beyond fantastic.


You're forgetting that to do all those awesome things, it has to use its nova reactor. Which means taking a mortal wound. If you nova every single turn, you're dealing at least 5 mortal wounds to it, meaning that its effectively 9 wounds instead of 14. Its weapons are also heavy, meaning that you need to either buy a target lock on it or have enough ML support to ensure you always have at least 3 ML on the target (granted the flamer doesn't care, but the IDA does) or else be hitting on 5+. Its guns are also 12" range and 8" range, it has to be in close to do any damage. Its also over 400 points when you properly upgrade it, meaning almost 25% of your points invested in a single model.

Is it really good? Oh absolutely, there's a reason my current competitive list has 2 of them in it. Is it the end all be all of units? Nope. It needs a list that can properly support it or else its a waste of 400 points. It's only T7 with >14 wounds (cause it will be nova charging multiple times a game meaning it will be dealing mortal wounds to itself) on a 2+ 5++. Its arguably less survivable than a Valkyrie. If your list has a long range solution to high toughness units, you can handle this thing.

Mobile Assault Cadre: 9,500 points (3,200 points fully painted)

Genestealer Cult 1228 points


849 points/ 15 SWC 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Melissia wrote:
Saw a game of Blood Angels vs Death Guard while visiting a GW to get my nephew some cadian shock troops.

Blood Angels Win vs Death Guard Lose

Unrelated, I've now got my 9 year old nephew hooked on plastic crack.


Good job! Start them young!

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

He already plans on buying an Armored Fist box by doing extra chores to earn an allowance, and managed to build six of the ten squaddies in the shock troops box almost by himself (I cut the parts out, cause don't want him to handle a knife that sharp).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/21 03:21:23


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Melissia wrote:
He already plans on buying an Armored Fist box by doing extra chores to earn an allowance, and managed to build six of the ten squaddies in the shock troops box almost by himself (I cut the parts out, cause don't want him to handle a knife that sharp).


Good for him! The world can always use more Guardsmen, and more importantly, the world can always use more tabletop miniatures wargamers! May his regiment find glory and victory in battle.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 GI_Redshirt wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
 Vector Strike wrote:

you want to ban the Y'vahra? It costs almost 400p! It is costed almost as much as a knight, for half its resistance!
It used to be 240p, lol

plasma scions are much more problematic to the game than y'vahra


Yes but this can magically appear within 9" of anything on the board, and can unload realistically more devastating firepower than an imperial knight, and has a much better invulnerable save, that can be 3++ in melee. I would much sooner bring this than an Imperial Knight of any kind. Let's not even forget the drones, for when someone gets a wound through with anti-tank weaponry from range...

Imperial Knights get riggity-rocked in melee by the right units. Draigo can solo a knight. Nova charged, this deals 7 expected wounds against Draigo in overwatch, slaying him.

These are astoundingly badass, if you're a Tau player and you're arguing against this thing, I can't even, it's beyond fantastic.


You're forgetting that to do all those awesome things, it has to use its nova reactor. Which means taking a mortal wound. If you nova every single turn, you're dealing at least 5 mortal wounds to it, meaning that its effectively 9 wounds instead of 14. Its weapons are also heavy, meaning that you need to either buy a target lock on it or have enough ML support to ensure you always have at least 3 ML on the target (granted the flamer doesn't care, but the IDA does) or else be hitting on 5+. Its guns are also 12" range and 8" range, it has to be in close to do any damage. Its also over 400 points when you properly upgrade it, meaning almost 25% of your points invested in a single model.

Is it really good? Oh absolutely, there's a reason my current competitive list has 2 of them in it. Is it the end all be all of units? Nope. It needs a list that can properly support it or else its a waste of 400 points. It's only T7 with >14 wounds (cause it will be nova charging multiple times a game meaning it will be dealing mortal wounds to itself) on a 2+ 5++. Its arguably less survivable than a Valkyrie. If your list has a long range solution to high toughness units, you can handle this thing.


A lot of the weaknesses you mention are completely ignored by its best in game flamer. You don't have to nova charge this every turn. And, with its deep strike moves, you will be right in the face of ranged units. It also flies, so you can charge their ranged, and freely leave combat, or force them to leave combat, meaning no shooting. Of course you probably don't need to deep strike most of the time, because your 18" base move is nuts.

Investing 25% of your points in a model is something that most of us have to do to be competitive, and our stuff isn't as durable as this.

Complaining about this unit = total loss of credibility. It is one of the single best units in the entire game. If you're struggling to win you should add a third one. These are measurably more durable, and have better overall shooting, than the stormraven gunship.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/21 16:47:02


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





Across the Great Divide

You can't use its flamer on deep strike since you must be 9" away and they FAQ it to happen at the end of the movement phase so he can't move his 8" range flamer to shoot.

Forest hunter sept ~3500
guardians of the covenant 4th company ~ 6000
Warrior based hive fleet

DA:90S+G++M++B--I+PW40k07+D++A++/areWD-R++T(T)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

I guess you can use the flamer in case you fail your charge and they attempt to charge you. But yeah, I'd put flamers on assault marines, mechanized units, and others with more movement.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 FirePainter wrote:
You can't use its flamer on deep strike since you must be 9" away and they FAQ it to happen at the end of the movement phase so he can't move his 8" range flamer to shoot.


I'm aware, but an 18" fly move means you have a 26" threat radius with the flamer turn 1, and a 30" radius with the primary gun.

And you really don't have to worry about charges after deep strike. Because (a) you can fly, and leave combat, and (b) pretty much anything that charges you will sustain heavy losses.

You're trying really hard to find fault with this. Maybe instead you actually use it, and just start flat out dominating people up and down the board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Melissia wrote:
I guess you can use the flamer in case you fail your charge and they attempt to charge you. But yeah, I'd put flamers on assault marines, mechanized units, and others with more movement.


Assault marines can't deep strike and flame. Really nothing in this game can save the Dreadknight (and maybe 1 or 2 other things i'm not thinking of), but that's a single D6 flamer for 40 points as an addon, you're better off taking the other wargear choices.

I would always take a 3d6 strength 6, ap-2, 3 damage 8" flamer on an 18" move fly MC with 7toughness, 14wounds, and a 2+/3++ statline. It's wonderful in a TAC list. You basically negate assault armies with this. They don't even exist to you anymore.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/21 18:11:17


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Willing Inquisitorial Excruciator





Philadelphia

 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.


Absolutely, once they fix those stormravens...and...oh...right, those aren't FW. And nothing I've seen in reports and internet whining has been about FW (at least those who have actually played games with and against, not theoryhammered). The indexes alone have bad enough stuff in them.

Legio Suturvora 2000 points (painted)
30k Word Bearers 2000 points (in progress)
Daemonhunters 1000 points (painted)
Flesh Tearers 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '02 52nd; Balt GT '05 16th
Kabal of the Tortured Soul 2000+ points (painted) - Balt GT '08 85th; Mechanicon '09 12th
Greenwing 1000 points (painted) - Adepticon Team Tourny 2013

"There is rational thought here. It's just swimming through a sea of stupid and is often concealed from view by the waves of irrational conclusions." - Railguns 
   
Made in gb
The Last Chancer Who Survived




United Kingdom

 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.
If the reason you want to ban FW is because some FW units are OP... Band the damn units. Not everything is OP.

And while you're at it, ban Stormravens, Hemlocks and Wave Serpents. And Conscripts.

And Manticores.

And Magnus.

And Rowboat.

And Khorne Berserkers.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/21 18:34:26


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 Cruentus wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.


Absolutely, once they fix those stormravens...and...oh...right, those aren't FW. And nothing I've seen in reports and internet whining has been about FW (at least those who have actually played games with and against, not theoryhammered). The indexes alone have bad enough stuff in them.


Yes let's fix the one viable unit in the space marine codex.

Also, if you read the responses from tournament winners / players in blogs, you'll see that they don't believe the stormraven is overpowered. Weird.

I mean if you're going to follow the tournament stuff, go all in, don't just look at numbers and say BLAMMO.

Blah we're derailing the thread again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Selym wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
FW is absolutely influencing these win rates. But until the ITC steps in and bans this trash, we should consider it in our reporting.
If the reason you want to ban FW is because some FW units are OP... Band the damn units. Not everything is OP.

And while you're at it, ban Stormravens, Hemlocks and Wave Serpents. And Conscripts.

And Manticores.

And Magnus.

And Rowboat.

And Khorne Berserkers.


I would say ban until they're playtested. The whole point of 8th edition was the extensive playtesting and it was "the edition we asked for," forgeworld's grab-ass release full of errors and issues is a joke.

Playtest it. Then, let's see it in a tournament.


And for the record, i am 100% behind the banning of:

Flyer Wing Detachment
Auxiliary Detachment

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/21 18:48:21


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





Across the Great Divide

I have been playing with the y'vahra for the past couple weeks. It did awesome vs kids mediocre against guard and bad against harlequins. Oh and I play it where you can only overcharge 1 gun because they still haven't FAQ it.

It is probably the second best tau unit right now. Does that mean it should be banned? No its a 400 point unit, it should be nasty. Tau have had one good tourney finish and that's it. Meanwhile ravens are dominating. But that's okay because reasons.

Forest hunter sept ~3500
guardians of the covenant 4th company ~ 6000
Warrior based hive fleet

DA:90S+G++M++B--I+PW40k07+D++A++/areWD-R++T(T)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 Marmatag wrote:
Assault marines can't deep strike and flame.
Never said they would. Only that they're more useful on units with more movement range.

Do you disagree with my assertion?

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






 FirePainter wrote:
I have been playing with the y'vahra for the past couple weeks. It did awesome vs kids


Y'vahra hates kids.
   
Made in us
Shas'la with Pulse Carbine





Across the Great Divide

 koooaei wrote:
 FirePainter wrote:
I have been playing with the y'vahra for the past couple weeks. It did awesome vs kids


Y'vahra hates kids.


Whoops, darn phone autocorrect. Supposed to be nids.

Forest hunter sept ~3500
guardians of the covenant 4th company ~ 6000
Warrior based hive fleet

DA:90S+G++M++B--I+PW40k07+D++A++/areWD-R++T(T)DM+ 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 FirePainter wrote:
I have been playing with the y'vahra for the past couple weeks. It did awesome vs kids mediocre against guard and bad against harlequins. Oh and I play it where you can only overcharge 1 gun because they still haven't FAQ it.

It is probably the second best tau unit right now. Does that mean it should be banned? No its a 400 point unit, it should be nasty. Tau have had one good tourney finish and that's it. Meanwhile ravens are dominating. But that's okay because reasons.


Ravenspam took 1 tournament, the first in 8th edition, and it only had 38 people. The guy got lucky to beat Harlequins to win, too, if you read the battle report posted by the second place finisher.

It's nice of you to play that you can only overcharge one gun. Everyone i've seen does it for all guns.

Since the Tau have finished in the top 3 as many times as Ravenspam, I guess it's safe to conclude Tau is measurably worse because reasons?

For the record I would say Harlequins are one of the strongest armies out there right now. I'd love to see a batrep of you vs Harlequins, not many people run them in my area, and I am honestly considering starting a Harlequin army myself.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Melissia wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
Assault marines can't deep strike and flame.
Never said they would. Only that they're more useful on units with more movement range.

Do you disagree with my assertion?


I'm not sure honestly what you mean - because if something has a long move, the assault marines are useless. The Y'Varhna can move 18" and flame. Nothing escapes it. But I am probably misunderstanding, that happens sometimes. Can you clarify? I've personally found assault marines to be next to worthless.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/21 20:25:30


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Kid_Kyoto






Probably work

 Marmatag wrote:


I'm not sure honestly what you mean - because if something has a long move, the assault marines are useless. The Y'Varhna can move 18" and flame. Nothing escapes it. But I am probably misunderstanding, that happens sometimes. Can you clarify? I've personally found assault marines to be next to worthless.


I believe she's suggesting two concepts here: that, should the assault marines fail a charge, and then proceed to get countercharged by the enemy unit, the flamer will be potentially useful there. It makes sense so long as whatever is countercharging moved up within flamer range of you to increase the chances of getting a charge, and if you deterred that, it could be worth it still. Secondarily, they're useful on assault marines from the point of view that you get more movement, so you have less distance to have to close to get into proper range for the flamers to be useful.

I haven't played a game as SM yet, but I think deep striking the assault marines might actually be a mistake, even in spite of the theoretical first turn charge. I think I'd put them on the board and try to rush someone instead. I suppose it depending on who my opponent was and who was going first though.

Assume all my mathhammer comes from here: https://github.com/daed/mathhammer 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm not sure honestly what you mean - because if something has a long move, the assault marines are useless.
What does that have to do with anything I said?

Flamers are better on units with more movement. Because they can move to get in flamer range easier than footsloggers.

Is this statement really THAT confusing to you?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/21 20:37:51


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 daedalus wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:


I'm not sure honestly what you mean - because if something has a long move, the assault marines are useless. The Y'Varhna can move 18" and flame. Nothing escapes it. But I am probably misunderstanding, that happens sometimes. Can you clarify? I've personally found assault marines to be next to worthless.


I believe she's suggesting two concepts here: that, should the assault marines fail a charge, and then proceed to get countercharged by the enemy unit, the flamer will be potentially useful there. It makes sense so long as whatever is countercharging moved up within flamer range of you to increase the chances of getting a charge, and if you deterred that, it could be worth it still. Secondarily, they're useful on assault marines from the point of view that you get more movement, so you have less distance to have to close to get into proper range for the flamers to be useful.

I haven't played a game as SM yet, but I think deep striking the assault marines might actually be a mistake, even in spite of the theoretical first turn charge. I think I'd put them on the board and try to rush someone instead. I suppose it depending on who my opponent was and who was going first though.


I suppose that's true, but you're talking about paying roughly 100 points, to get 1 strength 4 ap0 flamer, on an assault unit that has 1 base attack. I wouldn't really bother counter-charging these guys should they fail, nor would I worry about them actually charging anything, unless it was to force a vehicle to retreat.

And on to your point about deep-striking marines for a charge - i'm going to agree here. In an objective based maelstrom game, these guys have a use, in that they can drop in and hold objectives at least a tiny bit. I still wouldn't pay their cost and use them as such, but it is a use.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Marmatag wrote:
 daedalus wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:


I'm not sure honestly what you mean - because if something has a long move, the assault marines are useless. The Y'Varhna can move 18" and flame. Nothing escapes it. But I am probably misunderstanding, that happens sometimes. Can you clarify? I've personally found assault marines to be next to worthless.


I believe she's suggesting two concepts here: that, should the assault marines fail a charge, and then proceed to get countercharged by the enemy unit, the flamer will be potentially useful there. It makes sense so long as whatever is countercharging moved up within flamer range of you to increase the chances of getting a charge, and if you deterred that, it could be worth it still. Secondarily, they're useful on assault marines from the point of view that you get more movement, so you have less distance to have to close to get into proper range for the flamers to be useful.

I haven't played a game as SM yet, but I think deep striking the assault marines might actually be a mistake, even in spite of the theoretical first turn charge. I think I'd put them on the board and try to rush someone instead. I suppose it depending on who my opponent was and who was going first though.


I suppose that's true, but you're talking about paying roughly 100 points, to get 1 strength 4 ap0 flamer, on an assault unit that has 1 base attack. I wouldn't really bother counter-charging these guys should they fail, nor would I worry about them actually charging anything, unless it was to force a vehicle to retreat.

And on to your point about deep-striking marines for a charge - i'm going to agree here. In an objective based maelstrom game, these guys have a use, in that they can drop in and hold objectives at least a tiny bit. I still wouldn't pay their cost and use them as such, but it is a use.


2 base attacks. They have Chainswords. Also, they get to shoot bolt pistols in CQC, so that's more like 3 attacks, but the 3rd occurs in the shooting phase.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/21 20:39:38


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
 daedalus wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:


I'm not sure honestly what you mean - because if something has a long move, the assault marines are useless. The Y'Varhna can move 18" and flame. Nothing escapes it. But I am probably misunderstanding, that happens sometimes. Can you clarify? I've personally found assault marines to be next to worthless.


I believe she's suggesting two concepts here: that, should the assault marines fail a charge, and then proceed to get countercharged by the enemy unit, the flamer will be potentially useful there. It makes sense so long as whatever is countercharging moved up within flamer range of you to increase the chances of getting a charge, and if you deterred that, it could be worth it still. Secondarily, they're useful on assault marines from the point of view that you get more movement, so you have less distance to have to close to get into proper range for the flamers to be useful.

I haven't played a game as SM yet, but I think deep striking the assault marines might actually be a mistake, even in spite of the theoretical first turn charge. I think I'd put them on the board and try to rush someone instead. I suppose it depending on who my opponent was and who was going first though.


I suppose that's true, but you're talking about paying roughly 100 points, to get 1 strength 4 ap0 flamer, on an assault unit that has 1 base attack. I wouldn't really bother counter-charging these guys should they fail, nor would I worry about them actually charging anything, unless it was to force a vehicle to retreat.

And on to your point about deep-striking marines for a charge - i'm going to agree here. In an objective based maelstrom game, these guys have a use, in that they can drop in and hold objectives at least a tiny bit. I still wouldn't pay their cost and use them as such, but it is a use.


2 base attacks. They have Chainswords. Also, they get to shoot bolt pistols in CQC, so that's more like 3 attacks, but the 3rd occurs in the shooting phase.


The chainsword is wargear. The marines holding flamers/specials do not get a second base attack. They cannot take the chainsword. They also cannot take a pistol.

The flamer marine represents 1x strength 4 ap0 attack in melee per fight phase. Not 2, not 3, 1.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Marmatag wrote:
Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
 daedalus wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:


I'm not sure honestly what you mean - because if something has a long move, the assault marines are useless. The Y'Varhna can move 18" and flame. Nothing escapes it. But I am probably misunderstanding, that happens sometimes. Can you clarify? I've personally found assault marines to be next to worthless.


I believe she's suggesting two concepts here: that, should the assault marines fail a charge, and then proceed to get countercharged by the enemy unit, the flamer will be potentially useful there. It makes sense so long as whatever is countercharging moved up within flamer range of you to increase the chances of getting a charge, and if you deterred that, it could be worth it still. Secondarily, they're useful on assault marines from the point of view that you get more movement, so you have less distance to have to close to get into proper range for the flamers to be useful.

I haven't played a game as SM yet, but I think deep striking the assault marines might actually be a mistake, even in spite of the theoretical first turn charge. I think I'd put them on the board and try to rush someone instead. I suppose it depending on who my opponent was and who was going first though.


I suppose that's true, but you're talking about paying roughly 100 points, to get 1 strength 4 ap0 flamer, on an assault unit that has 1 base attack. I wouldn't really bother counter-charging these guys should they fail, nor would I worry about them actually charging anything, unless it was to force a vehicle to retreat.

And on to your point about deep-striking marines for a charge - i'm going to agree here. In an objective based maelstrom game, these guys have a use, in that they can drop in and hold objectives at least a tiny bit. I still wouldn't pay their cost and use them as such, but it is a use.


2 base attacks. They have Chainswords. Also, they get to shoot bolt pistols in CQC, so that's more like 3 attacks, but the 3rd occurs in the shooting phase.


The chainsword is wargear. The marines holding flamers/specials do not get a second base attack. They cannot take the chainsword. They also cannot take a pistol.

The flamer marine represents 1x strength 4 ap0 attack in melee per fight phase. Not 2, not 3, 1.


The one guy with a flamer is what 25 points? The rest of his squad has Bolt Pistols and Chainswords, so it's really 100 points for an assault unit that has 4 Bolt Pistols, 1 Flamer, and 10 Close Combat Attacks. I mean, I guess I can see value, maybe. I wouldn't do it, though, since if they're going into melee like they should be, they won't be using that flamer.


All things considered, I think bikes are way better candidates for flamers than assault marines are. The bikes are M14", can have 2 flamers and a combi-flamer, and auto-advance 6", so, since flamers are assault, that's really a 20" move. But even then, I'm not so sure, since they can't use their twin boltguns if they advance, and they'll be in rapid-fire for the boltguns after a 12" move, so I'd rather buy them 2 Plasmaguns and a Storm Bolter or somesuch.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/07/21 21:06:21


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
 daedalus wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:


I'm not sure honestly what you mean - because if something has a long move, the assault marines are useless. The Y'Varhna can move 18" and flame. Nothing escapes it. But I am probably misunderstanding, that happens sometimes. Can you clarify? I've personally found assault marines to be next to worthless.


I believe she's suggesting two concepts here: that, should the assault marines fail a charge, and then proceed to get countercharged by the enemy unit, the flamer will be potentially useful there. It makes sense so long as whatever is countercharging moved up within flamer range of you to increase the chances of getting a charge, and if you deterred that, it could be worth it still. Secondarily, they're useful on assault marines from the point of view that you get more movement, so you have less distance to have to close to get into proper range for the flamers to be useful.

I haven't played a game as SM yet, but I think deep striking the assault marines might actually be a mistake, even in spite of the theoretical first turn charge. I think I'd put them on the board and try to rush someone instead. I suppose it depending on who my opponent was and who was going first though.


I suppose that's true, but you're talking about paying roughly 100 points, to get 1 strength 4 ap0 flamer, on an assault unit that has 1 base attack. I wouldn't really bother counter-charging these guys should they fail, nor would I worry about them actually charging anything, unless it was to force a vehicle to retreat.

And on to your point about deep-striking marines for a charge - i'm going to agree here. In an objective based maelstrom game, these guys have a use, in that they can drop in and hold objectives at least a tiny bit. I still wouldn't pay their cost and use them as such, but it is a use.


2 base attacks. They have Chainswords. Also, they get to shoot bolt pistols in CQC, so that's more like 3 attacks, but the 3rd occurs in the shooting phase.


The chainsword is wargear. The marines holding flamers/specials do not get a second base attack. They cannot take the chainsword. They also cannot take a pistol.

The flamer marine represents 1x strength 4 ap0 attack in melee per fight phase. Not 2, not 3, 1.


The one guy with a flamer is what 25 points? The rest of his squad has Bolt Pistols and Chainswords, so it's really 100 points for an assault unit that has 4 Bolt Pistols, 1 Flamer, and 10 Close Combat Attacks. I mean, I guess I can see value, maybe. I wouldn't do it, though, since if they're going into melee like they should be, they won't be using that flamer.


I agree.

And really, if you have room in your list for assault marines, you have room for Vanguard Veterans, which are vastly superior.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

Oh look another space marine player who thinks no one in his squads matter except the special weapons carriers.

You're not paying 100 points for "just" a flamer. You're paying 100 points for five highly mobile soldiers that have higher than average toughness, strength, and armor saves, a solid to-hit in both WS and BS, and ATSKNF. Three of these models have a chainsword and bolt pistol, and two have flamers that auto-hit for d6 hits at short range and can fire without penalty even after advancing.

* (though to get it to exactly 100 you'd need one flamer, a plasma pistol, and power sword; two flamers and a barebones sarge is 98 points)

So you're paying a mere 100 points for quite a few perks there. You can argue the squad is better barebones if you want, and there's a valid argument to be had. But giving one or two of them flamers doesn't make the rest of them disappear.

If this is the level of understanding most Marine players have of their units, then this is the exact reason why their win/loss rate is below average.

The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 Marmatag wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
Spoiler:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:
 daedalus wrote:
 Marmatag wrote:


I'm not sure honestly what you mean - because if something has a long move, the assault marines are useless. The Y'Varhna can move 18" and flame. Nothing escapes it. But I am probably misunderstanding, that happens sometimes. Can you clarify? I've personally found assault marines to be next to worthless.


I believe she's suggesting two concepts here: that, should the assault marines fail a charge, and then proceed to get countercharged by the enemy unit, the flamer will be potentially useful there. It makes sense so long as whatever is countercharging moved up within flamer range of you to increase the chances of getting a charge, and if you deterred that, it could be worth it still. Secondarily, they're useful on assault marines from the point of view that you get more movement, so you have less distance to have to close to get into proper range for the flamers to be useful.

I haven't played a game as SM yet, but I think deep striking the assault marines might actually be a mistake, even in spite of the theoretical first turn charge. I think I'd put them on the board and try to rush someone instead. I suppose it depending on who my opponent was and who was going first though.


I suppose that's true, but you're talking about paying roughly 100 points, to get 1 strength 4 ap0 flamer, on an assault unit that has 1 base attack. I wouldn't really bother counter-charging these guys should they fail, nor would I worry about them actually charging anything, unless it was to force a vehicle to retreat.

And on to your point about deep-striking marines for a charge - i'm going to agree here. In an objective based maelstrom game, these guys have a use, in that they can drop in and hold objectives at least a tiny bit. I still wouldn't pay their cost and use them as such, but it is a use.


2 base attacks. They have Chainswords. Also, they get to shoot bolt pistols in CQC, so that's more like 3 attacks, but the 3rd occurs in the shooting phase.


The chainsword is wargear. The marines holding flamers/specials do not get a second base attack. They cannot take the chainsword. They also cannot take a pistol.

The flamer marine represents 1x strength 4 ap0 attack in melee per fight phase. Not 2, not 3, 1.


The one guy with a flamer is what 25 points? The rest of his squad has Bolt Pistols and Chainswords, so it's really 100 points for an assault unit that has 4 Bolt Pistols, 1 Flamer, and 10 Close Combat Attacks. I mean, I guess I can see value, maybe. I wouldn't do it, though, since if they're going into melee like they should be, they won't be using that flamer.


I agree.

And really, if you have room in your list for assault marines, you have room for Vanguard Veterans, which are vastly superior.


Yeah, for 10 points more, instead of bolt pistol-chainsword you get bolt pistol-bolt pistol, at the very least.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in au
Missionary On A Mission





Australia

So...

Sob vs Space puppies & IK = narrow SoB win

: 4500pts

Lothlorien: 3500pts
Rohan: 1500pts
Serpent: 2000pts
Modor: 1500pts 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: