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.

 Primark G wrote:
How long has eighth been out now? Some Bobby G gun lines have won major events.

Didn't these wins occur when Marines were the only/one of a handful of armies with an actual codex?

I'm guessing, but I think Martel likely means the lack of available weapons for each specific primaris unit. Not being able to take a heavy or special weapon with intercessors, etc.

 Primark G wrote:
It’s a waste of time trying to suggest any thing useful here since people like you are so quick to shoot it down with your anecdotal evidence. You can’t even see the value in Hellblasters.

I don't really see how providing compiled evidence from tournaments is anecdotal while "I use them and they're fine, git gud" isn't.

Can you provide any tournament stats that show Marines doing well with consistency--from tournaments that have occurred since other armies received their codexes? Because I've seen several users provide tournament results that suggest that Marines aren't exactly setting the world on fire.

I suppose I don't really have a dog in this race--I don't play competitively, and I don't have any plans to start doing so in the future--but it seems to me that the "Marines aren't very good" side has done a lot more to prove their case than the "Marines are great" side.

Your last post doesn't say what weapons the Centurions have (i.e. their loadout).

The fly rule is only mentioned in the "Movement Phase" section of the rules, the Charge and Fight phases don't say anything about it. Whether or not this is deliberate, I don't know, but it looks to me that RAW you can't do that (and I imagine that's how it's likely to go down in a tournament setting too).

Ushtarador wrote:

 Porphyrius wrote:
The fly rule is only mentioned in the "Movement Phase" section of the rules, the Charge and Fight phases don't say anything about it. Whether or not this is deliberate, I don't know, but it looks to me that RAW you can't do that (and I imagine that's how it's likely to go down in a tournament setting too).

Well, the restriction that we can't move over enemy models is also only mentioned in the Movement Phase section, soooo...

Fair point. In any event, I don't think that this is cut and dry in either direction.

 Primark G wrote:
DA Hellblasters inflicting 3 dmg 15" rapid fire range S8 AP4. How is that not anything but competitive?

I thought you said before that we were talking about Vanilla marines?

 Primark G wrote:
I have watched them take out super heavies in one volley.

You are a troll.

"My anecdote of their success is valid, but your anecdotes of their failure don't count."

As others are pointing out, you are not making an argument here. Not to mention that using their DA profile, as Marmatag points out, is moving the goalposts.

In a thread about what is competitive in a marine army, pointing out the flaws of various units that others are claiming to be competitive is absolutely contributing something to the discussion. Saying "unit x is a great/competitive/whatever-adjective-you'd-like-to-use choice for a marine unit" is fine, but it's both valid and useful to have a discussion of the merits of such a claim. While I'm not sure I'd agree with his position, Marmatag is essentially saying "there aren't really any competitive marine units, outside of Bobby G and Fire Raptors." That may be a downer to you, but it doesn't mean that it isn't relevant and even potentially accurate, especially when he's providing the reasoning for his claims.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Porphyrius wrote:
In a thread about what is competitive in a marine army, pointing out the flaws of various units that others are claiming to be competitive is absolutely contributing something to the discussion. Saying "unit x is a great/competitive/whatever-adjective-you'd-like-to-use choice for a marine unit" is fine, but it's both valid and useful to have a discussion of the merits of such a claim. While I'm not sure I'd agree with his position, Marmatag is essentially saying "there aren't really any competitive marine units, outside of Bobby G and Fire Raptors." That may be a downer to you, but it doesn't mean that it isn't relevant and even potentially accurate, especially when he's providing the reasoning for his claims.

*some* of his reasoning is valid. Let's be clear.

Fair, that's why I said potentially accurate

The only trolling I've seen in this thread is coming from you PrimarkG, for all the reasons that have already been pointed out. It's great that you're having success and think your army is fantastic, but you're going to have to do better if you want to convince others about why it's so good.

 Primark G wrote:
DC make it to the top 8 in Vegas is proof they are good and that can’t be denied. That has a lot more veracity than an anomonus poster attempting to discredit them.

The fact that they did well in that tournament is a perfectly valid data point for their viability, yes. But one data point does not a conclusion make, and it certainly isn't the only evidence necessary to declare DC the emperor's gift to a BA list. I don't know enough about DC to comment on their abilities, but the fact that this list has done well doesn't mean that such a list is always going to do well, or even prove to be viable more than 50% of the time. It's worth discussing, but it's not the end of the story.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Porphyrius wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
DC make it to the top 8 in Vegas is proof they are good and that can’t be denied. That has a lot more veracity than an anomonus poster attempting to discredit them.

The fact that they did well in that tournament is a perfectly valid data point for their viability, yes. But one data point does not a conclusion make, and it certainly isn't the only evidence necessary to declare DC the emperor's gift to a BA list. I don't know enough about DC to comment on their abilities, but the fact that this list has done well doesn't mean that such a list is always going to do well, or even prove to be viable more than 50% of the time. It's worth discussing, but it's not the end of the story.

Keep in mind, this isn't just one data point - the LVO consists of several rounds of individual games. Not saying you're entirely wrong, but we have to respect the data for what it really is.

Definitely valid, thanks for the clarification.