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.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


BA long ranged shooting is not equal to ultramarines. We don't have guilliman for example.

What if the Ultramarines do not bring Guilliman?

It's not equal to an RG DEVASTATOR team (happy?)

This is really problem with chapter rules being free. Ideally RG devastators should cost more point than BA ones, whils BA assault marines should cost more point than UM ones. But it probably would be very cumbersome for factions with many subfactions.

 Crimson wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


BA long ranged shooting is not equal to ultramarines. We don't have guilliman for example.

What if the Ultramarines do not bring Guilliman?

It's not equal to an RG DEVASTATOR team (happy?)

This is really problem with chapter rules being free. Ideally RG devastators should cost more point than BA ones, whils BA assault marines should cost more point than UM ones. But it probably would be very cumbersome for factions with many subfactions.

I'd say that if you want a ranged threat and you're not running Gman in UM you're running a suboptimal list.

I still think that RG devs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

I still think that RG devs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.

Why is this your conclusion? The entire purpose of points is to gauge relative power so that a match is fair. If they don't then why bother having points at all? Factions don't get discounts because they're skewed a certain way, they just have those certain things.
And a properly pointed genestealer is not going to suddenly play like a properly pointed assault marine.

Dandelion wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

I still think that RG devs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.

Why is this your conclusion? The entire purpose of points is to gauge relative power so that a match is fair. If they don't then why bother having points at all? Factions don't get discounts because they're skewed a certain way, they just have those certain things.
And a properly pointed genestealer is not going to suddenly play like a properly pointed assault marine.

I think the greater point he's trying to make is that if my assault marines are better than your assault marines but are also more expensive than your assault marines(but are fundamentally still assault marines) and your devastators are better than my devastators but also more expensive than my devastators(but are fundamentally still devastators), then there's no actual meaningful difference between the two, outside of specific 'I only have 12pts left' breakpoints.

This, in my opinion, is why having so many space marine armies is boring. The units are fundamentally the same but some are costed in such a way that they're slightly more or less point efficient to push armies in particular directions(plasma and bikes are more cost efficient in DA, Jumppack melee is more cost efficient in BA, Shooting in general is more cost efficient in Ultras, etc). If you pointed the units 100% correctly for their increased or decreased output relative to the exact same unit in other space marine armies, there would be fundamentally no difference outside of the units not shared between codexes, who would themselves have to be more efficient than the next most efficient option available for their battlefield role AND have a desirable battlefield role to see consistent play.

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.

But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.

That's fine in theory, except Guard don't actually need to cherry-pick other units. With appropriate use of orders they're toughter per point, better at shooting, better at melee, and substantially faster that SM. I've seen over half of a Guard army go from their deployment zone to swamping a mid-board objective in a single turn by spamming their double-advance order. Guard doesn't have much FA, and you'd never notice for how fast they can actually move up the board.

I live in a pretty casual meta, almost no one is building soup, and the consensus is still that Guard are broken. Even the one guy who plays Guard is talking about retiring them unless CA fixes things because curb-stomping everyone isn't any fun.

This ^^^^^^

The Newman wrote:


That would be fine, except Guard don't actually need to cherry-pick other units. With appropriate use of orders they're toughter per point, better at shooting, better at melee, and substantially faster that SM. I've seen over half of a Guard army go from their deployment zone to swamping a mid-board objective in a single turn by spamming their double-advance order. Guard doesn't have much FA, and you'd never notice for how fast they can actually move up the boatd.

Yeah. But that is the Guard being just too god for their points. Most people know this.

The Newman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.

But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.

That would be fine, except Guard don't actually need to cherry-pick other units. With appropriate use of orders they're toughter per point, better at shooting, better at melee, and substantially faster that SM. I've seen over half of a Guard army go from their deployment zone to swamping a mid-board objective in a single turn by spamming their double-advance order. Guard doesn't have much FA, and you'd never notice for how fast they can actually move up the boatd.

Just so we're really clear here:
You cannot be all of those things at once. If they "spammed" their "Move, Move, Move!" order(again: clarity's sake, it doesn't give you "double-advance". It forces you to Advance during the Shooting phase when issued), they can't be receiving any other Orders until their next turn.

You'll also notice that in most cases people aren't going to do that because unless you're fighting Tau, that's a good way to get your army shut down in melee or just plain shot up hard..

ERJAK wrote:

I think the greater point he's trying to make is that if my assault marines are better than your assault marines but are also more expensive than your assault marines(but are fundamentally still assault marines) and your devastators are better than my devastators but also more expensive than my devastators(but are fundamentally still devastators), then there's no actual meaningful difference between the two, outside of specific 'I only have 12pts left' breakpoints.

This, in my opinion, is why having so many space marine armies is boring. The units are fundamentally the same but some are costed in such a way that they're slightly more or less point efficient to push armies in particular directions(plasma and bikes are more cost efficient in DA, Jumppack melee is more cost efficient in BA, Shooting in general is more cost efficient in Ultras, etc). If you pointed the units 100% correctly for their increased or decreased output relative to the exact same unit in other space marine armies, there would be fundamentally no difference outside of the units not shared between codexes, who would themselves have to be more efficient than the next most efficient option available for their battlefield role AND have a desirable battlefield role to see consistent play.

Perhaps the biggest issue I have with that is the tendency for players to over-invest in the better units. This leads to one-dimensional factions, where BA just spam assault marines rather than take a balanced force, or dare to not take assault marines for a change.

IMO, the best rendition of faction traits would be the Guard: each one is useful and buffs your army a specific way, but they actually benefit every unit. So nothing is really left behind, unless it already sucks.

But it is not an over investment. Everything else in the BA codex is bad. If the normal good shoty marine is an ultramarine or RG, then why would you ever buy models for both the way you may not want to play and which are clearly inferior. You will always start with the good stuff. Now sometimes you play something like eldar, and you have multiple units to pick from, maybe you have something like Inari, which is more or less soup+. Then a nerf to this or that unit doesn't hurt much. Eldar were nerfed like 5 times since 8th started yet they are still strong and often using the same units, just in different numbers. The other armies that were good at the start of 8th, that also got nerfed did not have a pool of good units to draw on, so they are just gone.

What you call one dimensional tactics other people call flavour. Not every army can be like eldar, best at everything from shoting to melee and psychic support. All they need to have everything is a good LoW.

Dandelion wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

I still think that RG devs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.

Why is this your conclusion? The entire purpose of points is to gauge relative power so that a match is fair. If they don't then why bother having points at all? Factions don't get discounts because they're skewed a certain way, they just have those certain things.
And a properly pointed genestealer is not going to suddenly play like a properly pointed assault marine.

The idea is that Raven Guard being better in shooting is fine because Blood Angels is the superior assault army. Obviously results on this ideal have been mixed, but it's still an ideal worth pursuing.

Karol wrote:
But it is not an over investment. Everything else in the BA codex is bad. If the normal good shoty marine is an ultramarine or RG, then why would you ever buy models for both the way you may not want to play and which are clearly inferior. You will always start with the good stuff.

That's exactly the problem. That "flavor" leads to people being stuck with the same units over and over again. Why even put devastators in the codex if you don't want people to use them? imo if a unit is in a codex in needs to be worth its points. BA assault units being good should not mean devastators should be bad. At a certain point a BA player should feel rewarded for supporting his assault elements with ranged elements. His ranged units don't have to be as good as a Salamander's ranged units to still be worthwhile.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.

But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.

That would be fine, except Guard don't actually need to cherry-pick other units. With appropriate use of orders they're toughter per point, better at shooting, better at melee, and substantially faster that SM. I've seen over half of a Guard army go from their deployment zone to swamping a mid-board objective in a single turn by spamming their double-advance order. Guard doesn't have much FA, and you'd never notice for how fast they can actually move up the boatd.

Just so we're really clear here:
You cannot be all of those things at once. If they "spammed" their "Move, Move, Move!" order(again: clarity's sake, it doesn't give you "double-advance". It forces you to Advance during the Shooting phase when issued), they can't be receiving any other Orders until their next turn.

You'll also notice that in most cases people aren't going to do that because unless you're fighting Tau, that's a good way to get your army shut down in melee or just plain shot up hard..

They're tougher and better at shooting and melee than marines before they get an order. The fact that they can suddenly reposition 13"-18" is just rubbing salt in the wound.

And most of the time that I've seen "Move, Move, Move" come up it was to allow the Guard to maximise their shooting without having to worry about moving up on a critical objective until the turn it mattered.

ERJAK wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:

I still think that RG devs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.

Why is this your conclusion? The entire purpose of points is to gauge relative power so that a match is fair. If they don't then why bother having points at all? Factions don't get discounts because they're skewed a certain way, they just have those certain things.
And a properly pointed genestealer is not going to suddenly play like a properly pointed assault marine.

I think the greater point he's trying to make is that if my assault marines are better than your assault marines but are also more expensive than your assault marines(but are fundamentally still assault marines) and your devastators are better than my devastators but also more expensive than my devastators(but are fundamentally still devastators), then there's no actual meaningful difference between the two, outside of specific 'I only have 12pts left' breakpoints.

This, in my opinion, is why having so many space marine armies is boring. The units are fundamentally the same but some are costed in such a way that they're slightly more or less point efficient to push armies in particular directions(plasma and bikes are more cost efficient in DA, Jumppack melee is more cost efficient in BA, Shooting in general is more cost efficient in Ultras, etc). If you pointed the units 100% correctly for their increased or decreased output relative to the exact same unit in other space marine armies, there would be fundamentally no difference outside of the units not shared between codexes, who would themselves have to be more efficient than the next most efficient option available for their battlefield role AND have a desirable battlefield role to see consistent play.

Hey I'm all for consolidating the Angel codices into the main Vanilla codex.

BA are hilariously bad at assault in practice because they die before they can assault. Trying to punch with marines just exacerbates the problems marines already face. This has little to do with flavor and more with terrible 16 and 18 pt models.

Spoletta wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.

When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.

I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams

you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.

Not imperium, so it doesn't really matter, but just for the challenge:

Jormungand

Neurotrope
Neurotrope

Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3

305 points, 4 psy powers, 2 reroll psy auras, 45 T3 5+ fearless deepstriking wounds with objective secure and a profile that makes them extremely easy to put out of LOS.
Can't get any better than that for objective control.

Against the guard: in 3 turns the mortars alone will kill all but one of the ripper squads (36.6 wounds) with average rolls, regardless of LOS. If they are Cadian, they do 15.8 wounds a turn to the rippers with the "Take Aim!" order.

What about everything else in the list?

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:
I still think that RG devs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.

Shock horror at the idea that BETTER UNITS costs more than WORSE UNIT eh? What a novel concept.

 greyknight12 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:
People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.

When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.

I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams

you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.

Not imperium, so it doesn't really matter, but just for the challenge:

Jormungand

Neurotrope
Neurotrope

Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3

305 points, 4 psy powers, 2 reroll psy auras, 45 T3 5+ fearless deepstriking wounds with objective secure and a profile that makes them extremely easy to put out of LOS.
Can't get any better than that for objective control.

Against the guard: in 3 turns the mortars alone will kill all but one of the ripper squads (36.6 wounds) with average rolls, regardless of LOS. If they are Cadian, they do 15.8 wounds a turn to the rippers with the "Take Aim!" order.

And that's why rippers are a superior choice for objective holding, thank you for proving it. All troops will die to that fire, except that rippers are a 33 point deepstriking troop. Enjoy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 OnWingsOfFire wrote:


BA long ranged shooting is not equal to ultramarines. We don't have guilliman for example.

What if the Ultramarines do not bring Guilliman?

It's not equal to an RG DEVASTATOR team (happy?)

This is really problem with chapter rules being free. Ideally RG devastators should cost more point than BA ones, whils BA assault marines should cost more point than UM ones. But it probably would be very cumbersome for factions with many subfactions.

The cost for souping is there, it's not like it's free.

My blood angels want a devastator team? Okay, i will take an RG one, because they are clearly better!
Oh wait, they will not get buffed by my LTs and captains...
Oh wait if i want to bring them it costs me a CP and they don't have stratagems.
If i want to bring them at full strenght i also need to bring 2 HQs and 3 troops of RG, or 1 HQ and 2 more heavies and they give me close to no CP...

Sure, let's pretend that putting a marine of a different chapter in your army is a plug and play thing.

It isn't, it completely alters your list and if you want it you need to design around it.

There are some factions that can almost plug and play soups, mostly the ones with cheap HQs, but that is a different problem.

ITT, people who just play with their calculators all day and never actually play decent opponents or know how to play the game. I'm willing to bet 75% of the bitching here is coming from people who haven't been to anything larger than a 16 man RTT or even played more than one game outside their FLGS in the past 3 months. Doesn't help the chief whinger amongst you continuously claims scouts are a bad unit because they don't kill their points and didn't even know what ITC Champions format even was six months after it's release.

Seriously, ITC rules BENEFIT guard? You know how easy it is to keep ahead on the killed more primary vs a pure guard list? Hint, those mortar and infantry squads you guys love to whine about are points pinatas. You know those 'points efficient' tank commanders and Pask? They're 3 gift wrapped VP for killing a sngle 12 wound model.

FFS, Reece placed top 16 at NOVA with MONO UM. According to half you self proclaimed 'experts' that shouldn't even be mathematically possible. But hey, keep blaming your losses on the Guard bogeyman rather than seeing what others are doing and applying it.

BobbyG dance party?

NVM. I looked it up. It appears snipers are useful if they are next to bobby G. Go figure.

RogueApiary wrote:
ITT, people who just play with their calculators all day and never actually play decent opponents or know how to play the game. I'm willing to bet 75% of the bitching here is coming from people who haven't been to anything larger than a 16 man RTT or even played more than one game outside their FLGS in the past 3 months. Doesn't help the chief whinger amongst you continuously claims scouts are a bad unit because they don't kill their points and didn't even know what ITC Champions format even was six months after it's release.

Seriously, ITC rules BENEFIT guard? You know how easy it is to keep ahead on the killed more primary vs a pure guard list? Hint, those mortar and infantry squads you guys love to whine about are points pinatas. You know those 'points efficient' tank commanders and Pask? They're 3 gift wrapped VP for killing a sngle 12 wound model.

FFS, Reece placed top 16 at NOVA with MONO UM. According to half you self proclaimed 'experts' that shouldn't even be mathematically possible. But hey, keep blaming your losses on the Guard bogeyman rather than seeing what others are doing and applying it.

The guy designing ITC topped at his own tournament? Shocker.

Also everyone knows he didn't do as well as he could because of the inadequacies in his list. It was pointed out multiple times.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:
ITT, people who just play with their calculators all day and never actually play decent opponents or know how to play the game. I'm willing to bet 75% of the bitching here is coming from people who haven't been to anything larger than a 16 man RTT or even played more than one game outside their FLGS in the past 3 months. Doesn't help the chief whinger amongst you continuously claims scouts are a bad unit because they don't kill their points and didn't even know what ITC Champions format even was six months after it's release.

Seriously, ITC rules BENEFIT guard? You know how easy it is to keep ahead on the killed more primary vs a pure guard list? Hint, those mortar and infantry squads you guys love to whine about are points pinatas. You know those 'points efficient' tank commanders and Pask? They're 3 gift wrapped VP for killing a sngle 12 wound model.

FFS, Reece placed top 16 at NOVA with MONO UM. According to half you self proclaimed 'experts' that shouldn't even be mathematically possible. But hey, keep blaming your losses on the Guard bogeyman rather than seeing what others are doing and applying it.

The guy designing ITC topped at his own tournament? Shocker.

Also everyone knows he didn't do as well as he could because of the inadequacies in his list. It was pointed out multiple times.

Further proof that the anti-guard side is filled with people who have no business discussing balance and competitive play.

NOVA doesn't use ITC Champions missions. So no, he didn't get top 16 at a 256 player event playing his own format. Could he have done better with a soup list (you know, cause 15/256 is just such a garbage finish)? Probably, but that would just be further proof that a skilled player can make Marines work and you need to git gud rather than put all your failures on the IG Bogeyman.

Cause let's face it, even if Guard got nerfed to Grey Knight levels tomorrow you'd be losing just as many games and just move on to bitching about Eldar/DE/Whatever.

Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.

Martel732 wrote:
Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.

They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.

RogueApiary wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.

They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.

Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?

Flukes happen.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.

They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.

Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?

Flukes happen.

It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.

If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.

Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:

1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.

The super heavies should all get looked at too.

Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.

As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.

Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.

As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units

On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.

Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.

Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.

I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.

Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.

They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.

Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?

Flukes happen.

It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.

i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's

And that is why mathhammer is bad for your health.
Yes, the hammerhead loses a direct confrontation to a Russ, and? So a model to be worth more than another model must beat it in a direct confrontation? Your logic is completely flawed.

Do you know what hammerheads have that russes don't have? Fly! Higher BS (less impacted by degradation and debuffs)! 12" move!

Same for firewarriors, you can't say "Firewarriors lose in a direct fight with equal points of guardsmen so they are worst than guardsmen". Please find a real argument.

Mathhammer is still a better argument than "mathhammer is not a real argument".