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.

Some units are objectively going to be worse than others straight out of the box because of high points cost, imbalance within their own codex, or limited usefulness. I don't think anyone can realistically argue against that. However, that's an objective take on things. In contrast, this thread seems to be a lot of very subjective "well in MY local meta..." and then arguing that, as a blind man, you know an elephant must look like a snake because you felt its trunk.

The final nail in the coffin for some units (or alternatively the key to making them work for you) is going to hinge entirely on your local meta. If you play in a small gaming circle, if you rarely face certain other armies, if most of your opponents play casual lists, even the kind of terrain you usually play on, all of these things will have a big impact on whether you can make a specific unit work for you.

So saying you can find a way to make any overcosted unit work because you got unit X to work for you, while neglecting to mention that your local meta might be favorable to that unit, is leaving out the most important piece of the puzzle.

Go on the road with your marginal units and see how well you do. My local meta plays a lot of brutal lists, so I don't need to travel to see how bad 85% of the BA codex is. And, unfortunately, 50% of the new marine codex.

Martel732 wrote:
Go on the road with your marginal units and see how well you do. My local meta plays a lot of brutal lists, so I don't need to travel to see how bad 85% of the BA codex is. And, unfortunately, 50% of the new marine codex.

Exactly. Whenever I talk tactics (which is rare, because I admittedly am not that good), I try to stress that such-and-such is effective *in my gaming group*. Someone's experience against a certain cross section of races played by opponents of specific skill levels who only own a certain set of models is an interesting anecdote and nothing more.

You're better than you give yourself credit for. To really judge how "good" you are, go find an Eldar or Tau or Taudar netlist and try to game out how long your list would last.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Go on the road with your marginal units and see how well you do. My local meta plays a lot of brutal lists, so I don't need to travel to see how bad 85% of the BA codex is. And, unfortunately, 50% of the new marine codex.

Exactly. Whenever I talk tactics (which is rare, because I admittedly am not that good), I try to stress that such-and-such is effective *in my gaming group*. Someone's experience against a certain cross section of races played by opponents of specific skill levels who only own a certain set of models is an interesting anecdote and nothing more.

And that is exactly the point. The fact that meta is so important proves the point that you cannot apply blanket statements to units' effectiveness unless you are talking about a national or even international optimised meta. So when you have a thread for the discussion of the use of non-optimised units, you have to assume that a less generic meta is being considered, and take that into account in the discussion.

So when you have a thread for the discussion of the use of non-optimised units, you have to assume that a less generic meta is being considered, and take that into account in the discussion.

No, you don't. You discuss under the assumption that people are playing against competant opponents with competant lists, because that is the most universal setting with which to compare a units effectiveness.

Your local meta is not my local meta which is not someone elses local meta. That you can make SG work in your local meta does not mean they are a good unit. It means they are a unit that work in your local environment. If you assume that because they work in your environment they must work in everyones environment then you are giving bad advice, and your opinion is effectively worthless, as all biased opinions are.

The game, overall, has too much AP 2 for the SG to be viable. This is a global trend, and it is true regardless of your meta. If there's not an abundance of AP 2 in your meta, they're not doing it right.

Ap0k wrote:

So when you have a thread for the discussion of the use of non-optimised units, you have to assume that a less generic meta is being considered, and take that into account in the discussion.

No, you don't. You discuss under the assumption that people are playing against competant opponents with competant lists, because that is the most universal setting with which to compare a units effectiveness.

Your local meta is not my local meta which is not someone elses local meta. That you can make SG work in your local meta does not mean they are a good unit. It means they are a unit that work in your local environment. If you assume that because they work in your environment they must work in everyones environment then you are giving bad advice, and your opinion is effectively worthless, as all biased opinions are.

My point is made on the fact that, if you are playing in the competitive meta, then of course you are going to be using the best units, so by the very nature of discussing non-optimised units, it becomes apparent that you are not discussing the most competitive of armies. Also, I don't equate competence with competitiveness, as there are plenty of players who I would consider extremely competent and skilled players despite then not playing the most competitive games. Skill is required to win at any level, maybe even more so as casual levels when you don't have the obvious go-to units to rely on.

Also, at no point have I made any statement that SG are 'good' units on a universal scale, I have said I have had success with them. I have said they are not 'bad' units, and not detrimental to a list, but never that they are the most competitive options. And again, that is the point. A unit can be good without being the best.

Moving away from the BA units, and looking at IG, the same becomes apparent. There are those that would have you believe that the only FA unit worth taking are Vendettas, but that does not make other units in the slot entirely unplayable, even on a competitive scale. For example, the hellhound is still an particularly effective unit at what it does, which is an entirely different role to the Vendetta, so direct comparison is somewhat irrelevant.

The same is true of any codex. There are good units, and there are less good units, on a universal scale, but that does not mean that the less optimised units should not be used, especially when you are not seeking to build the most optimised list. It is also in the OP of this thread that the discussion relates to 'friendly games' and therefore not always the most competitive.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
. If there's not an abundance of AP 2 in your meta, they're not doing it right.

Or maybe it's true that I am the only local player who uses 2+ save units, so there is no need for an abundance of AP2. The fact that my opponents don't build their lists based on a meta they have absolutely no connection to does not mean 'they're doing it wrong'.

The problem is that AP 2 also happens to be excellent against 3+ armor. In fact, 2+ armor models are a victim of this very fact. The firepower that lists bring to deal with 60+ meqs also happens to gun down 2+ saves equally well, but the 2+ save models cost more. As I said, too much AP 2.

We get it....if you're not playing Eldar or Tau, you should go play MtG. Got it...

What if Sang Guard had a 4+ invul save and FnP access...would they STILL be the worst unit ever?

It's not just Eldar and Tau. Space marines can make a mockery of 2+ armor with gravy guns now. Eldar and Tau have superior platforms for wound spam and AP 2, but most codices can bring plenty enough AP 2 to make these elite BA lists crap their power armor. That includes BA themselves, as bad as the codex is now.

With 4++ invul and FnP built in, they'd be priced about right I think given the fact that they still are swinging at their own strength and still T4 W1 . They'd still die to mass wounds, but at least they'd make it through a some plasma fire.

Martel732 wrote:
With 4++ invul and FnP built in, they'd be priced about right I think given the fact that they still are swinging at their own strength and still T4 W1 . They'd still die to mass wounds, but at least they'd make it through a some plasma fire.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, which is why I've taken to run my BA list with an allied Dark Angels Libby on a bike with a Power Field Generator. The Libby joins the SG and rides behind them while some plasma toting Honor Guard (with the Novitiate granting everyone other than the Libby FnP) following close behind. The Libby also grants the Plasma HG prescience, which makes them freaking amazing (ask the 2 Bloodthirsters they helped shoot out of the air last game).

I had so much fun on the way to winning the Blood Angel vs. Khorne Daemon bloodbath that I forgot all about how expensive and inefficient my list was. I'm pretty sure Mephiston's hair is still streaked red with blood. He looks like some ugly chick who's been at a non-stop rave for the past 3 days. Yuck.

Khorne Daemons aren't known for withering 36" firepower, either.

There's a lot of stunts one can pull with power field generator shenanigans. I suspect that making SG not horrible is a one of the mild tricks.

Paradigm wrote:I think that the perception of some units being poor is just that, a perception.

Well that's demonstrably false. Let's use a popular example from my favorite army: Grey Hunters vs Blood Claws.

Grey Hunters

Armed with Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, and Close Combat Weapon.

WS/BS 4.

Can take up to two Special Weapons (if numbering 10 models).

Can take one Power Weapon/Fist.

Wolf Standards.

Mark of the Wulfen.

Rhino, Drop Pod, Razorback Dedicated Transport options.

Blood Claws

Armed with Bolt Pistol and Close Combat Weapon.

WS/BS 3.

Can take up to two Special Weapon (if numbering 15 models).

Can take one Power Weapon/Fist.

Gets +2 Attacks on the Charge instead of +1.

Has to charge an enemy within 6" unless lead by a Character.

These guys both cost 15 points a model and are a Troops choice, thus scoring. They both are Strength, Toughness, and Initiative 4, have 1 Wound and Attack each with a solid 8 Leadership and a health 3+ Armor Save. But one is always worse than the other. It's simple math.

Problems with Blood Claws:

WS 3 means they get hit more often in close combat than Grey Hunters, thus they suffer more Wounds and fail more Armor Saves.

BS 3 means they are 17% less accurate than Grey Hunters; hitting only 50% of the time instead of 67%.

They don't get a second Special Weapon until you have a full Pack of 15 models. This limits your transportation options to either A) walking or B) a Land Raider Crusader.

Lack of Boltguns means the ranged threat range goes from 30" to just 18", and they are not only more inaccurate (BS 3) but have half the volume of shots compared to a Grey Hunter Pack of the same strength.

Mark of the Wulfen is an excellent force multiplier for close combat, and the Blood Claws do not have any access to it.

Wolf Standards enabling the re-roll of all "1's" in an Assault phase is a huge advantage and excellently priced. Blood Claws do not get access to it.

Obviously, Blood Claws are worse in the Shooting phase than Grey Hunters. Period, end of story. No one can argue that they are "just as effective" as Grey Hunters in the Shooting phase. So let's take a close look at the Assault phase and compare two nearly identical units:

Grey Hunters Pack Example 1 (GHE1):
150 points for 9 Grey Hunters with Flamer and Mark of the Wulfen

Blood Claws Pack Example 1 (BCE1):
150 points for 9 Blood Claws with Flamer and Power Weapon

I've elected to avoid 10 man units as the free special weapon tips the balance more in favor of Grey Hunters. This first example also ignores the mighty Wolf Standard because math is hard and this way the point costs for both units are identical.

GHE1

24 normal attacks with Charge or Counter-Attack bonus.

3-8 Rending attacks with Charge or Counter-Attack bonus.

Normal Attacks

vs GEQ: 16 Hits, 10.67 Wounds, 7.11 Unsaved Wounds

vs MEQ: 12 Hits, 6 Wounds, 2 Unsaved Wounds

vs TEQ: 12 Hits, 6 Wounds, 1 Unsaved Wound

Minimum Rending Attacks

vs GEQ: 2 Hits, 1 Wound, 0.67 Unsaved Wounds + 0.33 Rending Wounds

vs MEQ: 1.5 Hits, 0.5 Wounds, 0.17 Unsaved Wounds + 0.25 Rending Wounds

vs TEQ: 1.5 Hits, 0.5 Wounds, 0.25 Rending Wounds, 0.17 (Total) Unsaved Wounds

Maximum Rending Attacks

vs GEQ: 5.33 Hits, 2.67 Wounds, 1.78 Unsaved Wounds + 0.45 Rending Wounds

vs MEQ: 4 Hits, 1.33 Wounds, 0.44 Unsaved Wounds + 0.67 Rending Wounds

vs TEQ: 4 Hits, 1.33 Wounds, 0.67 Rending Wounds, 0.66 (Total) Unsaved Wounds

BCE1

32 normal attacks with Charge or Counter-Attack bonus.

4 Power Weapon attacks with Charge or Counter-Attack bonus.

Normal Attacks

vs GEQ: 16 Hits, 10.67 Wounds, 7.11 Unsaved Wounds

vs MEQ: 16 Hits, 8 Wounds, 2.67 Unsaved Wounds

vs TEQ: 16 Hits, 8 Wounds, 1.33 Unsaved Wounds

Power Sword

vs GEQ: 2 Hits, 1.33 Unsaved Wounds

vs MEQ: 2 Hits, 1 Unsaved Wound

vs TEQ: 2 Hits, 0.33 Unsaved Wounds

Power Axe

vs GEQ: 2 Hits, 1.67 Unsaved Wounds

vs MEQ: 2 Hits, 1.33 Unsaved Wounds

vs TEQ: 2 Hits, 1.33 Wounds, 0.87 Unsaved Wounds

Power Maul

vs GEQ: 2 Hits 1.67 Unsaved Wounds

vs MEQ: 2 Hits, 1.67 Wounds, 0.57 Unsaved Wounds

vs TEQ: 2 Hits, 1.67 Wounds, 0.28 Unsaved Wounds

So what truth is highlighted by the above math? That Blood Claws are only marginally better than Grey Hunters at putting out the hurt against MEQ and TEQ, before you even consider that Grey Hunters can also take a Power Weapon/Fist in addition to Mark of the Wulfen or the surprisingly strong buff Wolf Standards provide. Berserker Charge only becomes an advantage against WS 4 or higher, where being WS 3 becomes a liability.


Blood Claws are less effective than Grey Hunters in the Shooting Phase, take more casualties against WS 4 or higher enemies, and only do moderately more damage output in close combat. Anything Initiative 5 or higher will have an easier time fighting Blood Claws than Grey Hunters.

Pointing out the obvious, that means anything that is WS 4 and I 5 (read: Eldar) would actually prefer to fight Blood Claws over Grey Hunters as they are statistically more likely to win the fight.


So there you are. There are units in this game that are poor when compared to similar units even within their own Codex. Its just a fact. That doesn't mean you can't win games using a unit, or you can't have a stroke of luck while using a unit, or that you can manage to pitch a unit against its most favorable match up. None of that changes the fact a given unit is a poor choice for a Codex.