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.

 Ailaros wrote:
Yeah, one of the reasons that the book missions are so bad is that it's so easy to play for a draw on primaries and force the game to be determined by secondaries.

More games than I care to admit wound up coming down to "first blood: the game". Once I realised this and started playing that way on purpose, it started to get pretty depressing just how often this became true when even just one player was doing this on purpose.

There's also the case of the deathstar battle; First blood decides a game between two deathstars.

Thought for the day: First Blood may work better if it was changed so that either player could earn it by killing an enemy unit in each of their first player turn.

Thought for the day: Shooting shouldn't be so ridiculous that wiping out an entire unit on the very first turn, despite range and cover, is child's play.

I was always told that Marines, even assault Marines, were bad at assault, which is why no one uses assault Marines (except for BA since that's their gimmick, and they're on the very bottom of the trash pile right now). And now suddenly we're arguing about how crisis suits are now good assault units, because "they're basically Marines with two wounds"?

So they're as good as the worst, then? Not a compelling argument, in my opinion.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I was always told that Marines, even assault Marines, were bad at assault, which is why no one uses assault Marines (except for BA since that's their gimmick, and they're on the very bottom of the trash pile right now). And now suddenly we're arguing about how crisis suits are now good assault units, because "they're basically Marines with two wounds"?

So they're as good as the worst, then? Not a compelling argument, in my opinion.

Well they're marines with 2 wounds that are also S5. And Farsight is a boss who can deal enough damage on his won to make up for any lackings in his retinue. Hilarious situation is where you're playing a Farsight Enclaves army and charge Orks after softening them up with some shooting. Re-rolls to hit and wound them on 3s. Nothing like beating a close combat army with what is meant to be the worst close combat army in a fist fight

But it was less about Tau being good than it was that people expect Tau to crumble like paper in CC but Crisis Suits and Broadsides can actually fare pretty well, in some circumstances.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I was always told that Marines, even assault Marines, were bad at assault, which is why no one uses assault Marines (except for BA since that's their gimmick, and they're on the very bottom of the trash pile right now). And now suddenly we're arguing about how crisis suits are now good assault units, because "they're basically Marines with two wounds"?

So they're as good as the worst, then? Not a compelling argument, in my opinion.

The argument was more "Crisis battlesuits are better than people give them credit in CC. "

Well, it's not like they could be worse than people give them credit for.

Okay, yeah, so they don't just get immediately erased from the table when charged. I don't know of anyone who ever suggested as much that wasn't intentionally exaggerating anyway, but yeah, in that case they're "better" than people give them credit for...in that they probably won't die until the next turn they're locked in combat. In some circumstances it might even be possible to last longer than that, but even with S5 they're pretty ineffectual in close combat with their tiny unit size and low number of attacks per model, only hitting 50% of the time against most opponents at that, and likely having to weather many more attacks in return which even a 3+ save won't save you from forever, as many dead Marines can no doubt attest to. And every turn they spend locked in melee is a turn they're not shooting, so they might as well have died when they got charged anyway for all the good they're doing you at that point. The unit will either inevitably die or be locked in combat for so long that it won't matter if they squeak out a win anyway, which his typically why you keep them out of assault at all costs.

It doesn't really seem significant enough to me in any case to be worth pointing out while exclaiming "See, Tau aren't even that bad in CC!", when they really aren't that good, either. Especially since Ailaros in particular has a strong personal distaste for the way Tau play specifically and I feel like he's trying to make some point in doing so.

Sidstyler wrote:So they're as good as the worst, then? Not a compelling argument, in my opinion.

Assault marines are FAR from the worst unit in close combat. A cursory look at even just the troops choices of other armies easily confirms this. Who is going to win an assault, assault marines or guardsmen? or grots? or guardians? or firewarriors? or termagaunts? The list goes on and on, especially when you expand out of troops (or a CCS? or sternguard? or lootas?, etc.), and then when you remember that they're better in close combat against all vehicles that aren't also walkers, and even against some walkers.

You've got to be pretty myopic to think that something with 4's in its staline and Sv3+, and frag and krak grenades and ATSKNF is going to be bad in close combat. It would be a case of comparing the good to the great and calling them bad.

 Ailaros wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:So they're as good as the worst, then? Not a compelling argument, in my opinion.

Assault marines are FAR from the worst unit in close combat. A cursory look at even just the troops choices of other armies easily confirms this. Who is going to win an assault, assault marines or guardsmen? or grots? or guardians? or firewarriors? or termagaunts? The list goes on and on, especially when you expand out of troops (or a CCS? or sternguard? or lootas?, etc.), and then when you remember that they're better in close combat against all vehicles that aren't also walkers, and even against some walkers.

You've got to be pretty myopic to think that something with 4's in its staline and Sv3+, and frag and krak grenades and ATSKNF is going to be bad in close combat. It would be a case of comparing the good to the great and calling them bad.

Which is what generally happens, to be fair. People play Assault Marines expecting them to steamroll an assault, or carry against something like Howling Banshees or a mob of Boyz. As we know, it doesn't generally go like that, leading them to conclude that Assault Marines suck in assault when, really, they're being thrown at the wrong targets. That's my experience, anyway - I've yet to be disappointed by my assault units against Guardians and the like.

This has quickly gone from an entertaining thread with funny anecdotes to a stoop argument about assault marines... Booooooo

Well my riptide once charged a tyranid drop pod in close combat, failed its smash attack, then took a wound, failed its leadership test, and jumped off the table. That totally means that Riptides suck and tyranid drop pods were the perfect Riptide counter (before Mat Ward took them out of the new Tyranid codex).

Did I inspire enough nerd rage with that one or should I keep going?

 dementedwombat wrote:
Well my riptide once charged a tyranid drop pod in close combat, failed its smash attack, then took a wound, failed its leadership test, and jumped off the table. That totally means that Riptides suck and tyranid drop pods were the perfect Riptide counter (before Mat Ward took them out of the new Tyranid codex).

Did I inspire enough nerd rage with that one or should I keep going?

The only thing I have even remotely close is that I once had my basilisk shoot at something right in front of it, and it scattered backwards, hit the basilisk, caused a vehicle explosion, and that wiped out my CCS with its standard, causing the squad next to it (who took enough casualties from the blast) to fail its morale test and run off the board.

I don't know what that anecdote really proves other than... umm... GO GUARD!

 Ailaros wrote:


The only thing I have even remotely close is that I once had my basilisk shoot at something right in front of it, and it scattered backwards, hit the basilisk, caused a vehicle explosion, and that wiped out my CCS with its standard, causing the squad next to it (who took enough casualties from the blast) to fail its morale test and run off the board.

I don't know what that anecdote really proves other than... umm... GO GUARD!

I once had a Vindicaire shoot away Horus Luprecal's invulnerable save and then got an improbably lucky series of rending hits from my ratlings to kill the Primarch himself.

After this, my friend never dared bring his Primarchs before snipers again, citing that their precision shots and rending/4+ wounding made Primarchs too underpowered.

After this, my Time Traveling guardsmen Medusa'd the arch-traitor's guards into ash.

I was teaching a friend the game yesterday. Talked about different weapons and the ability they have to kill vehicles.

So I put two Kanz with Big Shootas on the battlefield and we just practiced the shooting phase. When we got to Lootas I put six of them on the battlefield and said "These will probably kill our kanz in one turn."

With one piece of 4+ cover save terrain between each other those two units shot at each other for 8 turns before the last one of the Kanz finally shot the last Loota.

Friend said "I don't know why you were worried they (Lootas) don't seem good at killing these (killa kanz)."

 Ailaros wrote:
The only thing I have even remotely close is that I once had my basilisk shoot at something right in front of it, and it scattered backwards, hit the basilisk, caused a vehicle explosion, and that wiped out my CCS with its standard, causing the squad next to it (who took enough casualties from the blast) to fail its morale test and run off the board.

I don't know what that anecdote really proves other than... umm... GO GUARD!

O_O

My best anecdote would be the following-

Tournament game, turn one, two squads of warriors each with a Harbinger of Destruction attached sit behind cover. I played second so the other guy's Chaos Lord moved into the harbinger's range along with his giant blob of jumppack CSM by the time my first turn came, figuring I've nothing better to do with 'em I fire my first Harbinger at the squad and roll 6 on my to hit. Precision shot! Naturally I designate the Chaos Lord as the target, but alas he passed his Look Out Sir! test and so a brave marine jumped in the path of the beam and saved his Lord's life. Now comes the second Harbinger- I roll to hit landing a 6. Precision shot! AGAIN! Opponent rolls his Look Out Sir! and the dice comes up with a single pip.

Boom, Headshot. Chaos Lord goes down due to instant death. First Blood, Slay the Warlord.

Harbingers of Destruction are totally overpowered!

 Galorian wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
The only thing I have even remotely close is that I once had my basilisk shoot at something right in front of it, and it scattered backwards, hit the basilisk, caused a vehicle explosion, and that wiped out my CCS with its standard, causing the squad next to it (who took enough casualties from the blast) to fail its morale test and run off the board.

I don't know what that anecdote really proves other than... umm... GO GUARD!

O_O

My best anecdote would be the following-

Tournament game, turn one, two squads of warriors each with a Harbinger of Destruction attached sit behind cover. I played second so the other guy's Chaos Lord moved into the harbinger's range along with his giant blob of jumppack CSM by the time my first turn came, figuring I've nothing better to do with 'em I fire my first Harbinger at the squad and roll 6 on my to hit. Precision shot! Naturally I designate the Chaos Lord as the target, but alas he passed his Look Out Sir! test and so a brave marine jumped in the path of the beam and saved his Lord's life. Now comes the second Harbinger- I roll to hit landing a 6. Precision shot! AGAIN! Opponent rolls his Look Out Sir! and the dice comes up with a single pip.

Boom, Headshot. Chaos Lord goes down due to instant death. First Blood, Slay the Warlord.

Harbingers of Destruction are totally overpowered!

was it mounted on a juggernaught? Surely it had T5 if it was on a jugger or a bike.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 Galorian wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
The only thing I have even remotely close is that I once had my basilisk shoot at something right in front of it, and it scattered backwards, hit the basilisk, caused a vehicle explosion, and that wiped out my CCS with its standard, causing the squad next to it (who took enough casualties from the blast) to fail its morale test and run off the board.

I don't know what that anecdote really proves other than... umm... GO GUARD!

O_O

My best anecdote would be the following-

Tournament game, turn one, two squads of warriors each with a Harbinger of Destruction attached sit behind cover. I played second so the other guy's Chaos Lord moved into the harbinger's range along with his giant blob of jumppack CSM by the time my first turn came, figuring I've nothing better to do with 'em I fire my first Harbinger at the squad and roll 6 on my to hit. Precision shot! Naturally I designate the Chaos Lord as the target, but alas he passed his Look Out Sir! test and so a brave marine jumped in the path of the beam and saved his Lord's life. Now comes the second Harbinger- I roll to hit landing a 6. Precision shot! AGAIN! Opponent rolls his Look Out Sir! and the dice comes up with a single pip.

Boom, Headshot. Chaos Lord goes down due to instant death. First Blood, Slay the Warlord.

Harbingers of Destruction are totally overpowered!

was it mounted on a juggernaught? Surely it had T5 if it was on a jugger or a bike.

Nope. Just your plain ol' jump pack Chaos Lord.

This was before the release of the CSM's 6th ed codex btw.

Not sure if this is what you're looking for.

But I was told that my Grey Hunters were cheese and OP because they were like regular Tac Marines but had Counter-attack and a bolter/bolt pistol/CCW and got an extra attack in close combat and because they were so OP if I wanted to play against someone with "normal" Marines, I had to play them like a regular tac marine without the bonuses.

But I wasn't allowed anything like a ML like Codex Marines get because it wasn't part of my codex that my troops could have that.

 Thorgrim Bloodcrow wrote:
Not sure if this is what you're looking for.

But I was told that my Grey Hunters were cheese and OP because they were like regular Tac Marines but had Counter-attack and a bolter/bolt pistol/CCW and got an extra attack in close combat and because they were so OP if I wanted to play against someone with "normal" Marines, I had to play them like a regular tac marine without the bonuses.

But I wasn't allowed anything like a ML like Codex Marines get because it wasn't part of my codex that my troops could have that.

That just sounds like a gakky opponent. It's not what I was looking for, but the person who told you that is a jerk. Don't play them again.

I once heard a guy say that is Crisis suits were better in combat than at range because they had hit and run.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I once heard a guy say that is Crisis suits were better in combat than at range because they had hit and run.

My example of someone saying that snipers made Primarchs underpowered due to ignoring the points they pay for toughness and armor saves, citing me being able to down Horus with a Vindicaire and some lucky rolls from Ratlings is an anectdote, that's just standard shaky and faulty reasoning.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I once heard a guy say that is Crisis suits were better in combat than at range because they had hit and run.

they are better in close quarters combat.

In a game I had a squad of 10 Tactical Marines with a Lascannon in the squad. The Lascannon shot down a Fighta Jet (I think) with a lucky shot and it crashed right into the Tactical Squad killing 9 Marines with the Lascannon Marine surviving to tell the tale.

Moral of the story is Lascannon Tactical Marines are OP and cannot be killed.

Just saw this in Tactics:

Polonius wrote:
Sometimes a unit just doesn't work. There are two dozen real units in the book, and Rough Riders are the duff one.

Even under the best of circumstances, highly fragile assault units have been a poor gambit in 40k. You either need huge numbers (orks, nids, blobs), crazy good buffs (nids/blobs), or a reliable delivery method (outflank/transport). In 6th, you can't assault out of reserve or a transport, meaning the enemy will always get to shoot your light assault unit, followed by an overwatch.

In a way, the rules of logic finally caught up with 40k.

The response:

The only thing to add to that is "Sometimes a Unit Does not work for some People". I will admit that Rough Riders need something to fix them, W+1, T+1, Being able to take Las-Guns or a Second Las-Pistol, or even even just the ability to have a Priest or Comisar to take a Mount.
I am probably make myself a Comisar or a mount and Take a Chaplin on a bike along with a Scouts as Allies to hopfuly give them a Punch.
I have always done poorly with PSi-Riflemen Dreads [sometimes only killing 2-3 models and etire game] even vs Orks and Nids, yet mt Blood Claws [Usuayl killing off 2-3 Units a game] are the scourge of our group.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I once heard a guy say that is Crisis suits were better in combat than at range because they had hit and run.

they are better in close quarters combat.

My XV9 suits love the overwatch/defensive grenades/hit and run phase. I don't know what's so wrong with this statement

Full disclosure time: I can only actually be this cheeky because I know 7th edition is coming up soon and I'm guessing Tau will take one hell of a hard nerf. Ah well, I lived with it through 4th and 5th edition. At least I have that new codex I've been wanting.for ~6 years.

Demoing to a new player (I was assisting two tables, and only had my Eldar with me), a footslogging Fire Dragon squad took every shot the experienced Marine player could put out, and made every save.

Clearly, Fire Dragons can tank anything!

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Yeah, it's great isn't it? No one ever expects assault Tau until they meet Farsight.

I remember one of my favorite moments running Farsight, I deepstruck (deepstriked?) him behind enemy lines with a bunch of Crisis Suits, and on the next turn, my opponent kindly reminded me that I had forgotten to do my jet pack move. The look of shock and disbelief on his face when I told him Farsight was going to assault him was just priceless.