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.

If making stock marines better, just change the basic bolter... give in an "explosive rounds" SA or something like that.

Make it +1 S against non-vehicles or give it shred... there you go.

or make it Salvo 2/3... that'd work too.

I mean they change the shuriken catapult, so why not the bolter?

Salvo would make them too static. But shred isn't a bad idea. Astartes Bolters are bigger and more powerful than standard bolters.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
Tacs are flexible units. That's their big advantage. Combat squads, the weapon options, and transport options make them decent at a lot of things. A couple of things work against them.

Bikes are severely undercosted. They have the same advantages, but get Relentless, a nifty cover save, excellent mobility, Twin linked bolters,and a toughness boost. At 7 points a model, that is a ridiculous boost. Imagine giving those same buffs to any other basic troop choice in the game for 7 points per model.

The other major problem is the proliferation of low AP weapons, which GW made worse with the addition of Grav-guns. Every codex I have looked at seriously can kill Tacticals by the bucketfull.

With these limitations in mind, they can still be useful. They just aren't optimal compared with bikes. When bikes as troops goes away or if bikes get a well deserved price hike, you will see Tactical come back in a big way.

Bikes don't even need a price hike - marines just need to cost less or do more and then bikes will look less under priced. Relentless is pretty wasted on a bike, they can't even take a heavy weapon. I'd take marines in droves if they had relentless.

Relentless works very well with Grav-guns, it also allows them to charge after they fire their bolters, which at T5, Hammer of Wrath, and Hit and Run is pretty damn good. How much would you pay for IG Vets that had Relentless, T4, a 3+ Jink Save, the ability to move 12" and boost another 12" with no dice roll, Twin Linked Lasguns, and Hammer of Wrath. If you gave Roughriders that profile, kept the BS4, kept the weapon options, and made them troops, they would fly off the shelves at 120-130pts for 10 models. 7pts for that many upgrades is ridiculous.

 Lobukia wrote:
If making stock marines better, just change the basic bolter... give in an "explosive rounds" SA or something like that.

Make it +1 S against non-vehicles or give it shred... there you go.

or make it Salvo 2/3... that'd work too.

I mean they change the shuriken catapult, so why not the bolter?

Is escalation really the solution? I thought it was the cause of most of these problems...?

Surely the better solution would be to dial the game down, to the point where bolters can make more meaningful contributions to battles and AP2/3 is less prevalent?

Granted, it's harder and requires more effort, but I just don't think endless escalation will get us anywhere (well, nowhere good, anyway).

As a HH player mostly, I find 40k Tacs to be very good indeed, yes I can get massive tac sqauds, but there are times (comes up a lot) where that special weapon or heavy weapon could really really be useful, don't appreciate what you have till its gone I suppose

 vipoid wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
If making stock marines better, just change the basic bolter... give in an "explosive rounds" SA or something like that.

Make it +1 S against non-vehicles or give it shred... there you go.

or make it Salvo 2/3... that'd work too.

I mean they change the shuriken catapult, so why not the bolter?

Is escalation really the solution? I thought it was the cause of most of these problems...?

Surely the better solution would be to dial the game down, to the point where bolters can make more meaningful contributions to battles and AP2/3 is less prevalent?

Granted, it's harder and requires more effort, but I just don't think endless escalation will get us anywhere (well, nowhere good, anyway).

Escalation is the problem. But considering that 7th just dropped this year, solidifying the role of flyers, super heavies, and d weapons, I don't see much of a deescalation. That'd require rolling back forge world, Knights, and flyers.

The strict FOC requirements and unit size limits were essential to preserving the balance of power back in 3rd. There were no allies, and I could only field 3 Leman russ tanks, while I can now field 15 in a bound army list. This is a problem across all the codices, it's partially fixed by the more low key 7th edition codices. FOC, and the old mission specific limits on unit selection, were a big part of preserving the feel of a balanced battle, rather than a Death Star / OP unit test.

 vipoid wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
If making stock marines better, just change the basic bolter... give in an "explosive rounds" SA or something like that.

Make it +1 S against non-vehicles or give it shred... there you go.

or make it Salvo 2/3... that'd work too.

I mean they change the shuriken catapult, so why not the bolter?

Is escalation really the solution? I thought it was the cause of most of these problems...?

Surely the better solution would be to dial the game down, to the point where bolters can make more meaningful contributions to battles and AP2/3 is less prevalent?

Granted, it's harder and requires more effort, but I just don't think endless escalation will get us anywhere (well, nowhere good, anyway).

Giving shred would hit a nice sweet spot... a little escalation, and it would give all marine based codices a slight boost without any major massive change being made. Simply, any Marine (as defined by Veterans of the Long War) or CSM using a bolter, bolt pistol, or storm bolter, gains shred on that weapon when not using its combi weapon (if it has one).

They could then decide whether or not the bolt pistol used in assaults gains or loses this ability... depending on how much better you want more plain marines to be at close combat

 vipoid wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
If making stock marines better, just change the basic bolter... give in an "explosive rounds" SA or something like that.

Make it +1 S against non-vehicles or give it shred... there you go.

or make it Salvo 2/3... that'd work too.

I mean they change the shuriken catapult, so why not the bolter?

Is escalation really the solution? I thought it was the cause of most of these problems...?

Surely the better solution would be to dial the game down, to the point where bolters can make more meaningful contributions to battles and AP2/3 is less prevalent?

Granted, it's harder and requires more effort, but I just don't think endless escalation will get us anywhere (well, nowhere good, anyway).

So we've got a problem here...standard marines aren't doing enough damage - we can ether reduce the damage of every other army or we can buff the marine...which is easier?

I think the main issue with their perceived value is the difference between their fluff and their actual performance on the table top. They go down fairly easily on the table vs what you see in the books etc.

I actually think they're a very solid choice, especially with Combat Squads and the various chapter tactics giving them special rules.

My only qualm with them is that they don't carry a CCW in addition to their bolt pistol. I think they should at least have the option to purchase them the same way that SW GH can. It's extra infuriating because the models clearly have combat knives in their kits, and in the books they're always pulling out their treasured knives-the-size-of-swords, but they actually don't exist on the table.

On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.

2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.

Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.

Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.

Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.

 Anpu42 wrote:
On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.

2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.

Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.

Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.

Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.

If counter attack forces your opponent to change his tactical decisions, it is by definition not useless. Assaulting tactical marines to tarpit them is often the the best way to neutralize their offensive capabilities, which is essential for any 5+ armor army (Orks, IG, Eldar, DE). Adding in a CCW makes them a major threat. Having the option to increase the unit's threat isn't a disadvantage. Scaring your opponent to the point that they won't assault a unit sounds like a pretty good investment, particularly if they're holding an objective and/or are in cover.

 Anpu42 wrote:
On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.

2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.

Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.

Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.

Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.

It sure is nice to never be assaulted. Doesn't sound useless to me.

 TheSilo wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.

2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.

Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.

Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.

Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.

If counter attack forces your opponent to change his tactical decisions, it is by definition not useless. Assaulting tactical marines to tarpit them is often the the best way to neutralize their offensive capabilities, which is essential for any 5+ armor army (Orks, IG, Eldar, DE). Adding in a CCW makes them a major threat. Having the option to increase the unit's threat isn't a disadvantage. Scaring your opponent to the point that they won't assault a unit sounds like a pretty good investment, particularly if they're holding an objective and/or are in cover.

Yes it forced the Guard Player to take Artillery and Wyvern's and just pound my Grey Hunters into mush, that is a real advantage for me.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.

But, are you sure Counter attack isn't the reason people aren't assaulting you?

Speaking personally, I've often refrained from charging a squad with counter-attack because I'm gaining far less benefit from doing so.

For lists that resources spend on assault, it's a huge advantage. I guess to fully understand, you' d have to army swap with someone who knew how to use SW and demonstrate for you. Grey hunters are a nightmare for other marine lists, and probably Orks and Nids as well. Only the existence of the privileged elite like Tau and Eldar make them not a huge nerf target.

I think a lot of the Tacticals being bad opinion comes from older books, and past experiences. When they used to be more expensive they really were pretty bad compaired to other troops. Throw in that 7e buffed them quite a bit with OS. That said part of the problem is the mathematics of the situation and the random nature of the game.

Marines often have very little upside to their damage potential. We have looked at Tactical marines vs Orks in this thread let's take relatively equal points of orks and Marines. So 2 Shoota Boyz and one marine. Statistically that marine (if in rapid fire) kills 0.6 Orks. Those 2 Boyz statistically only kill 0.222 Marines. So that suggests that the Orks are less durable, which is true. The issue is the upside on the best possible roll for the marine he kills 2 Boyz at best. Those 2 Orks could potentially kill 4 marines if the dice go bad for the marines.

That also does not take into account cover, which does not help the marine at all in this situation, but does help the orks.

This also does not take force multipliers into account, or things like overwatch (those 2 orks are twice as good at putting out wounds in overwatch).

That said, it doesn't make tactical marines bad, just not particularly amazing, and in a game where most people are maximizing threats, and minimizing troops having a relatively high cost of troops is a negative.

 vipoid wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.

But, are you sure Counter attack isn't the reason people aren't assaulting you?

Speaking personally, I've often refrained from charging a squad with counter-attack because I'm gaining far less benefit from doing so.

I though I made it clear.

Yes, that is why every Army, but Orks and Nids don't Assault me.
Orks and Nids don't care.
Orks have good chance of Surviving my Counter Assault. As a note I love taking on Ork Mobs as they are usually a good fight and it does usually comes down to who Assaulted Who. 90% of the who Assaulted first wins. So to make sure I win I usually Assault the Orks, once more not using Counter-Assault.
As far as the Nids go, the only chance I have is Counter Attack. Gaunts are not the issue those I usually Assault, it is Genestealers I have the issue with. I can either leave cover to counter their Assault, but get rendered to death on I6 or stand receive that Assault and hope the survivors don't rend me to death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
For lists that resources spend on assault, it's a huge advantage. I guess to fully understand, you' d have to army swap with someone who knew how to use SW and demonstrate for you. Grey hunters are a nightmare for other marine lists, and probably Orks and Nids as well. Only the existence of the privileged elite like Tau and Eldar make them not a huge nerf target.

This is the quote I usually don't understand. How can a Shooting Army [Most Space Marines] have a have an issue with Counter-Attack when they should not be Assaulting in the first place.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.

But, are you sure Counter attack isn't the reason people aren't assaulting you?

Speaking personally, I've often refrained from charging a squad with counter-attack because I'm gaining far less benefit from doing so.

I though I made it clear.

Yes, that is why every Army, but Orks and Nids don't Assault me.
Orks and Nids don't care.
Orks have good chance of Surviving my Counter Assault. As a note I love taking on Ork Mobs as they are usually a good fight and it does usually comes down to who Assaulted Who. 90% of the who Assaulted first wins. So to make sure I win I usually Assault the Orks, once more not using Counter-Assault.
As far as the Nids go, the only chance I have is Counter Attack. Gaunts are not the issue those I usually Assault, it is Genestealers I have the issue with. I can either leave cover to counter their Assault, but get rendered to death on I6 or stand receive that Assault and hope the survivors don't rend me to death.

That's such a huge benefit. Why can't you see this? No other chapter tactics forces a change in the way your opponent plays. It's just dumb luck that the best lists are shooting lists to begin with. If not, SW would be the top list.

" How can a Shooting Army [Most Space Marines] have a have an issue with Counter-Attack when they should not be Assaulting in the first place"

Because marines are forced to pay for assault gear. They all come with it. They all paid for WS 4, S4, frag grenades. Part of their alleged advantage is that they club other troops in the head better. SW completely takes that away. A tactical marine is only worth 9-10 pts against a SW since WS 4, S4, frag grenades are now all useless.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.

But, are you sure Counter attack isn't the reason people aren't assaulting you?

Speaking personally, I've often refrained from charging a squad with counter-attack because I'm gaining far less benefit from doing so.

I though I made it clear.

Yes, that is why every Army, but Orks and Nids don't Assault me.
Orks and Nids don't care.
Orks have good chance of Surviving my Counter Assault. As a note I love taking on Ork Mobs as they are usually a good fight and it does usually comes down to who Assaulted Who. 90% of the who Assaulted first wins. So to make sure I win I usually Assault the Orks, once more not using Counter-Assault.
As far as the Nids go, the only chance I have is Counter Attack. Gaunts are not the issue those I usually Assault, it is Genestealers I have the issue with. I can either leave cover to counter their Assault, but get rendered to death on I6 or stand receive that Assault and hope the survivors don't rend me to death.

That's such a huge benefit. Why can't you see this? No other chapter tactics forces a change in the way your opponent plays. It's just dumb luck that the best lists are shooting lists to begin with. If not, SW would be the top list.

We are not top of the tier by the opinions of most of Dakka.

Because the best lists are shooting. If the best lists were assault, you would nerf all of them and be the best list, because their big scheme doesn't work well against SW.

Martel732 wrote:
Because the best lists are shooting. If the best lists were assault, you would nerf all of them and be the best list, because their big scheme doesn't work well against SW.

Take on a Long Range Firepower List like Tau or Mech-Guard with Space Wolves not in Pods and you will see the issues

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.

But, are you sure Counter attack isn't the reason people aren't assaulting you?

Speaking personally, I've often refrained from charging a squad with counter-attack because I'm gaining far less benefit from doing so.

I though I made it clear.

Yes, that is why every Army, but Orks and Nids don't Assault me.
Orks and Nids don't care.
Orks have good chance of Surviving my Counter Assault. As a note I love taking on Ork Mobs as they are usually a good fight and it does usually comes down to who Assaulted Who. 90% of the who Assaulted first wins. So to make sure I win I usually Assault the Orks, once more not using Counter-Assault.
As far as the Nids go, the only chance I have is Counter Attack. Gaunts are not the issue those I usually Assault, it is Genestealers I have the issue with. I can either leave cover to counter their Assault, but get rendered to death on I6 or stand receive that Assault and hope the survivors don't rend me to death.

That's such a huge benefit. Why can't you see this? No other chapter tactics forces a change in the way your opponent plays. It's just dumb luck that the best lists are shooting lists to begin with. If not, SW would be the top list.

" How can a Shooting Army [Most Space Marines] have a have an issue with Counter-Attack when they should not be Assaulting in the first place"

Because marines are forced to pay for assault gear. They all come with it. They all paid for WS 4, S4, frag grenades. Part of their alleged advantage is that they club other troops in the head better. SW completely takes that away. A tactical marine is only worth 9-10 pts against a SW since WS 4, S4, frag grenades are now all useless.

I disagree. The new BA dex changes the way you play. You cannot let those units charge you at I5 and Str5. You have to either stay away or charge them first. All Chapter Tactics should change the way you play, when they don't it's because the writers were lazy or incompetent. Hopefully new DA and SM books will have some nice USRs for the rest of us.

Spoiling attacks have always been the way to neuter BA lists. It's much less of a burden to have to launch spoiling attacks than never be able to assault. Don't forget that the SW get to double tap you at least once and then overwatch you before they counter attack. It's just stupid good.

I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.

Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.

My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because the best lists are shooting. If the best lists were assault, you would nerf all of them and be the best list, because their big scheme doesn't work well against SW.

Take on a Long Range Firepower List like Tau or Mech-Guard with Space Wolves not in Pods and you will see the issues

So building a bad list makes Grey Hunters fair for other meqs? Okay.

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.

Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.

My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.

That, and fact that if you're close enough to charge, you're close enough to get pistolled and charged next turn, so you might as well claim the extra attack while it's there.

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.

Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.

My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.

We don't all get 2++ rerollables. Mortal lists care about all those swings coming back. Even 5th ed BA got degraded pretty quickly by Grey Hunters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.

Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.

My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.

That, and fact that if you're close enough to charge, you're close enough to get pistolled and charged next turn, so you might as well claim the extra attack while it's there.

That just makes it a lose/lose. Why get that close to SW in the first place? I guess if they are on an objective, and that's why I think they are so strong.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because the best lists are shooting. If the best lists were assault, you would nerf all of them and be the best list, because their big scheme doesn't work well against SW.

Take on a Long Range Firepower List like Tau or Mech-Guard with Space Wolves not in Pods and you will see the issues

So building a bad list makes Grey Hunters fair for other meqs? Okay.

No, as Space Wolves without going to Allies or buckets of Long Fangs we do not have Long Range Army.

As I have always said: Space wolves are a Mid Ranged Shooting Army with Superior Counter Assault.

Space Marines have the easy ability to become a Long Range Blast-Heavy Army. This includes Tactical Squads.

Martel732 wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.

Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.

My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.

That, and fact that if you're close enough to charge, you're close enough to get pistolled and charged next turn, so you might as well claim the extra attack while it's there.

That just makes it a lose/lose. Why get that close to SW in the first place? I guess if they are on an objective, and that's why I think they are so strong.

If you are, say, Orks or Nids or DE or any unit that specialises in CC rather than shooting.

 Paradigm wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.

Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.

My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.

That, and fact that if you're close enough to charge, you're close enough to get pistolled and charged next turn, so you might as well claim the extra attack while it's there.

That just makes it a lose/lose. Why get that close to SW in the first place? I guess if they are on an objective, and that's why I think they are so strong.

If you are, say, Orks or Nids or DE or any unit that specialises in CC rather than shooting.

And that's why it seems that SW are a particularly bad matchup for those lists.