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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Sure, that is a bit of a weakness, but it's also a strength. Not every army gets the ability for their core troop choice to be able to be given any kind of job and count on it being able to preform at least competently and I don't think it should be dismissed to lightly."

The problem is that they are not competent. They shoot like 9 pt models, hand to hand like 7 pt models, and fight MCs like 5 pt models. For all this, they cost 14 pts, but at no actual point in a battle do they function like 14 pt models. Not a strength imo. I avoid them as much as possible.

In my experience, there is a direct correlation between number of tactical marines and likelihood of being tabled as well.

What 7pt model goes at I4 with WS/S/T4? What 5pt model comes with Krak Grenades that they can use at WS/I4? The shooting is the only one I'll give you, but the only models I know who are BS4 with Bolters are Sisters and CSM. And between Marines and Sisters, Marines are the sturdier troop choice. The only unit I know that matches Marines in stats are CSM and they're only 1pt cheaper losing both Chapter Tactics and ATSKNF.

The 7 and 5 aren't accurate, but tac marines in hand to hand almost always ends badly, despite their gear and stats. I really do feel like tac marines are paying extra points to accomplish the same net effect as much cheaper models in hand to hand. Maybe the 7 and 5 are accurate, since marines end up doing no better than models without WS/S/T4 and models without krak grenades.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.

As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?

I'm not a fan of rending on daemonetts ether, it's fine on genestealers because they are expensive, raptors have rending? wha?

They could still put a hurting on some terminators at about the same rate - correct, though they would lose the ability to drop entire squads of them with small standard deviations - which is my problem with them currently. I'm fine with guardians dropping 1-2 terms in a round of shooting. I'm not fine with them rolling 6 rends on 20 dice and rolling a whole squad (this isn't that unlikely) the potential power of rending is too high for weapons with this volume of fire. This would also hurt them vs MC - which they are far too effective at removing even without the help of pseudo rending.

^discalimer: I messed up the quote boxes above, so it looks like the wrong people are saying the wrong things. Oops.

As someone else pointed out though, do we really want there to be one less way for people to deal with MCs out there? I don't usually see bladestorm as a reliable way of bringing an MC down, but its absence certainly wouldn't help reign them in. I do see your point about terminators, but isn't that more of an issue with terminator survivability than with just bladestorm? There are whole threads up right now dedicated to discussing the lacklustre survivability of terminators and ways to fix it, and I'm pretty sure those threads don't exist solely because of bladestorm. It doesn't take much of a mathematical deviation for a plasgun and combi plas to kill of four terminators or for their bolter buddies to get lucky and take out a fifth terminator.

The Raptors are a loyalist marine chapter. Forgeworld gave them chapter tactics that let them treat certain bolt weapons as heavy 1 rending weapons. I bring them up because you said you didn't like the idea of rending on a basic gun. Raptors have certain limitations with their rending, but they can still get an awful lot of it if they want it. Also, there's the the point about snipers having their own sorta-rending effect. I'm guessing your issue probably isn't with single-shot weapons but with multi-shot rending weapons, at which point we just need to figure out how likely it is for such things to actually cause problems. As I've said previously in this thread, bladestorm usually doesn't make much of a difference in my games. It usually lets me kill 2 or 3 extra guys over the course of the game.

 A GumyBear wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.

On the topic of blade storm. The power of AP2 should not be available on a standard weapon imo. I know the squads can't take specialist weapons for the most part I just think maybe making them assualt 3 rather than blade storm would be a better option than giving them pseudo rending.

Just ran some sloppy math on that. Wouldn't that actually increase how effective shuriken catapults are against hordes and marines and leave them roughly equally effective against terminators? Plus, it increases the overall potential for damage, so if you get obscenely lucky, you can now kill up to 30 bodies instead of 20.

Edit: Making the shuripults Assault 3 would also basically give them 4th edition's version of Bladestorm without the drawback at a lower cost than in the old book. And people complained about *old* Bladestorm to no end despite the drawback.

As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?

For the most part it is with the shooting weapons. Daemonettes and genestealers have the problem of having to footslog their way into combat while being very squishy so its more a matter of being able to immediately deliver pseudo rending attacks with little risk involved in delivering them. I can't say anything on the matter of Raptors though since I am unfamiliar with them.

The Raptors thing can be potentially nasty:

Legendary Marksmen: Any unit with this special rule that does not move in the Movement phase of their turn may choose to gain the Rending special rule when firing in the Shooting phase of that turn with boltguns, combi-weapons fired as boltguns or bolt pistols.

It's a free chapter tactic thing from FW. Non-bulky units have scout too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Sure, that is a bit of a weakness, but it's also a strength. Not every army gets the ability for their core troop choice to be able to be given any kind of job and count on it being able to preform at least competently and I don't think it should be dismissed to lightly."

The problem is that they are not competent. They shoot like 9 pt models, hand to hand like 7 pt models, and fight MCs like 5 pt models. For all this, they cost 14 pts, but at no actual point in a battle do they function like 14 pt models. Not a strength imo. I avoid them as much as possible.

In my experience, there is a direct correlation between number of tactical marines and likelihood of being tabled as well.

What 7pt model goes at I4 with WS/S/T4? What 5pt model comes with Krak Grenades that they can use at WS/I4? The shooting is the only one I'll give you, but the only models I know who are BS4 with Bolters are Sisters and CSM. And between Marines and Sisters, Marines are the sturdier troop choice. The only unit I know that matches Marines in stats are CSM and they're only 1pt cheaper losing both Chapter Tactics and ATSKNF.

The 7 and 5 aren't accurate, but tac marines in hand to hand almost always ends badly, despite their gear and stats. I really do feel like tac marines are paying extra points to accomplish the same net effect as much cheaper models in hand to hand. Maybe the 7 and 5 are accurate, since marines end up doing no better than models without WS/S/T4 and models without krak grenades.

Just because they can't beat down units that are designed to handle close combat better doesn't make them bad. They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility. If you're trying to use them to fight a melee unit like Genestealers then the problem isn't the Marines, it's you for using them poorly.

20 shots getting 6 rends being not that unlikely? What?

(2/3)hit (1/6) rends = (1/9) rends/shot.
To average 6 rends, you would need 54 shots.
That's 27 guardians.

I can't run off the odds of 6 rends out of 20 shots off the top of my head, but with each event being independent, less than half the expected value with decent quantities involved... I'm prepared to say the odds are tiny without numbers.

Odds of even 3 rends aren't great.

Add to it, if you're talking a full unit of Termies (5, we'll say), those 6 rends, even if they turn up, are more likely than not gonna leave at leave at least one.

Your numbers are *very* far off.
Vs Termies:
(2/3)(1/3)(1/6) = 1/27 failed armor saves
(2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 2/27 failed invulns
For every 27 shots, 3 dead Termies.

So 10 Guardians who are allowed within 12" of Tactical Terminators *unmolested* kill fewer than 3 tactical terminators.

For the lulz, let's see what Tac Termies do to Guardians:
(2/3)(2/3)(1) = 4/9. For every 9 shots, four guardians die.

So this melee unit with twice the range doesn't outshoot the super a short-range shooting unit. But does do substantial damage to it.

So if you let them waltz up and unload point blank against something they will fold like wet paper against in melee. On the other hand, shoot first, with your 12" range advantage, and you'll outshoot the shooty unit with an almost-only-melee unit easily. At least they cost more.

Killing less than 3 Termies with a full 10-man Guardian squad doesn't seem so wrong.

" They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility"

Flexibility without efficacy is a waste of points, in my experience. Failing a little less badly than a guardsmen at these tasks is not worth their points, imo. In my view, they can accomplish very little, so putting them on the table destines them to be used "poorly", since there is no job they are good at.

At least DA are anti-MC.

Massed S6/7 shooting gives the Eldar true flexibility. The options available to tac squads gives the illusion of flexibility only.

When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?

Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.

Martel732 wrote:
" They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility"

Flexibility without efficacy is a waste of points, in my experience. Failing a little less badly than a guardsmen at these tasks is not worth their points, imo. In my view, they can accomplish very little, so putting them on the table destines them to be used "poorly", since there is no job they are good at.

At least DA are anti-MC.

Massed S6/7 shooting gives the Eldar true flexibility. The options available to tac squads gives the illusion of flexibility only.

DA can't crack tanks, DA have to take more saves versus being shot at, DA are easier to AP out of saves.

Evaluating only a unit's strengths compared to another unit's weaknesses is a serious fallacy.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility"

Flexibility without efficacy is a waste of points, in my experience. Failing a little less badly than a guardsmen at these tasks is not worth their points, imo. In my view, they can accomplish very little, so putting them on the table destines them to be used "poorly", since there is no job they are good at.

At least DA are anti-MC.

Massed S6/7 shooting gives the Eldar true flexibility. The options available to tac squads gives the illusion of flexibility only.

DA can't crack tanks, DA have to take more saves versus being shot at, DA are easier to AP out of saves.

Evaluating only a unit's strengths compared to another unit's weaknesses is a serious fallacy.

Tac squads in practice can't crack tanks either. That's the problem. They can only do it on paper.

 Nevelon wrote:
When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?

Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.

With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?

Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.

With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).

I watched a game where the Eldar player was pulling off around four a turn consistently.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?

Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.

With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).

I watched a game where the Eldar player was pulling off around four a turn consistently.

And how many psykers did they bring exactly? Because I'm willing that 4 a turn is only a fraction of the total powers they had available to them.

Martel732 wrote:
" They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility"

Flexibility without efficacy is a waste of points, in my experience. Failing a little less badly than a guardsmen at these tasks is not worth their points, imo. In my view, they can accomplish very little, so putting them on the table destines them to be used "poorly", since there is no job they are good at.

At least DA are anti-MC.

A full dire avenger squad will put about 2 wounds on an MC assuming it doesn't get a cover or invul save. Marines with plasma or meltas (plus their kraks) can do comparable damage while also being able to threaten vehicles. That 3+ armor is also a pretty nice bonus. I've picked my marines back up recently, and my goodness does 3+ armor and toughness 4 make a difference over my squishy eldar. I know lots of stuff "negates" your high toughness and armor, but those options are generally paying for the priveledge, and using cover can significantly mitigate the ability to ignore armor.

When my avengers go on the offensive, they usually kill a few things, and then they're soon shot to bits or start getting pummelled in assault. That last bit can be mitigated with a shimmershield, but they still aren't going to be winning that fight. When my marines go on the offensive, they usually kill a few things, then possibly kill more things in assault, at some point get shot at and shake off much of the damage, then get assaulted and kill a thing or two, then lose combat and turn around to kill more things because of ATSKNF. Being a survivable generalist has its advantages. But seriously, the marine discussion has been going on for pages. It really deserves its own thread. Not that we haven't had such a thread just recently.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?

Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.

With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).

I watched a game where the Eldar player was pulling off around four a turn consistently.

And how many psykers did they bring exactly? Because I'm willing that 4 a turn is only a fraction of the total powers they had available to them.

It was only a fraction. They had several pskyers for sure. But isn't that something eldar are good at? Spamming psykers?

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Mostly agree. No-drawback MCs are causing real problems.

As for not having (pseudo)rending on basic weapons, does this apply to shooting only? How do you feel about daemonettes, genestealers, and marines with Raptor chapter tactics?

I'm not a fan of rending on daemonetts ether, it's fine on genestealers because they are expensive, raptors have rending? wha?

They could still put a hurting on some terminators at about the same rate - correct, though they would lose the ability to drop entire squads of them with small standard deviations - which is my problem with them currently. I'm fine with guardians dropping 1-2 terms in a round of shooting. I'm not fine with them rolling 6 rends on 20 dice and rolling a whole squad (this isn't that unlikely) the potential power of rending is too high for weapons with this volume of fire. This would also hurt them vs MC - which they are far too effective at removing even without the help of pseudo rending.

^discalimer: I messed up the quote boxes above, so it looks like the wrong people are saying the wrong things. Oops.

As someone else pointed out though, do we really want there to be one less way for people to deal with MCs out there? I don't usually see bladestorm as a reliable way of bringing an MC down, but its absence certainly wouldn't help reign them in. I do see your point about terminators, but isn't that more of an issue with terminator survivability than with just bladestorm? There are whole threads up right now dedicated to discussing the lacklustre survivability of terminators and ways to fix it, and I'm pretty sure those threads don't exist solely because of bladestorm. It doesn't take much of a mathematical deviation for a plasgun and combi plas to kill of four terminators or for their bolter buddies to get lucky and take out a fifth terminator.

The Raptors are a loyalist marine chapter. Forgeworld gave them chapter tactics that let them treat certain bolt weapons as heavy 1 rending weapons. I bring them up because you said you didn't like the idea of rending on a basic gun. Raptors have certain limitations with their rending, but they can still get an awful lot of it if they want it. Also, there's the the point about snipers having their own sorta-rending effect. I'm guessing your issue probably isn't with single-shot weapons but with multi-shot rending weapons, at which point we just need to figure out how likely it is for such things to actually cause problems. As I've said previously in this thread, bladestorm usually doesn't make much of a difference in my games. It usually lets me kill 2 or 3 extra guys over the course of the game.

Yeah my issue is totally with volume of fire with rending weapons. A few (2-4) shots rending is okay. A lot of shots - crazy stuff starts happening.

"but those options are generally paying for the priveledge, and using cover can significantly mitigate the ability to ignore armor. "

That's the theory, but again, in practice, meqs might as well guardsmen in most of my games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" They are generalists, they can do a little of everything and that gives you flexibility"

Flexibility without efficacy is a waste of points, in my experience. Failing a little less badly than a guardsmen at these tasks is not worth their points, imo. In my view, they can accomplish very little, so putting them on the table destines them to be used "poorly", since there is no job they are good at.

At least DA are anti-MC.

A full dire avenger squad will put about 2 wounds on an MC assuming it doesn't get a cover or invul save. Marines with plasma or meltas (plus their kraks) can do comparable damage while also being able to threaten vehicles. That 3+ armor is also a pretty nice bonus. I've picked my marines back up recently, and my goodness does 3+ armor and toughness 4 make a difference over my squishy eldar. I know lots of stuff "negates" your high toughness and armor, but those options are generally paying for the priveledge, and using cover can significantly mitigate the ability to ignore armor.

When my avengers go on the offensive, they usually kill a few things, and then they're soon shot to bits or start getting pummelled in assault. That last bit can be mitigated with a shimmershield, but they still aren't going to be winning that fight. When my marines go on the offensive, they usually kill a few things, then possibly kill more things in assault, at some point get shot at and shake off much of the damage, then get assaulted and kill a thing or two, then lose combat and turn around to kill more things because of ATSKNF. Being a survivable generalist has its advantages. But seriously, the marine discussion has been going on for pages. It really deserves its own thread. Not that we haven't had such a thread just recently.

It's hard to avoid comparisons when talking about DA.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?

Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.

With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).

I watched a game where the Eldar player was pulling off around four a turn consistently.

And how many psykers did they bring exactly? Because I'm willing that 4 a turn is only a fraction of the total powers they had available to them.

It was only a fraction. They had several pskyers for sure. But isn't that something eldar are good at? Spamming psykers?

You're being misleading pretending they can just it without a serious commitment. Yes they can spam psykers, and if they want the reliability of their powers like they had in 5th they actually have to. It's the only way they can throw enough dice at the attempts to manifest them somewhat reliably. Just taking a Farseer (or two) or just Eldrad isn't really enough to ensure you have enough dice to ensure getting one power off (since it's possible to counter blessings), much less 4. So in goes up to 350 points of level 1 psykers to add up to 10 dice to the pool.

Heck Daemons can do a better job spamming dice without much effort off a single FOC. As can Tyranids.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
When you are crunching numbers, consider that the Eldar like to hand out buffs like candy. What changes when they have a Guide up? When the target is under Doom?

Re-rolling to wound with rending weapons is particularly nice.

With 7th edition's psychic powers I don't think the buffs are going out "like candy". it's more likely that a few buffs are given out with as many dice as possible (using a warp charge to ignore perils on the Farseer).

But if those few buffs are going where they are needed every round, it’s all good.

I’ll admit to being a little biased here. I’ve not spammed librarians with my marines. The buffs per point/slot they can crank out are not the best. I hurts that they don’t get divination, so need to hope I roll the buffs I want. Not the best baseline to work from. But I’ve been working up an Eldar army for an escalation league. And while I can’t get every power off every turn, even with just a farseer and a warlock I had a very strong force multiplier.

Relevant to this thread, I was able to kill a riptide, mostly due to bladestorm. Helped by the fact that it was debuffed by the seer.

The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4. Oh, and ATSKNF. Because dead marines don't take fear or morale tests.

I am very grateful I don't play in your meta, Martel.

(Reliably handing out Twinlink x4:
2xFarseer
WC1 Guide 3-dice each for a 1/8 chance of failure. EV 1.66 successes
WC2 Prescience 3-dice each for a 1/2 chance of failure for an EV of 1

So 12 dice
Average 3.5
2xML3 = +6
Add 2-3 warlocks.

So 270 points naked, consuming both HQ slots and all WC dice, has roughly an EV of 2.66.
Factor in that EV rises much faster than 'Reliable' counts.
And occasional denials.
On some squishy t3 models

It takes an absurd amount to be throwing 4+ Twinlink powers reliably each round.

Now:
IG: Orders?
SM: Tac Doctrine, Tiggy, Bolter Drill
DE: Splinter Racks
Tau: Buffmander, Markerlights

In 6e, twinlinkage from Eldar psykers was nasty.
In 7e, its not exceptional.

Martel732 wrote:
The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4.

So it's more useful than taking less wounds, doing more wounds, being able to glance most vehicles to death with melee alone, being able to charge into combat at initative, and having a free grenade that is anti-vehicle?

Seriously, Marines have a LOT going for them and it seems you're ignoring all of it just because someone's weapon (that has 6" inches less range than yours) on a unit with a worse save and worse toughness MIGHT ignore your armor IF they roll good on the wound rolls. And the one that the same range of your Bolt Pistol is in the same boat but it on a unit that's AP'd by your basic gun.

Yeah totally reasonable to be that salty.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4.

So it's more useful than taking less wounds, doing less wounds, being able to glance most vehicles to death with melee alone, being able to charge into combat at initative, and having a free grenade that is anti-vehicle?

Seriously, Marines have a LOT going for them and it seems you're ignoring all of it just because someone's weapon (that has 6" inches less range than yours) on a unit with a worse save and worse toughness MIGHT ignore your armor IF they roll good on the wound rolls. And the one that the same range of your Bolt Pistol is in the same boat but it on a unit that's AP'd by your basic gun.

Yeah totally reasonable.

In practice, tac marines never make it to melee with vehicles. Or at best, very rarely. They get shot to death by Xeno firepower before they make it. Likewise, they don't get to charge because they are shot to death. They don't get to use grenades because they get shot to death. Yeah, they take damage, but can't DEAL damage.

But live Marines do. And 1-2 recovered Tac marines can tie up something light, or have a reasonable chance to do a HP to a rear-armor AV10.

1-2 Bladestorm Eldar typically have a 1/36 chance to not keep running, and if they stay, have a reasonable chance to pop a grot.

Both T4 and 3+ individually do more each game than Bladestorm.

Bharring wrote:
But live Marines do. And 1-2 recovered Tac marines can tie up something light, or have a reasonable chance to do a HP to a rear-armor AV10.

1-2 Bladestorm Eldar typically have a 1/36 chance to not keep running, and if they stay, have a reasonable chance to pop a grot.

Both T4 and 3+ individually do more each game than Bladestorm.

Everyone I play with knows how ATSKNF works, and they make sure that it doesn't get to. There's a reason I didn't list T4 and 3+ on the list of things I'd give up for bladestorm. But the grenades and S/WS? Useless.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4.

So it's more useful than taking less wounds, doing less wounds, being able to glance most vehicles to death with melee alone, being able to charge into combat at initative, and having a free grenade that is anti-vehicle?

Seriously, Marines have a LOT going for them and it seems you're ignoring all of it just because someone's weapon (that has 6" inches less range than yours) on a unit with a worse save and worse toughness MIGHT ignore your armor IF they roll good on the wound rolls. And the one that the same range of your Bolt Pistol is in the same boat but it on a unit that's AP'd by your basic gun.

Yeah totally reasonable.

In practice, tac marines never make to melee with vehicles. Or at best, very rarely. They get shot to death by Xeno firepower before they make it. Likewise, they don't get to charge because they are shot to death. They don't get to use grenades because they get shot to death. Yeah, they take damage, but can't DEAL damage.

If my Sisters can make it into melee with 30 Devourer Gaunts, Marines can definitely do it better. Seriously, I'm starting to wonder how you actually play because it seems like you don't do anything but complain how "weak" Marines are despite the loads of bonuses they get for the game.

I'm not trying to say you're a bad player, but I have to wonder because my experience has been that bad players are the ones who complain the loudest about how weak their toys are.

Then again we also know you play in a very crappy meta and I really don't think your personal experiences are indicative of the game everyone else is playing. Mostly because most of us don't deal with Tau armies who refuse to put more terrain on the table.

Then don't get them all shot to death before doing anything?

Everything sans cannon with Bladestorm has the same problem. Only much,much worse. Far easier to kill. Far harder to get in range.

I get tons of terrain. But none blocks LOS. Let me remind everyone of the futility of cover against Tau/Eldar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Then don't get them all shot to death before doing anything?

Everything sans cannon with Bladestorm has the same problem. Only much,much worse. Far easier to kill. Far harder to get in range.

If I had control over my opponent's shooting phase, trust me, I would have my guys live.

"e despite the loads of bonuses they get for the game. "

Bonuses that don't matter 95% of the time. See the new necron codex for what happens when an army gets some bonuses that actually matter in the game.

@Xenomancers: That's understandable, but do you often/consistently find that bladestorm is making a significant difference? As previously pointed out by Bharring, rending six times with a single volley isn't terribly likely.

I've had games where my avengers have had insanely lucky rolls that kill off more than their fair share of guys. I've had games where I can't seem to land more than one or two wounds that may or may not stick. I've had wyches survive flamer dreadnaughts thanks to 6+ FNP. I've had terminators drop like flies to splinter rifles because my opponent couldn't seem to stop rolling 1s.

Lucky/unlucky rolls happen, and they tend to stick out in our minds, but they aren't what you balance a unit around. I might help if someone could figure out how to mathhammer the likelihood of getting a significant number of rends. Say the 5 rends in your example. I'm pretty sure that Bharring is right and that it's not going to be happening very often.

In regards to psykers, eldar do spam them pretty well, and they do make a pretty significant difference. When they work. If you take a lone farseer you're going to be surprised by how unreliable your psychic powers are these days. If you roll exclusively on Runes of Fate, you're guaranteed to get Guide, but you only have about 50/50 odds of getting doom. Both powers are great, but doom gets shut down pretty easily if there's a psyker in the target squad. You can make your powers more reliable by getting more dice, but warlocks are pricey and only work as their own unit if you get several hundred points worth of them and stick them on jet bikes. And then you have an expensive unit that your farseer(s) will want to focus on protecting.

If your farseer isn't on a jetbike, he's only casting powers when he's out of his wave serpent and thus exposed to return fire. It only takes one well-placed multi-laser shot to kill him.

So yes, eldar psychic powers are (mostly) pretty good, but not as reliable as you'd think. You're just as likely to get death mission as doom.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The bottom line for me is that bladestorm, in practice, is more useful than frag/krak grenades, S4, WS4.

So it's more useful than taking less wounds, doing more wounds, being able to glance most vehicles to death with melee alone, being able to charge into combat at initative, and having a free grenade that is anti-vehicle?

Seriously, Marines have a LOT going for them and it seems you're ignoring all of it just because someone's weapon (that has 6" inches less range than yours) on a unit with a worse save and worse toughness MIGHT ignore your armor IF they roll good on the wound rolls. And the one that the same range of your Bolt Pistol is in the same boat but it on a unit that's AP'd by your basic gun.

Yeah totally reasonable to be that salty.

Except that math shows that Tactical Marines aren't durable or offensive for the cost. People take Bikers, Scouts, and Sternguard for a reason, ya know.
I'd rather take an army of Dire Avengers to Tactical Marines, since they actually specialize. You claim Marines can handle tanks, but they really can't. A single Melta Gun isn't good. Combi-Weapons are 5 points too much for what they do, and to use other AT available you have to stand still. And then you talk about killing many vehicles in melee, which is ridiculous. If someone can get their Tactical Squad into melee with your tanks, I would consider you to be a bad player. They aren't fast. At all.

People take bikes over tacs because they're simply better than marines for the points cost, and the bad internal balance of marine bikes only has so much impact on the bladestorm rule. I don't typically see people taking scouts over tac marines around here. Taking sternguard is a reasonable alternative to tacs is only an option for a certain chapter or something isn't it? How do sternguard compare to avengers? I know that hellfire rounds are terrifying.

Sternguard are a quality unit. Sternguard have true versatility, not fake versatility like tactical squads. I never meant to imply marines don't have good units. They do. But none of them are in the troop section.