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.

I'd love the option to not pay for grenades that I don't want or use.

They had ATSKNF in 3rd, which was completely OP at the time, but now it has been reduced to almost a disadvantage.

"(that's mounted on more fragile everything"

Maybe you better look at WS and Riptides again. The sad part is that with MCs and superior vehicles, you can create a lot of Xeno lists that play more durable than a marine list, because those same MCs and vehicles make a mockery of marine vehicles and power armor.

 krodarklorr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
Do any non-SM armies hate bladestorm? The only real arguments are that they kill marines too easily but marines are only half off the armies; so do the other half hate the rule?

Personally I think that it's fine due to their short ranged guns.

I hate them with my Tyranids...nothing like making TMCs even more squishy.

I hate them as Necrons, though now I still get a decent save against it, so I have little right to complain. And I also hate it as Tyranids. And everyone says it balances well with their short ranged guns, but I'd kill for 2 shots at 18" instead of 12, and be able to run before or after. THAT is what makes up for their range. So, essentially, they have a 24" threat range in the shooting phase.

Aren't Fleshborers the only 12" gun in the Nids army?

Umm, I believe Spinefists are as well, but yes. I was simply referring to rapid firing Gauss rifles. I only get 2 shots at 12", not 18.

Tyranids were mentioned that's why I was curious. And Tyranids can get 3 shots at 18" for less than a Dire Avenger costs IIRC.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Arbiter_Shade wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:
Do any non-SM armies hate bladestorm? The only real arguments are that they kill marines too easily but marines are only half off the armies; so do the other half hate the rule?

Personally I think that it's fine due to their short ranged guns.

I hate them with my Tyranids...nothing like making TMCs even more squishy.

I hate them as Necrons, though now I still get a decent save against it, so I have little right to complain. And I also hate it as Tyranids. And everyone says it balances well with their short ranged guns, but I'd kill for 2 shots at 18" instead of 12, and be able to run before or after. THAT is what makes up for their range. So, essentially, they have a 24" threat range in the shooting phase.

Aren't Fleshborers the only 12" gun in the Nids army?

Umm, I believe Spinefists are as well, but yes. I was simply referring to rapid firing Gauss rifles. I only get 2 shots at 12", not 18.

Tyranids were mentioned that's why I was curious. And Tyranids can get 3 shots at 18" for less than a Dire Avenger costs IIRC.

This is true, which is why I love Warriors. However, there is no rending on them, they're usually BS 3, and the internet hates Warriors anyway. >.>


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 krodarklorr wrote:


This is true, which is why I love Warriors. However, there is no rending on them, they're usually BS 3, and the internet hates Warriors anyway. >.>

Derp, I forgot about Devourers. Whoops. Haven't play my nids in awhile lol. But yeah, Devourers are also good.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd love the option to not pay for grenades that I don't want or use.

They had ATSKNF in 3rd, which was completely OP at the time, but now it has been reduced to almost a disadvantage.

Funny because Grendades tend to be great when you need an extra blast template, or need some S6 AP4 vs a tank or MC.

And yes, they've fixed ATSKNF over the editions, but they've also given a lot of bonuses to Marines since then.

Seriously, I'm of the opinion that you just don't have any tactical depth with how you play Marines. I just can't see any evidence that supports any other position at this point because all you do is cry about how bad your Tact Marines are and complain about their FREE bonuses. Like said FREE grenades.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd love the option to not pay for grenades that I don't want or use.

They had ATSKNF in 3rd, which was completely OP at the time, but now it has been reduced to almost a disadvantage.

Funny because Grendades tend to be great when you need an extra blast template, or need some S6 AP4 vs a tank or MC.

And yes, they've fixed ATSKNF over the editions, but they've also given a lot of bonuses since then.

Seriously, I'm of the opinion that you just don't have any tactical depth with how you play Marines. I just can't see any evidence that supports any other position at this point because all you do is cry about how bad your Tact Marines are and complain about their FREE bonuses. Like said FREE grenades.

A bonus that has no useful in-game effect is not a bonus. If you are using krak grenades against an MC, you've already lost.

If I have no tactical depth, then why can I beat other marine lists very frequently? Could it be that they can't burn my list to the ground where it stands? Or that maybe they are using the same crappy tac marines? Like all these drop lists people complain about. I've been fighting those since 5th, and that was back when SW were totally broken. The difference is that drop lists put themselves in harm's way. They can't just sit there and point from all the way across the board and have me pick up entire units.

Martel732 wrote:
A bonus that has no useful in-game effect is not a bonus.

Seriously? You can't be swept in close combat, and auto-rally and act as normal without firing snap shots or being restricted in how you move and it has "no in game effect"?

And if someone is dedicated enough firepower to completely kill a Tact Marine unit then they're not using it to target other parts of your army. So the THREAT of the models is still beneficial.

Martel732 wrote:
If I have no tactical depth, then why can I beat other marine lists very frequently? Could it be that they can't burn my list to the ground where it stands? Or that maybe they are using the same crappy tac marines?

Or they're just worse players than you. I see no evidence of competence in how you play. All I see is someone who cries on the internet about his units not being the best thing ever with no drawbacks.

ATSKNF is a disadvantage more often than it is not. When used with calgar it becomes VERY potent but outside of that - which requires a 275 point non psyker. It's a disadvantage every time because then you can't shoot at the close combat squad that's killing you the next turn because 3 marines that have 3 CC attacks refused to die for the good of the whole!

Having a free bonus like...ignore night fight - or being able to shoot after run are advantages ALL the time...you don't see me complaining about that crap. All armies get free bonuses. Look at daemons - they can remove your best unit and place herald in it's place on 3d6 leadership test thats failed...wow...ATSKNF is REALLY potent. What it really comes down to is that without grav guns marines would be the worst army in the game...thats right - the worst.

 Xenomancers wrote:
ATSKNF is a disadvantage more often than it is not. When used with calgar it becomes VERY potent but outside of that - which requires a 275 point non psyker. It's a disadvantage every time because then you can't shoot at the close combat squad that's killing you the next turn because 3 marines that have 3 CC attacks refused to die for the good of the whole!

Having a free bonus like...ignore night fight - or being able to shoot after run are advantages ALL the time...you don't see me complaining about that crap. All armies get free bonuses. Look at daemons - they can remove your best unit and place herald in it's place on 3d6 leadership test thats failed...wow...ATSKNF is REALLY potent. What it really comes down to is that without grav guns marines would be the worst army in the game...thats right - the worst.

Those bonuses are more on par with Chapter Tactics which confers rules like re-rolling ones for bolters and giving you Tank Hunters.

ATSKNF is better than Fearless which is what most other armies have to contend with as an option (preventing them from going to ground, or breaking combat against things they can't hurt, like an Ironclad Dreadnought).

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A bonus that has no useful in-game effect is not a bonus.

Seriously? You can't be swept in close combat, and auto-rally and act as normal without firing snap shots or being restricted in how you move and it has "no in game effect"?

And if someone is dedicated enough firepower to completely kill a Tact Marine unit then they're not using it to target other parts of your army. So the THREAT of the models is still beneficial.

Martel732 wrote:
If I have no tactical depth, then why can I beat other marine lists very frequently? Could it be that they can't burn my list to the ground where it stands? Or that maybe they are using the same crappy tac marines?

Or they're just worse players than you. I see no evidence of competence in how you play. All I see is someone who cries on the internet about his units not being the best thing ever with no drawbacks.

I didn't ask for them to be the best thing ever. I'm just tired of people pointing to non-bonuses of the marines. As someone else mentioned, ATSKNF is actually a disadvantage quite frequently. I've played without the rule to prove a point a few times, and both sides agreed that the outcome was not changed. I'd gladly give back a ton of the bonuses that marines get for "free" in exchange for a single rule that means something in practice. WS4, S4, I4, frag grenades, krak greandes, and ATSKNF are all useless in most situations. Mostly because most marines are shot and killed before any of that stuff means a thing.

Martel732 wrote:
I didn't ask for them to be the best thing ever. I'm just tired of people pointing to non-bonuses of the marines. As someone else mentioned, ATSKNF is actually a disadvantage quite frequently. I've played without the rule to prove a point a few times, and both sides agreed that the outcome was not changed.

You actively ignore the fact that as generalists they can't be specialists. The bonuses they have are balanced with VERY few real weaknesses and the ability to threaten most of the things in the game.

And I can sit here and think of a whole list of reasons why you aren't benefiting from ATSKNF. At the end of the day your anecdotes on why Tact Marines are so bad are pointless though. They don't disprove anything, all they do is tell us that they don't work for you which, as I've pointed out already, could come down to a LOT of reasons beyond "they're bad".

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I didn't ask for them to be the best thing ever. I'm just tired of people pointing to non-bonuses of the marines. As someone else mentioned, ATSKNF is actually a disadvantage quite frequently. I've played without the rule to prove a point a few times, and both sides agreed that the outcome was not changed.

You actively ignore the fact that as generalists they can't be specialists. The bonuses they have are balanced with VERY few real weaknesses and the ability to threaten most of the things in the game.

And I can sit here and think of a whole list of reasons why you aren't benefiting from ATSKNF. At the end of the day your anecdotes on why Tact Marines are so bad are pointless though. They don't disprove anything, all they do is tell us that they don't work for you which, as I've pointed out already, could come down to a LOT of reasons beyond "they're bad".

Then explain how they work for anyone. What are they doing with them?

"You actively ignore the fact that as generalists they can't be specialists"

No, I'm not. I'm saying that generalists are bad in 7th ed.

If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.

 krodarklorr wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.

Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.

Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.

That's easier said then done in an army that lacks low AP weaponry to spam.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.

Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.

That's easier said then done in an army that lacks low AP weaponry to spam.

Admittedly, there is a group of lists that the marine schtick works better against than others. But wound spam always works; AP is irrelevant. In many ways, this is superior, as cover does not help against that approach in any way.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I didn't ask for them to be the best thing ever. I'm just tired of people pointing to non-bonuses of the marines. As someone else mentioned, ATSKNF is actually a disadvantage quite frequently. I've played without the rule to prove a point a few times, and both sides agreed that the outcome was not changed.

You actively ignore the fact that as generalists they can't be specialists. The bonuses they have are balanced with VERY few real weaknesses and the ability to threaten most of the things in the game.

And I can sit here and think of a whole list of reasons why you aren't benefiting from ATSKNF. At the end of the day your anecdotes on why Tact Marines are so bad are pointless though. They don't disprove anything, all they do is tell us that they don't work for you which, as I've pointed out already, could come down to a LOT of reasons beyond "they're bad".

Then explain how they work for anyone. What are they doing with them?

I can't speak for everyone but I use my Battle Sister Squads (aka my extra squishy version of the same thing as Tacts without all the trimmings) help crack tanks, tie up shooty units so the rest of my army can function, threaten MCs with Krak grenades (killed a Tyrannocyte that way a couple weeks ago), hold objectives, flush units out of cover ( mostly with flamer templates)....

I use them as a multi-tool, choosing a job for each unit as I need it and doing what I can to make it work (through use of terrain, cover, screening models, ect).

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.

Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.

That's easier said then done in an army that lacks low AP weaponry to spam.

Admittedly, there is a group of lists that the marine schtick works better against than others. But wound spam always works; AP is irrelevant. In many ways, this is superior, as cover does not help against that approach in any way.

Well, that is one thing I love from Fantasy, but meh. There's been numerous times where I could have Feared/Swept/made a unit run off the board, but has been averted thanks to that rule.

Martel732 wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm saying that generalists are bad in 7th ed.

I run 3 units of Battle Sisters, aka 3 units of watered down Tacts in a 1500 point list. I heavily disagree.

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.

Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.

That's easier said then done in an army that lacks low AP weaponry to spam.

Just spam wraiths dude. Plus immortals are pretty spam-able are they not? Gauss is pretty dang nice if you ask me. It's no bladestorm - but it's nice.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm saying that generalists are bad in 7th ed.

I run 3 units of Battle Sisters, aka 3 units of watered down Tacts in a 1500 point list. I heavily disagree.

I'm pretty certain if I did that at 1500 pts, I'd be tabled more frequently than I'm currently being tabled. Which is already more often than I like.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm saying that generalists are bad in 7th ed.

I run 3 units of Battle Sisters, aka 3 units of watered down Tacts in a 1500 point list. I heavily disagree.

I'm pretty certain if I did that at 1500 pts, I'd be tabled more frequently than I'm currently being tabled. Which is already more often than I like.

That's on you then, because I'm using the weaker version of what you're complaining about rather successfully.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
ATSKNF is a disadvantage more often than it is not. When used with calgar it becomes VERY potent but outside of that - which requires a 275 point non psyker. It's a disadvantage every time because then you can't shoot at the close combat squad that's killing you the next turn because 3 marines that have 3 CC attacks refused to die for the good of the whole!

Having a free bonus like...ignore night fight - or being able to shoot after run are advantages ALL the time...you don't see me complaining about that crap. All armies get free bonuses. Look at daemons - they can remove your best unit and place herald in it's place on 3d6 leadership test thats failed...wow...ATSKNF is REALLY potent. What it really comes down to is that without grav guns marines would be the worst army in the game...thats right - the worst.

Those bonuses are more on par with Chapter Tactics which confers rules like re-rolling ones for bolters and giving you Tank Hunters.

ATSKNF is better than Fearless which is what most other armies have to contend with as an option (preventing them from going to ground, or breaking combat against things they can't hurt, like an Ironclad Dreadnought).

Fearless is better IMO. Can't be gunned off an objective unless you kill every model. I've actually lost a few points in tournaments for this exact reason. It's only advantage is not being able to be swept off the board vs a squad they got unlucky against. however most everything that gets into assualt with marines wrecks them easily so you really just want them to die most of the time. Chapter tactics are nice - wont dispute that - they aren't free bonuses though. You have to take crappy marines to take advantage of most of them and their benefits are only chapter wide...since you are basically forced to run allies to be competitive with marines it makes them even less important.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, I'm not. I'm saying that generalists are bad in 7th ed.

I run 3 units of Battle Sisters, aka 3 units of watered down Tacts in a 1500 point list. I heavily disagree.

I'm pretty certain if I did that at 1500 pts, I'd be tabled more frequently than I'm currently being tabled. Which is already more often than I like.

That's on you then, because I'm using the weaker version of what you're complaining about rather successfully.

At this point, we'd have to compare opponents' lists and tactics. "Learn to play" isn't a super convincing argument.

Martel, have you considered trying IG out? I don't mean this in a snarky way, but you seem to value your armor, toughness, weapon skill, ability to not die in combat, chapter tactics, etc. very lowly while placing great emphasis on ranged offense. I know you don't want to spend a lot of money on a new army, but it sounds like you might simply prefer a playstyle that lets you keep your distance with cheap models.

Or you might even consider trying out chaos marines. I'm not a huge fan of the current chaos book, but you *can* spam cultists cheaply (as far as points anwyay), and you trade off all those pesky disadvantages like chapter tactics plus and they shall know no fear for a very modest points reduction. Then most of your models will still be usable.

Wyldhunt wrote:
Martel, have you considered trying IG out? I don't mean this in a snarky way, but you seem to value your armor, toughness, weapon skill, ability to not die in combat, chapter tactics, etc. very lowly while placing great emphasis on ranged offense. I know you don't want to spend a lot of money on a new army, but it sounds like you might simply prefer a playstyle that lets you keep your distance with cheap models.

Or you might even consider trying out chaos marines. I'm not a huge fan of the current chaos book, but you *can* spam cultists cheaply (as far as points anwyay), and you trade off all those pesky disadvantages like chapter tactics plus and they shall know no fear for a very modest points reduction. Then most of your models will still be usable.

If I were given a do-over, I'd probably have an IG list.

At the same time, I love the fluff of the BA, but their table top models just can't live up to it. Or get even close, really. The BA codex doesn't mention being mowed down wholesale by scatterlasers before they can get their choppy on in their glorious history.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Fearless is better IMO. Can't be gunned off an objective unless you kill every model. I've actually lost a few points in tournaments for this exact reason. It's only advantage is not being able to be swept off the board vs a squad they got unlucky against. however most everything that gets into assualt with marines wrecks them easily so you really just want them to die most of the time. Chapter tactics are nice - wont dispute that - they aren't free bonuses though. You have to take crappy marines to take advantage of most of them and their benefits are only chapter wide...since you are basically forced to run allies to be competitive with marines it makes them even less important.

I disagree on your assessments for the most part. Fearless models are just as likely to be stuck in melee as Tact Marines, and I don't see Marines as "crappy". I see some people bitching about their models not getting enough bonuses on what is a very good all rounder option with no major drawbacks, but I don't see an actual bad option there.

The only reason I'm moving from Sisters to Eldar over Marines at this point is for a change of playstyles as Marines play almost identically with the differences coming down to weapon options. And I'm looking for a change of pace. It's been 5 years, I think it's a good time to shake things up for myself personally.

In my *very last game*, I had a decent size SM unit break (against Eldar). Thanks to ATSKNF, they still got to charge some DAs the next round. So I didn't have to look far for an example of that rule kicking some ass.

Perhaps not how you play, but the way we play, there is more to the game than firepower alone. And firepower isnt always s6+ ap3-.

(Did IG not exist in 3rd? Because it sounds like that's what you're asking for.)

 Xenomancers wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
If it makes you feel any better, I hate ATSKNF with a passion, mainly because I've been given a bunch of new rules that they straight up ignore.

Just kill them, then they won't be ignoring your rules. They'll be dead. They can't hurt you back very well.

That's easier said then done in an army that lacks low AP weaponry to spam.

Just spam wraiths dude. Plus immortals are pretty spam-able are they not? Gauss is pretty dang nice if you ask me. It's no bladestorm - but it's nice.

I would much rater not "spam" anything, since there are so many good options in this codex now. And I'm not saying I can't deal with marines, I'm just debating that Marines aren't as bad as he's making them out to be.

Bharring wrote:
In my *very last game*, I had a decent size SM unit break (against Eldar). Thanks to ATSKNF, they still got to charge some DAs the next round. So I didn't have to look far for an example of that rule kicking some ass.

Perhaps not how you play, but the way we play, there is more to the game than firepower alone. And firepower isnt always s6+ ap3-.

(Did IG not exist in 3rd? Because it sounds like that's what you're asking for.)

I started BA in 2nd, though. I was about to quit when 3rd came out. At first it was novel to be strong, but 3rd eventually got very boring because of how OP BA in particular were. I skipped 4th, and then came back in with the White Dwarf codex in 5th.

People where I play maximize S6+ shooting precisely because it is so universally good.

Killing Marines without AP3 takes 2-3x the firepower. Lasblasters against Marines are hilarious. 15 shots. Usually doesn't kill a single Marine.

Not terrible. Feels about right.