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.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What's a dw version? Frag cannons are almost worthless vs plague marines as it is currently.

You're gonna love this.

The new Deathwatch codex has frag cannons in it as heavy weapons. The Vets can take up to 4 heavy weapons in a squad, including frag cannons.

The new profile is this: S6 AP- Template Assault 2 Shred, -or- 24" S7 AP3 Assault 2 Impact, where Impact changes the profile to S9 AP2 Assault 2 under 12".

25pts.

I don't understand why so many people at my GW were saying Deathwatch wasn't so hot when the book came out in just a few hours of release.

I mean you have a weapon that has a template version of what shredders for dark eldar do, a version of the cannon which is basically a short range double lascannon within assault range (so deepstrike or drop pod with them if possible) and just in general it sounds decent version monsters. Seriously it's a monster/vehicle and horde killer all in one weapon and that's exactly what deathwatch probably fights a lot. I mean for dark eldar we have instant death but the only way to get strength 9 is with the void raven. I don't think they'd be OP but they sound alright to me. Then again i play dark eldar.

-------

To be fair if the lore worked how games do the balance would be out the window in other ways. Guard would lose so much. I mean if i remember correctly while fighting tau and necrons guard seem to lose pretty much every time. Even against nids they tend to lose. The only things they used to do well against in the lore were orks, traitor guard, minor factions and sometimes eldar. At best when against nids they need to face a splinter fleet and even then it's not a sure thing they'll win. They're basically the punching bags of 40k and their lore alone helped kill my interest in them. I mean if the lore matched the tabletop game in that case guard would suck so bad nobody would even attempt to fight most factions. It just wouldn't be fun.

Orks are a pretty common punching bag too. Tons of stories about armies slaughtering Orks, so few from the Orks' perspective where they win.

Only viable answer ; Orks

Space marines are bad obviously but They are so much better than Orks... Come on, even the special rules from Ork s codex hurt them...

Time to close this thread Now

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
We are not a monolith.....

Different guard armies use their troops in different ways.

O.O

Tell me more of these Guardsmen who don't have their lives thrown away by the hundreds.

Because I like how IG tanks look and I want to eventually ally some together with my Sisters but don't want to treat my infantry as expendable.

Tanith 1st, cadia, catachan, elysians. These do not simply throw men into the meat grinder. They are commando jungle fighters, drop troops, light infantrymen, and front line soldiers.

They can advance and hold objectives for months and years at a time. Look at the guard in the space marine game , they held out against overwhelming odds. If my specially trained and equipped guardsmen are worth nothing more than the wounds that they possess, then 40k is something i am no longer interested in.

why would i ever play a game if the purpose of my models is that they are literally to just be removed them from the game? The premise is laughable.

For those of you saying the Dark Eldar are the weakest/almost the weakest, I would disagree. They have a terrible codex that lacks synergy with itself, has several completely terrible units (looks at wyches) and has terrible flyers, but it has several amazing formations in the Covens supplement, as well as some good or decent units in the codex itself.
Corpse Thief Claw backed by Dark Artisan formations, with Ravager/Venom support, and some Reavers is a deadly combonation. You could even drop the DA and add more Reavers if you wanted.

They are far below SM/Craftworlds/Necrons/Tau, but they are above Orks/CSM/BA/IG

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
We are not a monolith.....

Different guard armies use their troops in different ways.

O.O

Tell me more of these Guardsmen who don't have their lives thrown away by the hundreds.

Because I like how IG tanks look and I want to eventually ally some together with my Sisters but don't want to treat my infantry as expendable.

Tanith 1st, cadia, catachan, elysians. These do not simply throw men into the meat grinder. They are commando jungle fighters, drop troops, light infantrymen, and front line soldiers.

They can advance and hold objectives for months and years at a time. Look at the guard in the space marine game , they held out against overwhelming odds. If my specially trained and equipped guardsmen are worth nothing more than the wounds that they possess, then 40k is something i am no longer interested in.

why would i ever play a game if the purpose of my models is that they are literally to just be removed them from the game? The premise is laughable.

I assumed they were considered expendable when you can take more infantry in one platoon than an entire force org chart of Marines could hope to field.

Also I distinctly remember reading fluff about how the Imperium considers human life to be cheap and the IG uses this to its advantage by engaging in long, drawn out wars of attrition to wear down the enemy's numbers through drawing more and more of them into the fight.

And one of the past rulebooks had a fluff section where an Imperial Guard force taking 30,000 losses in a single battle was considered "light casualties".

So this isn't just coming from me.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
We are not a monolith.....

Different guard armies use their troops in different ways.

O.O

Tell me more of these Guardsmen who don't have their lives thrown away by the hundreds.

Because I like how IG tanks look and I want to eventually ally some together with my Sisters but don't want to treat my infantry as expendable.

Tanith 1st, cadia, catachan, elysians. These do not simply throw men into the meat grinder. They are commando jungle fighters, drop troops, light infantrymen, and front line soldiers.

They can advance and hold objectives for months and years at a time. Look at the guard in the space marine game , they held out against overwhelming odds. If my specially trained and equipped guardsmen are worth nothing more than the wounds that they possess, then 40k is something i am no longer interested in.

why would i ever play a game if the purpose of my models is that they are literally to just be removed them from the game? The premise is laughable.

I assumed they were considered expendable when you can take more infantry in one platoon than an entire force org chart of Marines could hope to field.

Also I distinctly remember reading fluff about how the Imperium considers human life to be cheap and the IG uses this to its advantage by engaging in long, drawn out wars of attrition to wear down the enemy's numbers through drawing more and more of them into the fight.

And one of the past rulebooks had a fluff section where an Imperial Guard force taking 30,000 losses in a single battle was considered "light casualties".

So this isn't just coming from me.

Yes and there are also different methods of fighting, which i just illustrated. Not every war that the IG engages in is one of attrition. Furthermore in the grand scheme of things 30,000 CASUALTIES (not losses) is actually quite small considering battles like Kursk, which took place on the eastern front, had over 800,000 casualties on just the soviet side.

It is simply incorrect to claim that the guard only uses it troops as mere body bags.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
We are not a monolith.....

Different guard armies use their troops in different ways.

O.O

Tell me more of these Guardsmen who don't have their lives thrown away by the hundreds.

Because I like how IG tanks look and I want to eventually ally some together with my Sisters but don't want to treat my infantry as expendable.

Tanith 1st, cadia, catachan, elysians. These do not simply throw men into the meat grinder. They are commando jungle fighters, drop troops, light infantrymen, and front line soldiers.

They can advance and hold objectives for months and years at a time. Look at the guard in the space marine game , they held out against overwhelming odds. If my specially trained and equipped guardsmen are worth nothing more than the wounds that they possess, then 40k is something i am no longer interested in.

why would i ever play a game if the purpose of my models is that they are literally to just be removed them from the game? The premise is laughable.

I assumed they were considered expendable when you can take more infantry in one platoon than an entire force org chart of Marines could hope to field.

Also I distinctly remember reading fluff about how the Imperium considers human life to be cheap and the IG uses this to its advantage by engaging in long, drawn out wars of attrition to wear down the enemy's numbers through drawing more and more of them into the fight.

And one of the past rulebooks had a fluff section where an Imperial Guard force taking 30,000 losses in a single battle was considered "light casualties".

So this isn't just coming from me.

Yes and there are also different methods of fighting, which i just illustrated. Not every war that the IG engages in is one of attrition. Furthermore in the grand scheme of things 30,000 CASUALTIES (not losses) is actually quite small considering battles like Kursk, which took place on the eastern front, had over 800,000 casualties on just the soviet side.

It is simply incorrect to claim that the guard only uses it troops as mere body bags.

Maybe I should be more clear.

I want to use the Imperial Guard Codex in the tabletop game in a manner which does not require me to treat my miniatures as expendable to attain victory.

I have my own custom PDF fluff which describes a force that considers its soldiers' lives to be valuable, and trains and equips them as well as they can.

How do I represent that on the tabletop?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
We are not a monolith.....

Different guard armies use their troops in different ways.

O.O

Tell me more of these Guardsmen who don't have their lives thrown away by the hundreds.

Because I like how IG tanks look and I want to eventually ally some together with my Sisters but don't want to treat my infantry as expendable.

Tanith 1st, cadia, catachan, elysians. These do not simply throw men into the meat grinder. They are commando jungle fighters, drop troops, light infantrymen, and front line soldiers.

They can advance and hold objectives for months and years at a time. Look at the guard in the space marine game , they held out against overwhelming odds. If my specially trained and equipped guardsmen are worth nothing more than the wounds that they possess, then 40k is something i am no longer interested in.

why would i ever play a game if the purpose of my models is that they are literally to just be removed them from the game? The premise is laughable.

I assumed they were considered expendable when you can take more infantry in one platoon than an entire force org chart of Marines could hope to field.

Also I distinctly remember reading fluff about how the Imperium considers human life to be cheap and the IG uses this to its advantage by engaging in long, drawn out wars of attrition to wear down the enemy's numbers through drawing more and more of them into the fight.

And one of the past rulebooks had a fluff section where an Imperial Guard force taking 30,000 losses in a single battle was considered "light casualties".

So this isn't just coming from me.

Yes and there are also different methods of fighting, which i just illustrated. Not every war that the IG engages in is one of attrition. Furthermore in the grand scheme of things 30,000 CASUALTIES (not losses) is actually quite small considering battles like Kursk, which took place on the eastern front, had over 800,000 casualties on just the soviet side.

It is simply incorrect to claim that the guard only uses it troops as mere body bags.

Maybe I should be more clear.

I want to use the Imperial Guard Codex in the tabletop game in a manner which does not require me to treat my miniatures as expendable to attain victory.

I have my own custom PDF fluff which describes a force that considers its soldiers' lives to be valuable, and trains and equips them as well as they can.

How do I represent that on the tabletop?

By making guardsmen achieve a certain level of viability in taking out targets.

For example in the codex that I have written I have a unit that has outflank, camo cloaks, and have the stats of veterans. For 120 points this 10 man team comes equipped with shredder lascarbines which are assault 3 18 inch lasguns which can be affected by frfsrf. There are other ways to make them more useful ( a redesigned order system and extended range vox casters, and a doctrine system).

There should also be expendable units like penal soldiers. I'm not saying that such guardsmen don't exist, but rather that both should.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
By making guardsmen achieve a certain level of viability in taking out targets.

For example in the codex that I have written I have a unit that has outflank, camo cloaks, and have the stats of veterans. For 120 points this 10 man team comes equipped with shredder lascarbines which are assault 3 18 inch lasguns which can be affected by frfsrf. There are other ways to make them more useful ( a redesigned order system and extended range vox casters, and a doctrine system).

There should also be expendable units like penal soldiers. I'm not saying that such guardsmen don't exist, but rather that both should.

I don't want to use a homebrew Codex. I want to use the official one.

Also your first sentence could not possibly have been more vague if it tried.

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
By making guardsmen achieve a certain level of viability in taking out targets.

For example in the codex that I have written I have a unit that has outflank, camo cloaks, and have the stats of veterans. For 120 points this 10 man team comes equipped with shredder lascarbines which are assault 3 18 inch lasguns which can be affected by frfsrf. There are other ways to make them more useful ( a redesigned order system and extended range vox casters, and a doctrine system).

There should also be expendable units like penal soldiers. I'm not saying that such guardsmen don't exist, but rather that both should.

I don't want to use a homebrew Codex. I want to use the official one.

It is a wishlist for what gw will never do: and that is make the guardsman respectable in his own right.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
By making guardsmen achieve a certain level of viability in taking out targets.

For example in the codex that I have written I have a unit that has outflank, camo cloaks, and have the stats of veterans. For 120 points this 10 man team comes equipped with shredder lascarbines which are assault 3 18 inch lasguns which can be affected by frfsrf. There are other ways to make them more useful ( a redesigned order system and extended range vox casters, and a doctrine system).

There should also be expendable units like penal soldiers. I'm not saying that such guardsmen don't exist, but rather that both should.

I don't want to use a homebrew Codex. I want to use the official one.

It is a wishlist for what gw will never do.

I'm getting the impression that you don't believe that the official Imperial Guard Codex is capable of treating their infantry as anything but expendable.

I believe that you believe this because when I have asked how to accomplish this, you have made reference to homebrew units, spoken extremely vaguely about "viability in taking out targets", and referenced wishlisting for things which will never happen.

I believe that if you could back up your claim that Imperial Guard can be played as though their troops are individually valuable, you would've mentioned a unit, wargear options, and a transport for the unit to take to be the bulk of the army's troops. You did not, so I conclude that you are unaware of such a configuration.

Am I correct?

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
By making guardsmen achieve a certain level of viability in taking out targets.

For example in the codex that I have written I have a unit that has outflank, camo cloaks, and have the stats of veterans. For 120 points this 10 man team comes equipped with shredder lascarbines which are assault 3 18 inch lasguns which can be affected by frfsrf. There are other ways to make them more useful ( a redesigned order system and extended range vox casters, and a doctrine system).

There should also be expendable units like penal soldiers. I'm not saying that such guardsmen don't exist, but rather that both should.

I don't want to use a homebrew Codex. I want to use the official one.

It is a wishlist for what gw will never do.

I'm getting the impression that you don't believe that the official Imperial Guard Codex is capable of treating their infantry as anything but expendable.

I believe that you believe this because when I have asked how to accomplish this, you have made reference to homebrew units, spoken extremely vaguely about "viability in taking out targets", and referenced wishlisting for things which will never happen.

I believe that if you could back up your claim that Imperial Guard can be played as though their troops are individually valuable, you would've mentioned a unit, wargear options, and a transport for the unit to take to be the bulk of the army's troops. You did not, so I conclude that you are unaware of such a configuration.

Am I correct?

The current codex lacks the ability to do so in a manner that I find satisfactory. The closest you can come to this is melta vets in chimeras, and it's only the troops with the meltas that are valuable. The lackluster nature of riflemen is more to do with the games current design philosophy more than anything as tactical marines are quite lackluster as well.

Can't quote atm due to phone, but the IG TT matches lore perfectly.

Step 1: place IG army on table

Step 2: wait for enemy turn

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Tabled on or before T3 after achieving nothing

 Selym wrote:
Can't quote atm due to phone, but the IG TT matches lore perfectly.

Step 1: place IG army on table

Step 2: wait for enemy turn

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Tabled on or before T3 after achieving nothing

And immediately after you're tabled the space marines sweep in and crush the enemy without a loss, forever showing the superiority of the Spessssss Mahrines

 Selym wrote:
Can't quote atm due to phone, but the IG TT matches lore perfectly.

Step 1: place IG army on table

Step 2: wait for enemy turn

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Tabled on or before T3 after achieving nothing

You just described my last game with Sisters of Battle versus Orks.

Except I think it actually took until turn 4 or 5 to get tabled. But the game was over LONG before that.

Also it's been getting more and more common to get slaughtered without inflicting much damage in return.

One time I managed to eke out a win.

It was back in 5th, maybe early 6th, and by the end of the game I had one Scout with a Sniper Rifle left. He'd managed to hunker down behind a Defence Line (not an Aegis one) while barely being in range to claim the objective worth 4 points. It was just barely enough to win the game.

He held on by going to ground at every opportunity and passing a veritable fethload of 2+ cover saves inflicted by two squads of Lootas, Grotzookas, Big Shootas from a Boyz mob, even a Shokk Attack Gun, from pretty much the entire remainder of the Ork army, for 2-3 turns.

It's one of those moments which makes you realize that no matter how obvious it is that you're gonna get wiped out, there's always hope. And I've seen enough highlights from PvP matches in video games like Heroes of the Storm and Overwatch to conclude that there's never a time to just give up. Because those moments where everyone knows you're about to lose, and badly, and then you perform some amazing clutch save and manage to win... they happen to someone every damn day. But if you just give up, you give up the chance to even try for that.

It doesn't much help that on the rare occasion my IG army sees T4, it's just one or two low-power units left. Any objectives are held by the enemy (because IG have the mobility of a snail), and it's impossible to do significant damage.

The day I swapped to a BT army, I started krumping face without even having to get to know my army...

 Purifier wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The only thing they were really allied in for was more Drop Pods and that was stopped.

The army will almost disappear entirely. Watch.

Top player Adepticon 2016 picked them specifically to get a Sanguinary priest. A model so good he was willing to pay a 66 point tax for a 120 point model. He didn't get a single Drop Pod from it.
Does that make the codex fine, that it has one OP HQ choice? No, of course not. One HQ choice hardly makes an army. But it does show that it has something to offer, which is more than you can say for most codices. And I haven't heard one BA player say "Well, the Sanguinary Priest is really good..." because they would never admit to that. And if they can't admit to that, then I why should anything else they say be taken seriously? If you just go "MY EVERYTHING IS BAD!" and then I can point to at least one thing that clearly isn't, then that makes me think that you're just blowing it all out of proportion.

So honestly, at this point you can say whatever you want. Since I know you would never admit to a single good model, I know that you will bend it any way you can to be martyrs and I can't really trust a single word you say.

Did you REALLY call the Priest OP? A two wound 3+/5+++ isn't op in any sense of the word.

You're also using a bad argument. One time somebody brought rubric marines. We hadn't seen anything since because these are what we call freak occurrences.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The only thing they were really allied in for was more Drop Pods and that was stopped.

The army will almost disappear entirely. Watch.

Top player Adepticon 2016 picked them specifically to get a Sanguinary priest. A model so good he was willing to pay a 66 point tax for a 120 point model. He didn't get a single Drop Pod from it.
Does that make the codex fine, that it has one OP HQ choice? No, of course not. One HQ choice hardly makes an army. But it does show that it has something to offer, which is more than you can say for most codices. And I haven't heard one BA player say "Well, the Sanguinary Priest is really good..." because they would never admit to that. And if they can't admit to that, then I why should anything else they say be taken seriously? If you just go "MY EVERYTHING IS BAD!" and then I can point to at least one thing that clearly isn't, then that makes me think that you're just blowing it all out of proportion.

So honestly, at this point you can say whatever you want. Since I know you would never admit to a single good model, I know that you will bend it any way you can to be martyrs and I can't really trust a single word you say.

Did you REALLY call the Priest OP? A two wound 3+/5+++ isn't op in any sense of the word.

You're also using a bad argument. One time somebody brought rubric marines. We hadn't seen anything since because these are what we call freak occurrences.

Uhh... I think I've been up too long. I apparently slipped into a delusional world where people take Sanguinary Priests in a unit for the Sanguinary Priest's own stats instead of the special rules they confer to the unit by being in it.

Or maybe I'm asleep or something. I don't think anything I'm seeing here actually exists.

Okay guys, today something really weird happened. I faced 30K Iron Warriors in a Bunker Assault mission (the Last Stand one) and won. Overwhelmingly.

Sledgehammer wrote: The current codex lacks the ability to do so in a manner that I find satisfactory. The closest you can come to this is melta vets in chimeras, and it's only the troops with the meltas that are valuable. The lackluster nature of riflemen is more to do with the games current design philosophy more than anything as tactical marines are quite lackluster as well.

This is pretty much it. Your Veterans initially dont look too bad for their points cost but then you add on the upgrades - some Melta's for a tank killing punch and carapace to keep them alive and suddenly your looking at a T3 4+ save unit costing you 105 points with an optimal threat range of 12". So you want to get your pricey unit close? Fork out another 55 points for a transport and suddenly you have a unit that costs 160 points. And that Chimera might last a turn or two if you are lucky and then your bods are slogging it across the ground on foot.
And Veterans are the BEST IG infantry choice....

Selym wrote:Can't quote atm due to phone, but the IG TT matches lore perfectly.

Step 1: place IG army on table

Step 2: wait for enemy turn

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Tabled on or before T3 after achieving nothing

Ha, yes. And then GW wants you to spend £20+ on ten bods who you will lovingly assemble and paint only to remove on turn 1 or 2 because they are so ineffectually useless.

@Pouncey: Your best bet is to take Veterans with Carapace armour and use a lot of cover. And I mean a lot.

One thing that I have found to be useful is a DISTRACTION CARNIFEX, usually a large Bunker such as the Macro Cannon emplacement. When given a Void Shield and an Enginseer with a couple of Servitor bods it becomes very difficult to remove and extremely hard to ignore.
That's how I won earlier tonight as my opponent was utterly transfixed by the sight of the Bunker and directed all of his killing power at it. In the end he did nothing major to it and the few HP removed where quickly repaired by the Enginseer. whilst the rest of my army quite simply lasgunned him to death (and in one case performed an extremely effective bayonet charge).

 master of ordinance wrote:
I am still laughing at all the "muh mureens ur bad" players, but it is a bitter laugh.
Try playing an army where you dont get armour saves, where you roll bucket loads of dice to get a couple of wounds and your heavy hitters have been systematically nerfed in to the ground.
Welcome to the Guard.

Or alternatively you can keep on "muh poor mureens" and invariably GW will give you yet another hand out.

Coming from someone who doesn't know how to properly run his own army, this is pretty rich. If you can't beat BA with IG, you shouldn't be playing IG and expecting wins. Period. If you love the cool factor or the models etc, keep on keeping on. But if a shooting army with decently priced units can't beat a very poor CC army (with almost all of its units overpriced and underperforming ) in a shooting edition... the problem isn't the Guard codex is what I'm saying. The Guard book is poor, but not terribad like BA Orks and DE. It's been confirmed by countless bat reps, forum members... Pretty much everyone but two broken records in the GD section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oni wrote:
Why does any of this even matter?

Purifier wants folks to join his Sororitas pity party, but can't grasp that they are solidly mid tier when used properly and the fact that almost everyone else knows this.

I will grant him the fact that their E Dex is extremely outdated, as are the models, but the fact that the book holds up better than some dexes that were printed less than a year ago is a testament to its quality.

Dantes_Baals wrote:

Coming from someone who doesn't know how to properly run his own army, this is pretty rich. If you can't beat BA with IG, you shouldn't be playing IG and expecting wins. Period. The Guard book is poor, but not terribly like BA Orks and DE. It's been confirmed by countless bat reps, forum members... Pretty much everyone but two broken records in the GD section.

Citation needed.

Being part of countless IG discussions... Just no.

Do your own research man. I've been in those same threads. Almost everyone agrees IG need help. It's only a handful of broken records that claim that they are straight hopeless. Against eldar and necrons and Tau, probably. Against DE, BA and bugs? Not by a very long shot.

Dantes_Baals wrote:

Purifier wants folks to join his Sororitas pity party, but can't grasp that they are solidly mid tier when used properly and the fact that almost everyone else knows this.

I will grant him the fact that their E Dex is extremely outdated, as are the models, but the fact that the book holds up better than some dexes that were printed less than a year ago is a testament to its quality.

The broken record BA whine strikes again and makes up what others are saying. I'm not sayibg Sisters need pity, I'm saying they're at best as good as BA and you BA players need to get off your little pity train. Nice deflecting though. Not a single thread without one of the three BA players that are known for whining, but if anyone implies they're equal to another arny then THEY are the ones trying to start a pity train? God damn lol.

No, Sisters might need a real codex, but they don't need pity. And neither does BA, but you're screaming about it like babies in every thread, and it's really wearing my pity thin.

I don't even play Sisters anymore.

 Purifier wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The only thing they were really allied in for was more Drop Pods and that was stopped.

The army will almost disappear entirely. Watch.

Top player Adepticon 2016 picked them specifically to get a Sanguinary priest. A model so good he was willing to pay a 66 point tax for a 120 point model. He didn't get a single Drop Pod from it.
Does that make the codex fine, that it has one OP HQ choice? No, of course not. One HQ choice hardly makes an army. But it does show that it has something to offer, which is more than you can say for most codices. And I haven't heard one BA player say "Well, the Sanguinary Priest is really good..." because they would never admit to that. And if they can't admit to that, then I why should anything else they say be taken seriously? If you just go "MY EVERYTHING IS BAD!" and then I can point to at least one thing that clearly isn't, then that makes me think that you're just blowing it all out of proportion.

So honestly, at this point you can say whatever you want. Since I know you would never admit to a single good model, I know that you will bend it any way you can to be martyrs and I can't really trust a single word you say.

... aaand you just called Sang Priests OP. I almost broke my nose from that facepalm. Thanks man.

Seriously though, I mean no disrespect when I say this, but you are "Donald Trumping" yourself. Just... stop while you're not irredeemably far behind.


@Pouncey, just because units are considered expendable, doesn't mean their deaths don't serve a purpose. Tarpit is one of the most useful tactic the game. Also, if the expendable unit dies, but before/ in doing so gets you an objective like ascendency or dominatiom it's not useless. I've always been of the idea that the IG players mantra should be "for the greater good", because that is how they are most successfully played in my experience. They're an army dependant on the abilities of all of its units. Not like SM/Eldar etc, where every unit is/ can be a Derek Jeter.

Alrighty, martyr-boy. Don't worry, we'll keep patting your head while you keep crying.

 Purifier wrote:

Dantes_Baals wrote:

Purifier wants folks to join his Sororitas pity party, but can't grasp that they are solidly mid tier when used properly and the fact that almost everyone else knows this.

I will grant him the fact that their E Dex is extremely outdated, as are the models, but the fact that the book holds up better than some dexes that were printed less than a year ago is a testament to its quality.

The broken record BA whine strikes again and makes up what others are saying. I'm not sayibg Sisters need pity, I'm saying they're at best as good as BA and you BA players need to get off your little pity train. Nice deflecting though. Not a single thread without one of the three BA players that are known for whining, but if anyone implies they're equal to another arny then THEY are the ones trying to start a pity train? God damn lol.

No, Sisters might need a real codex, but they don't need pity. And neither does BA, but you're screaming about it like babies in every thread, and it's really wearing my pity thin.

I don't even play Sisters anymore.

I think you have me confused with a different poster. I spend most of my posts either offering up advice, calling a stupid post for what it is or sharing my experiences. Hell, I haven't played my BA in almost 6 months. Yea, I occasionally lamen about what they are as opposed to what they should be, or I may explain to someone speaking from his backside how BA actually perform/play on the table, but I VERY rarely if ever start the conversation.

And you say I'm delfecting...

Look man, you don't understand how BA play, and how dependent they are on chancey tactics that rarely work. You also seem very unaware of the potential that Sisters have. If you're not a sisters player, I admit my bad, because I assumed you are. If you are a sisters player and are unable to make the most of them, that's your problem my friend (unless you play in a cheddar heavy, cutthroat meta in which case this whole argument is moot). With BA there is very little if any reliable unit to make the most of. That's a codex problem, universal to all BA players.

There's a reason almost all sisters players lament the age/ price of their models and the lack of a paper codex instead of the army's capability. Can ya guess why that is?

I am torn between CSM and Dark Eldar.

CSM just the lack of update and no where close to being on par with SM. Also their magic is just lame, for being imbued with the powers of Chaos.

Dark Eldar got just an awful, awful update. The loss of our named characters, and vehicle upgrades needed for survivability on top of well, everything else.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Okay guys, today something really weird happened. I faced 30K Iron Warriors in a Bunker Assault mission (the Last Stand one) and won. Overwhelmingly.

Not only is 30k considerably more balanced than 40k (it isn't like 40k Marines who have a weak codex with a few utterly broken combos and formations scattered on top, every unit in 30k is useful), they are also horrifically vulnerable to IG Ap3 artillery spam.

It is not at all weird, it is just you spending so much time telling everyone how terrible your army is that you even start to believe it yourself. If you work to make your lists good and stop facing cheaters, you will find that your situation is really not as bad as you say.

I keep telling him to quit using russes because the game has passed those units by.

I can see him facing an SM aircavalry list with an artillery list and complaining how OP SM are. >.<

Martel, you complain as much as anyone, but you at least do your utmost with your codex to make it work first, so you kind of deserve to complain.

MoO, are you still using your battles with that cheater of yours as the measure of how good your codex is?