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.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
Extra wounds, modified toughness, etc is awful fixing from a game design perspective, as well as mutilating the fluff...

Or...you could take the 30k approach. Start all of them at 30pts with power weapons, give them more useful guns, and let special fancy Terminators run around with two Wounds and/or better basic armament.

Seriously, how much more would you like to play Terminators if you could get the Grave Warden grenade launcher as a free upgrade on the current models' prices/statline/armament?

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Oh yes, those wonderful Krak Grenades and ATSKNF that are super bonkers!

Spoken like someone who's never had to try and play a game without them.

Yeah, I sometimes wonder if marine players realize how absolutely AMAZING ATSKNF is, especially for free.

On a 30 man tarpit with low initiative it's a good rule. On a 5 to 10 man elite units that sucks donkey balls in CC - it is usually more helpful to your enemies than to you. If you stay locked in combat with 2 marine your opponent is getting free invulnerability to your firepower - THIS IS VERY BAD.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Oh yes, those wonderful Krak Grenades and ATSKNF that are super bonkers!

Spoken like someone who's never had to try and play a game without them.

Yeah, I sometimes wonder if marine players realize how absolutely AMAZING ATSKNF is, especially for free.

On a 30 man tarpit with low initiative it's a good rule. On a 5 to 10 man elite units that sucks donkey balls in CC - it is usually more helpful to your enemies than to you. If you stay locked in combat with 2 marine your opponent is getting free invulnerability to your firepower - THIS IS VERY BAD.

So...automatic regroups and the ability to act normally after regrouping are...what...chopped liver?

Chopper liver if you don't get to use it.

Martel732 wrote:
Chopper liver if you don't get to use it.

Which you don't get to use because you play in a meta that is 100% wall to wall Riptides.

SOME OF US DON'T.

If you aren't killing marine squads to the man, that's on you. Most lists have the tools. Even BA can do it pretty readily. BA aren't weak vs generic marine lists. Just the gimmicks.

Martel732 wrote:
If you aren't killing marine squads to the man, that's on you. Most lists have the tools. Even BA can do it pretty readily. BA aren't weak vs generic marine lists. Just the gimmicks.

You're the one who's arguing that this needs to be the natural and default state of the game, and encouraged in both design and list-building.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Chopper liver if you don't get to use it.

Which you don't get to use because you play in a meta that is 100% wall to wall Riptides.

SOME OF US DON'T.

Anything can look good when nobody builds good lists and people make decisions that bad tactically just for gaks and giggles. What's YOUR point is the question. Terminators and ATSKNF is good when you both don't play the game well at all?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seriously, ATSKNF isn't any much a benefit

It's a massive benefit. Tyranids would love to get ATSKNF or something like it over Synapse, and Mob Rule is much-derided as it is right now compared to ATSKNF.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who cares about getting saves vs Bolters?

People who don't get them. If you don't want your power armor, give them to Orks. I'm sure they'd love to get power armor for basically 2-3 points per model.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Chopper liver if you don't get to use it.

Which you don't get to use because you play in a meta that is 100% wall to wall Riptides.

SOME OF US DON'T.

Anything can look good when nobody builds good lists and people make decisions that bad tactically just for gaks and giggles. What's YOUR point is the question. Terminators and ATSKNF is good when you both don't play the game well at all?

My point is that there's a vast continuum of space in between "nobody builds good lists" and "everybody plays only Riptides and Titans" in which 2+ armour isn't a joke and ATSKNF is extremely relevant. There also may exist play environments in which you're building an army under more restrictions than "play anything in any rulebook precisely as written".

Every single argument I've seen that ATSKNF and Terminators are fundamentally bad also works as an argument that infantry is fundamentally bad. And if you're playing in an environment where infantry exists in the game as a tax so you can take more Titans then yes. ATSKNF and Terminators are bad.

But most of us aren't playing in an environment in which infantry exists only as a tax so you can take more Titans, and it seems rather unpleasant of you to declare that the one true measure of 'viable' or 'effective' is how you play the game and that people who use units that don't work in your meta are a sign of not playing the game well at all.

If you'd really rather 40k die off and have to get replaced with 'Age of Guilliman' with a four-page rulebook because nobody's playing it, feel free to keep telling everyone that they can't play the models they like because they don't work in your meta. And obviously nobody in the world can be playing 40k and having fun unless they're either throwing dice without caring what happens or playing your best-unit-in-the-game-or-GTFO meta.

I'm sorry you think Terminators and ATSKNF are wastes of time. The issue here is that that isn't true of 40k. That is true of 40k as played by your playgroup. And the vast quantities of people playing 40k somewhere else in the world with a different group of people may find a different answer. And their answer may be perfectly valid for their play environment. Which doesn't seem to warrant a judgement from you that their play environment is composed solely of people not playing the game well because the things they're doing in it wouldn't work at YOUR table.

THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THAN YOU.

There is no correct way to use boltguns vs a gundam list. That's the point.

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seriously, ATSKNF isn't any much a benefit

It's a massive benefit. Tyranids would love to get ATSKNF or something like it over Synapse, and Mob Rule is much-derided as it is right now compared to ATSKNF.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who cares about getting saves vs Bolters?

People who don't get them. If you don't want your power armor, give them to Orks. I'm sure they'd love to get power armor for basically 2-3 points per model.

Tyranids are LD5 almost across the entire board. Of course they'd want something like it. Otherwise Fearless does what they need but better. You're also pointing out the issue with Tyranids in general in that in order to use Swarms you NEED Synapse. Synapse ought to provide other benefits depending on the Synapse creature rather than just providing Fearless.

Also people don't care about getting saves vs Bolters because there's plenty of ways to mitigate it. The Orks example is the silliest as any big blob will have a Pain Boy and/or a Field. Nobody has cared about the Bolter for a LONG time. Nobody.

Given that I saw people ranting about Sisters bolter shock being somehow uber-powerful even in to sixth edition, I disagree that "nobody has cared".

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Chopper liver if you don't get to use it.

Which you don't get to use because you play in a meta that is 100% wall to wall Riptides.

SOME OF US DON'T.

Anything can look good when nobody builds good lists and people make decisions that bad tactically just for gaks and giggles. What's YOUR point is the question. Terminators and ATSKNF is good when you both don't play the game well at all?

My point is that there's a vast continuum of space in between "nobody builds good lists" and "everybody plays only Riptides and Titans" in which 2+ armour isn't a joke and ATSKNF is extremely relevant. There also may exist play environments in which you're building an army under more restrictions than "play anything in any rulebook precisely as written".

Every single argument I've seen that ATSKNF and Terminators are fundamentally bad also works as an argument that infantry is fundamentally bad. And if you're playing in an environment where infantry exists in the game as a tax so you can take more Titans then yes. ATSKNF and Terminators are bad.

But most of us aren't playing in an environment in which infantry exists only as a tax so you can take more Titans, and it seems rather unpleasant of you to declare that the one true measure of 'viable' or 'effective' is how you play the game and that people who use units that don't work in your meta are a sign of not playing the game well at all.

If you'd really rather 40k die off and have to get replaced with 'Age of Guilliman' with a four-page rulebook because nobody's playing it, feel free to keep telling everyone that they can't play the models they like because they don't work in your meta. And obviously nobody in the world can be playing 40k and having fun unless they're either throwing dice without caring what happens or playing your best-unit-in-the-game-or-GTFO meta.

I'm sorry you think Terminators and ATSKNF are wastes of time. The issue here is that that isn't true of 40k. That is true of 40k as played by your playgroup. And the vast quantities of people playing 40k somewhere else in the world with a different group of people may find a different answer. And their answer may be perfectly valid for their play environment. Which doesn't seem to warrant a judgement from you that their play environment is composed solely of people not playing the game well because the things they're doing in it wouldn't work at YOUR table.

THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD THAN YOU.

Terminators have ALWAYS been a waste of time because we get folks like you insisting they need to be a wall when that wasn't ever their job to begin with.

The only play environment to discuss is the one with the most hardcore lists, as that's what makes units show their true colors and potential. I don't care about your happy happy joy joy meta. It sounds horrible quite frankly. People need to be punished for bringing bad units and combos and making bad decisions.

Martel732 wrote:
There is no correct way to use boltguns vs a gundam list. That's the point.

And my point is that "there is no correct way to use boltguns vs. a gundam list" != (DOES NOT EQUAL) "there is no correct way to use boltguns".

Some people may not see solely gundam lists. Some people may see no gundam lists at all. Yet you're telling them that gundam lists are the start and end of 40k and anything that's not good against them is garbage. Ignoring the fact that 90-95% of the game isn't good against a gundam list, because some people play units that aren't Monstrous Creatures and take different tools to kill and because GW screwed up when designing the Riptide and made it too good.

 Melissia wrote:
Given that I saw people ranting about Sisters bolter shock being somehow uber-powerful even in to sixth edition, I disagree that "nobody has cared".

Nobody thought that. The codex works off spamming Melta Guns and Flamers (and Exorcists) in a list.
That's why the Sisters codex is midtier but severely monobuild. Anybody trying to use swarms of Sisters won't get any results because that's not how the army functions, as much as the fluff tells you otherwise.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If you'd really rather 40k die off and have to get replaced with 'Age of Guilliman' with a four-page rulebook

This isn't necessarily bad.

Concise and streamlined rules, with discrete and intuitive counters, are very good design.

If 40k's rules were a little less convoluted and byzantine, you wouldn't have skirmisher bike units that are more resilient than elite heavy infantry.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody thought that.

My experience disagrees. In fact it was Marine players who whined about it the most, how Sisters were CLEARLY the better army because they were cheaper ways to get more boltguns.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Terminators have ALWAYS been a waste of time because we get folks like you insisting they need to be a wall when that wasn't ever their job to begin with.

The only play environment to discuss is the one with the most hardcore lists, as that's what makes units show their true colors and potential. I don't care about your happy happy joy joy meta. It sounds horrible quite frankly. People need to be punished for bringing bad units and combos and making bad decisions.

I'm not the one insisting Terminators need to be a 'wall'. I'm the one insisting they need to be cheaper and have more useful weapons rather than forcing every single Terminator to pay for a *bleep*ing powerfist regardless of whether you have any interest in using it or not.

I'm not talking about my "happy happy joy joy" meta. I'm talking about your insistence on justifying a bad position with a stupid false dichotomy.

40k is not divided into my happy happy joy joy meta and your hardcore meta where everything gets to show its true potential. You may want to consider the following list of factors:

*Budget. Some players have less money than others, some players may be just starting. Your reason for not putting $400 worth of Riptides on the table could be "I don't want to spend $400 on Riptides" rather than "I'm not playing the game properly."

*Who's playing what army. You may walk into a gamestore where nobody plays Daemons. Do the players in that store need to be punished for not coming equipped to deal with a Flying Circus list they never see?

*Format. The competitiveness of a unit isn't a constant. It changes depending on list-building restrictions, mission, FAQs, any number of things. A unit that's good if you're playing 1850pts GW-rules-as-written core-book missions may be useless or outright not allowed in Kill-Team. A unit that's good in 1,000pts ITC may be more or less good in 10,000pt Apocalypse. You may think that everything must be judged by its performance in an 1850pt unrestricted core-book-missions game, but that is not the start and end of 40k. Sometimes people might want to play another points level. Another mission. A set of list-building restrictions. Are those people not playing properly because they choose not to play the points level you like to play?

*Sportsmanship. If someone tells you "I'm new, would you mind toning your list down?" is your response going to be "No, you must be punished for bringing bad units! Your 'happy-happy-joy-joy' game sounds horrible!"?

I agree that there need to be consequences for bad decisions. If there's no way to tell decisions apart there's no reason to play the game, because the outcome is going to be the same whatever you do. Where I disagree with you is on how incredibly broadly you've chosen to define 'bad decisions'. A 'bad decision' on your table could be a much better decision on my table or vice versa for reasons completely independent from whether the player is any good at the game.

I'm sorry you think that the only two ways to play 40k are your way (in which people must be PUNISHED for bringing anything outside the top 5% of units in the game) and a "happy happy joy joy meta" populated by people who don't know how to play. I'd really like to know, however, are you thinking other people are going to be more or less likely to want to play against you in particular and to play the game in general if you tell them that?

Martel732 wrote:
There is no correct way to use boltguns vs a gundam list. That's the point.

The way to use Boltguns against Gundams is to holster them and get your ATSKNF guys into assault, while some Invisible Terminators do the real damage with Powerfists.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Terminators have ALWAYS been a waste of time ...

Definitely untrue. They shone in 2nd and 4th for sure, and in 5th the Thunder Hammer guys were incredibly popular for good reason.

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody thought that.

My experience disagrees. In fact it was Marine players who whined about it the most, how Sisters were CLEARLY the better army because they were cheaper ways to get more boltguns.

Just because an idiot whines about it does not make it good. Sisters bring more BODIES, which is very relevant when xenos are gunning down marines like grots. You want the cheapest grots possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There is no correct way to use boltguns vs a gundam list. That's the point.

And my point is that "there is no correct way to use boltguns vs. a gundam list" != (DOES NOT EQUAL) "there is no correct way to use boltguns".

Some people may not see solely gundam lists. Some people may see no gundam lists at all. Yet you're telling them that gundam lists are the start and end of 40k and anything that's not good against them is garbage. Ignoring the fact that 90-95% of the game isn't good against a gundam list, because some people play units that aren't Monstrous Creatures and take different tools to kill and because GW screwed up when designing the Riptide and made it too good.

Boltguns just don't cause enough aggregate damage vs a variety of popular linsts (necrons, gundam, other marines, etc) to be considered as a major factor when list building. I'm sorry that's just the game.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If you'd really rather 40k die off and have to get replaced with 'Age of Guilliman' with a four-page rulebook

This isn't necessarily bad.

Concise and streamlined rules, with discrete and intuitive counters, are very good design.

If 40k's rules were a little less convoluted and byzantine, you wouldn't have skirmisher bike units that are more resilient than elite heavy infantry.

I'm very tired of having this fight so I'm going to say this exactly once and then stop.

Age of Sigmar is infinitely more convoluted and less streamlined than everyone advocating it be used for other things seem to think.

If I want to play 40k I have to learn nine numbers per unit, four numbers per weapon, and two relatively straightforward tables. If I want to play Age of Sigmar I have to learn four numbers per unit, six numbers per weapon-unit combination, and an extra 25-30 numbers for every monster. In 40k right now I need to know 34 numbers to understand both a Battle Sisters squad with a flamer and a multi-melta and a Space Marine Tactical Squad with the same armament (18 for two nine-number statlines and 16 for four weapons (bolter, bolt pistol, flamer, multi-melta). If you translated this over into Age of Sigmar I'd need to learn 56 numbers to understand the same two units (8 for two four-number statlines and 48 for two sets of four six-number statlines for each weapon as used by each unit).

It is easier to look things up in Age of Sigmar. It is not easier to learn to play Age of Sigmar.

Age of Sigmar has the exact same level of convoluted extra special rules 40k has. They've chosen to write them all in the Warscrolls so they can brag about how short the rulebook is without actually cutting any bloat and ensure that everyone has to read every single army book to avoid getting blindsided by things they could not have known were possible from reading one book and the core book.

Taking the Age of Sigmar approach to 40k would consist of magnifying the rules bloat and lying about it.

I'm done. You can have the last word on this.

The only effective unit that I can count on predictably good results from (that uses small arms) is a scout squad in a LSS. Thats mostly the LSS doing the work but 10 str 4 shots is enough to make a str 4 largeblast and a heavy bolter sting vs some units. Heck - if I can't hurt it I can blind it - maybe.

Point im making is that bolters are a decent weapon when you can get them cheaply on an open topped fast transport - that can infiltrate/scout/ and has 2 heavy weapons already for 40 points. When you cost 14 points/have crap transport options and can't get in possition without a suicide machine (drop pod) then bolters are worthless.

Storm bolters are the same - if you could take storm bolters on Vets for 4 points. They would be spammed. On terminators? Useless.

 Xenomancers wrote:
...I can...

 Xenomancers wrote:
...I can...

 Xenomancers wrote:
...I can...

 Xenomancers wrote:
...I CAN...

Are all of us playing 40k at your table, with the same missions, the same opponents, the same collection of models, and the same army-building restrictions you are?

Does the fact that you can't get much use out of a Tactical Marine with a boltgun mean that he's worthless everywhere?

Against competent foes, yes. They mean nothing to my ba. And ba are quite poor outside bizarre anti meta builds.

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody thought that.

My experience disagrees. In fact it was Marine players who whined about it the most, how Sisters were CLEARLY the better army because they were cheaper ways to get more boltguns.

Sorry but that never happened. They're a cheaper way to bring special weapons which makes them better than a Tactical Marine but that's about it. Otherwise I got Bikers or Scouts to use as Troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
There is no correct way to use boltguns vs a gundam list. That's the point.

The way to use Boltguns against Gundams is to holster them and get your ATSKNF guys into assault, while some Invisible Terminators do the real damage with Powerfists.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Terminators have ALWAYS been a waste of time ...

Definitely untrue. They shone in 2nd and 4th for sure, and in 5th the Thunder Hammer guys were incredibly popular for good reason.

4th edition was mediocre at best. I won't speak about 2nd as I didn't play it, but Loyalist Terminators were still garbage at that point per most people here that played 2nd.

5th edition? Nah. They were more popular than the Tactical variant, but that doesn't say much. Being more popular doesn't mean it is any good. It simply means it is better than the alternative.

Army wide leadership-ignoring rules should be gone. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been happy ATSKNF has kicked in, and army wide Fearless ruins like 90% of all cool morale affecting abilities.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seriously, ATSKNF isn't any much a benefit

It's a massive benefit. Tyranids would love to get ATSKNF or something like it over Synapse, and Mob Rule is much-derided as it is right now compared to ATSKNF.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who cares about getting saves vs Bolters?

People who don't get them. If you don't want your power armor, give them to Orks. I'm sure they'd love to get power armor for basically 2-3 points per model.

Tyranids are LD5 almost across the entire board. Of course they'd want something like it. Otherwise Fearless does what they need but better. You're also pointing out the issue with Tyranids in general in that in order to use Swarms you NEED Synapse. Synapse ought to provide other benefits depending on the Synapse creature rather than just providing Fearless.

Also people don't care about getting saves vs Bolters because there's plenty of ways to mitigate it. The Orks example is the silliest as any big blob will have a Pain Boy and/or a Field. Nobody has cared about the Bolter for a LONG time. Nobody.

unbound you might see a painboy in every blob of ork boyz but hard to pull off in CAD barring taking some grots or using the

You need one HQ slot minimum for the warboss or no waaghh. even using the ork horde detachment for 3 hq and 3 troop min you will have 2 painboys max for 3 squads. sure you can take grots for one group, but once you throw in the necessary nobz and power claws you have 672 points for 2 groups of 30 boyz, one has a warboss, and each has fnp. but with a 6+ 5fnp plus some go to ground objective holders that will disappear to bolter fire and templates. trust me, as an ork player SM bolters do just fine to make me pick up models with a shovel. With our terrible leadership they easily make us take tests which will either cost us bodies or just make us run/pinned, and ocne we are sub 10 models we are pretty much useless and running away

 jreilly89 wrote:
Army wide leadership-ignoring rules should be gone. I can count on one hand the number of times I've been happy ATSKNF has kicked in, and army wide Fearless ruins like 90% of all cool morale affecting abilities.

I agree - remove ATSKNF.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Terminators have ALWAYS been a waste of time because we get folks like you insisting they need to be a wall when that wasn't ever their job to begin with.

The only play environment to discuss is the one with the most hardcore lists, as that's what makes units show their true colors and potential. I don't care about your happy happy joy joy meta. It sounds horrible quite frankly. People need to be punished for bringing bad units and combos and making bad decisions.

I'm not the one insisting Terminators need to be a 'wall'. I'm the one insisting they need to be cheaper and have more useful weapons rather than forcing every single Terminator to pay for a *bleep*ing powerfist regardless of whether you have any interest in using it or not.

I'm not talking about my "happy happy joy joy" meta. I'm talking about your insistence on justifying a bad position with a stupid false dichotomy.

40k is not divided into my happy happy joy joy meta and your hardcore meta where everything gets to show its true potential. You may want to consider the following list of factors:

*Budget. Some players have less money than others, some players may be just starting. Your reason for not putting $400 worth of Riptides on the table could be "I don't want to spend $400 on Riptides" rather than "I'm not playing the game properly."

*Who's playing what army. You may walk into a gamestore where nobody plays Daemons. Do the players in that store need to be punished for not coming equipped to deal with a Flying Circus list they never see?

*Format. The competitiveness of a unit isn't a constant. It changes depending on list-building restrictions, mission, FAQs, any number of things. A unit that's good if you're playing 1850pts GW-rules-as-written core-book missions may be useless or outright not allowed in Kill-Team. A unit that's good in 1,000pts ITC may be more or less good in 10,000pt Apocalypse. You may think that everything must be judged by its performance in an 1850pt unrestricted core-book-missions game, but that is not the start and end of 40k. Sometimes people might want to play another points level. Another mission. A set of list-building restrictions. Are those people not playing properly because they choose not to play the points level you like to play?

*Sportsmanship. If someone tells you "I'm new, would you mind toning your list down?" is your response going to be "No, you must be punished for bringing bad units! Your 'happy-happy-joy-joy' game sounds horrible!"?

I agree that there need to be consequences for bad decisions. If there's no way to tell decisions apart there's no reason to play the game, because the outcome is going to be the same whatever you do. Where I disagree with you is on how incredibly broadly you've chosen to define 'bad decisions'. A 'bad decision' on your table could be a much better decision on my table or vice versa for reasons completely independent from whether the player is any good at the game.

I'm sorry you think that the only two ways to play 40k are your way (in which people must be PUNISHED for bringing anything outside the top 5% of units in the game) and a "happy happy joy joy meta" populated by people who don't know how to play. I'd really like to know, however, are you thinking other people are going to be more or less likely to want to play against you in particular and to play the game in general if you tell them that?

The Power Fist is part of the legacy loadout, and what differentiates the Tactical Terminator from other Terminator variants, hence I have no interest in leaving them with regular power weapons. 30k does that anyway.
Now to your other points...

1. I do not have a great budget and have been rebuilding all my armies for a while since a fire. Hell I used to use Tyberos because I liked the model. That doesn't mean anything though. I'm punished when I bring him and that's fine. Everybody has the same choices and they can either save up, scourge eBay, use leftover bitz for converting (which I primarily did for any Marine character I used to have), trade, etc.
2. If your list is not prepared for specific threats, that's your own fault. TAC is still a thing. Either make sure you can sorta handle Flying Circus or build a list that doesn't care.
3. My group doesn't use house rules and you can't consider house rules when talking about armies. That's because house rules aren't universal but the rulebook is. Super simple.
4. I bring whatever list I feel like. It isn't up to me to tone it down or tone it up. I don't expect my opponent to compromise for me, and I won't compromise for my opponent. Only thing we need to decide on is mission and point limit. That's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seriously, ATSKNF isn't any much a benefit

It's a massive benefit. Tyranids would love to get ATSKNF or something like it over Synapse, and Mob Rule is much-derided as it is right now compared to ATSKNF.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Who cares about getting saves vs Bolters?

People who don't get them. If you don't want your power armor, give them to Orks. I'm sure they'd love to get power armor for basically 2-3 points per model.

Tyranids are LD5 almost across the entire board. Of course they'd want something like it. Otherwise Fearless does what they need but better. You're also pointing out the issue with Tyranids in general in that in order to use Swarms you NEED Synapse. Synapse ought to provide other benefits depending on the Synapse creature rather than just providing Fearless.

Also people don't care about getting saves vs Bolters because there's plenty of ways to mitigate it. The Orks example is the silliest as any big blob will have a Pain Boy and/or a Field. Nobody has cared about the Bolter for a LONG time. Nobody.

unbound you might see a painboy in every blob of ork boyz but hard to pull off in CAD barring taking some grots or using the

You need one HQ slot minimum for the warboss or no waaghh. even using the ork horde detachment for 3 hq and 3 troop min you will have 2 painboys max for 3 squads. sure you can take grots for one group, but once you throw in the necessary nobz and power claws you have 672 points for 2 groups of 30 boyz, one has a warboss, and each has fnp. but with a 6+ 5fnp plus some go to ground objective holders that will disappear to bolter fire and templates. trust me, as an ork player SM bolters do just fine to make me pick up models with a shovel. With our terrible leadership they easily make us take tests which will either cost us bodies or just make us run/pinned, and ocne we are sub 10 models we are pretty much useless and running away

It is VERY easy to get multiple CAD for Orks. Grots are a super minimal investment to get your Painboy fix.