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.

Ice_can wrote:

Staight NO it need to be removed from the game and which ever designer though that type of aurs could be costed needs to be sent back to primary school maths classes untill they learn to do some math hammer before every being allowed near even a rules suggestion box let alone a codex.

Guilliman can be great if you remove the buff aura and point cost him appropriately. Though at this point I honestly don't think GW have any intention of fixing codex marines.

Tell us how you really feel, why don't you?


I liked Rites of Battle when it was a battlefield-wide buff as much as the next guy, but aura mechanics aren't exactly awful. I like that it encourages focused spearheads of marine armies, with their heroes leading from the front.

Arua's works on a captain, lieutenant level, but rerolling all failed wounds leads to the BS of people using assualt Cannons to wreck tanks so they got nerf batted like crazy, Guilliman got nerf batted twice and 90% of the marine codex is still not competitive. Heck even the FW marine units arn't actually good enough to compete at tournaments. If that stupid reroll aura goes he might finally end up playable.

Also how in anyway does strategic and logistics master of war(fluff) result in reroll failed wounds as a special rule.

Heck 8th edition even has a rule called strategic disipline FFS the connection is so blatant the rules team have to be as bad an an ork shooting at an alitoc hard to hit flyer to miss that.

Aura buffs are fine and thematic as you say (although I'd rather the captain/LT just join the unit but whatever)

A buff that increases as many units as you can squeeze into a 12" diameter offense by 100% is not okay (re-roll all hits and all wounds).

Re-rolls of 1 is one thing, but re-rolling all misses/wounds on variable amounts of units is next to impossible to balance. That doesn't seem hard to predict with the most basic understanding of game design and really should have came out given any testing. Swinging the offensive output of units by 100% just isn't something you can design around and make things remotely balanced.

It's one of those pants on head stupid things that was done with the marine codex (costs of centurions, design of assault marines, chaplains in general, the stratagems and chapter tactics, tactics not applying to vehicles, plasma/melta cost, reivers, terminators, land raiders, I could probably keep going....)

getting rid of Gulliman's Aura would kinda suck the entire guy's schtick is he's supposed to be the best leader in the Imperium, the problem is more in line with how point costs are done, points are an additive thing, but Gulliman (indeed ALL Auras) are a force multiplier.

bananathug wrote:
Aura buffs are fine and thematic as you say (although I'd rather the captain/LT just join the unit but whatever)

A buff that increases as many units as you can squeeze into a 12" diameter offense by 100% is not okay (re-roll all hits and all wounds).

Re-rolls of 1 is one thing, but re-rolling all misses/wounds on variable amounts of units is next to impossible to balance. That doesn't seem hard to predict with the most basic understanding of game design and really should have came out given any testing. Swinging the offensive output of units by 100% just isn't something you can design around and make things remotely balanced.

It's one of those pants on head stupid things that was done with the marine codex (costs of centurions, design of assault marines, chaplains in general, the stratagems and chapter tactics, tactics not applying to vehicles, plasma/melta cost, reivers, terminators, land raiders, I could probably keep going....)

IMO you're coming at it from an abstract and simplified "games theory" perspective and not "actual game" perspective. Direct and linear balance doesn't have to be a thing. Different units balance differently in different situations, with different inter-unit synergies, against different opponents, etc. Heck, different units have different purposes as products. Some are more useful as game pieces, while some are more spiffy from a fluff perspective, included simply because "it would be neat". (See Forge World).

I don't have too much of a dog in this particular fight though. I couldn't care less about Guilliman as I have no interest in using him.

BrianDavion wrote:
getting rid of Gulliman's Aura would kinda suck the entire guy's schtick is he's supposed to be the best leader in the Imperium, the problem is more in line with how point costs are done, points are an additive thing, but Gulliman (indeed ALL Auras) are a force multiplier.

No you just have to think of how to represent that with something thats not going to totally break the core game mechanics.

Like allow him to
re use a strategum in a phase, take that vect fan boys
Apply a strategum to 2 units instead of 1 (needs playtested)
Regain CP's on 4+ or 3+
Give hims some command ability like all units get objective secured
Guilliman can play upto a 2CP stratageum from codex adaptes astartes for no CP loss once per battle round.

They all need playtested but they can be defined and hence costed in a somewhat balanced wsy.

Postulent wrote:
That is Gulliman's problem really, his aura is so utterly broken that anything it affects must be subpar for it to even out. That is why most space marine units are so bad, they are about as good as best units of other codexes when they are re-rolling everything.

There is absolutely no substance to this whine.

 Primark G wrote:

Postulent wrote:
That is Gulliman's problem really, his aura is so utterly broken that anything it affects must be subpar for it to even out. That is why most space marine units are so bad, they are about as good as best units of other codexes when they are re-rolling everything.

There is absolutely no substance to this whine.

Would you like to provide a Ultramarine list thats won an event since the big FAQ dropped and Guilliman got double nerfed?

There are lots of armies that have not won a major event in 8th edition but are good. Your request has no direct correlation to my statement.

I like the idea of FW being a place for the fluffly, non-gamey models. Specialized products for the collector. Hell don't even give them game rules (maybe go as far as can be used as an official "counts as" model).

But to say that GW couldn't anticipate that Guillimans aura would be problematic seems disingenuous. The math is just so skewed by introducing him it's not hard to figure out that it was a bad idea.

The other issues seem to be a problem with codex creep as maybe they were justified in the index iteration of the game but 36" range, assault 3, s5, ap -3, 2d for 15 points vs a grav cannon @ 24" range, heavy 4, s5, ap-3, d3d for 28 points is flat crazy. Then take the situational aspect that the former goes on highly mobile and reasonably resilient platform while the latter is restricted to 2-3 platforms that move 4-6" while grav is one of the best TAC weapons in the marine codex... They missed both the theoretical and practical imbalance by a mile.

I don't think GW is working from a well thought out place of coherent army design and seem to just be throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks in a codex. I don't think they know what they want marines to be and even less of an idea on how to make that work given the rules in 8th.

bananathug wrote:


The other issues seem to be a problem with codex creep as maybe they were justified in the index iteration of the game but 36" range, assault 3, s5, ap -3, 2d for 15 points vs a grav cannon @ 24" range, heavy 4, s5, ap-3, d3d for 28 points is flat crazy. Then take the situational aspect that the former goes on highly mobile and reasonably resilient platform while the latter is restricted to 2-3 platforms that move 4-6" while grav is one of the best TAC weapons in the marine codex... They missed both the theoretical and practical imbalance by a mile.

I don't think GW is working from a well thought out place of coherent army design and seem to just be throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks in a codex. I don't think they know what they want marines to be and even less of an idea on how to make that work given the rules in 8th.

Yeah, pretty much this. I think maybe GW thinks:"A vehicle with 10W T6 Sv4+ is more squishy than an infantry with 3W T5 Sv2+, so the weapon put on that should be half the price".

bananathug wrote:
I like the idea of FW being a place for the fluffly, non-gamey models. Specialized products for the collector. Hell don't even give them game rules (maybe go as far as can be used as an official "counts as" model).

But to say that GW couldn't anticipate that Guillimans aura would be problematic seems disingenuous. The math is just so skewed by introducing him it's not hard to figure out that it was a bad idea.

The other issues seem to be a problem with codex creep as maybe they were justified in the index iteration of the game but 36" range, assault 3, s5, ap -3, 2d for 15 points vs a grav cannon @ 24" range, heavy 4, s5, ap-3, d3d for 28 points is flat crazy. Then take the situational aspect that the former goes on highly mobile and reasonably resilient platform while the latter is restricted to 2-3 platforms that move 4-6" while grav is one of the best TAC weapons in the marine codex... They missed both the theoretical and practical imbalance by a mile.

I don't think GW is working from a well thought out place of coherent army design and seem to just be throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks in a codex. I don't think they know what they want marines to be and even less of an idea on how to make that work given the rules in 8th.

Actually for correction, the Grav Cannon is only D3 damage in certain circumstances.

bananathug wrote:
I like the idea of FW being a place for the fluffly, non-gamey models. Specialized products for the collector. Hell don't even give them game rules (maybe go as far as can be used as an official "counts as" model).

But to say that GW couldn't anticipate that Guillimans aura would be problematic seems disingenuous. The math is just so skewed by introducing him it's not hard to figure out that it was a bad idea.

The other issues seem to be a problem with codex creep as maybe they were justified in the index iteration of the game but 36" range, assault 3, s5, ap -3, 2d for 15 points vs a grav cannon @ 24" range, heavy 4, s5, ap-3, d3d for 28 points is flat crazy. Then take the situational aspect that the former goes on highly mobile and reasonably resilient platform while the latter is restricted to 2-3 platforms that move 4-6" while grav is one of the best TAC weapons in the marine codex... They missed both the theoretical and practical imbalance by a mile.

I don't think GW is working from a well thought out place of coherent army design and seem to just be throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks in a codex. I don't think they know what they want marines to be and even less of an idea on how to make that work given the rules in 8th.

Short on time, so apologies for not posting a more thorough response atm. But just looking at the weapon comparison, how do you think it compares to the Assault Cannon at 22 points, or the Plasma Cannon at 21. Because I think theres a closer case to be made for those weapons, which have more similar price points. Plasma Cannon in particular offering S8 AP-3 D2 with a 2 shot average and the same range. I also think the durability of the DE weapon platforms are often over represented, and the armies function quite differently.

Maybe the Desintegrator is undercosted, it might go up in price next time araound anyways.

As for Guilliman, I think he's in there more for "cool" than any specific game design function. He only really works for UM and even then, as many have said he's not exactly winning tournaments any more. I consider him such an outlier model that his relevance to overall codex balance seems pretty limited.

The Primaris really need to be revisited in order to make SMs better, imo.

I've been playing DW since the codex dropped, pretty much exclusively, and have had such a blast getting to do things that I should have been able to do with my marines all along.

For example, taking a 6-man intercessor squad with 4 hellblasters along for the ride. This squad is so tactically flexible compared to vanilla primaris. For a start, it can deepstrike in for 1CP, giving my hellblasters double protection: intercessor bullet sponges, and a turn off the board (DS into my own deployment zone has happened more than once). I can slingshot them forward with the beacon relic my cap carries, for an alpha strike.

Best of all, I can combat squad them down to 2 squads, each with 3 intercessors and 2 hellblasters; each 5-man squad here costs 128pts, and each marine has a gun worth taking, especially with native rerolling 1s to wound. With their cap's rerolls, and the right mission tactics, each 5-man squad built like this can shoot 5.2 damage onto a daemon prince. That's crazy, compared to the 1.3 damage that a standard intercessor squad would do.

In short, primaris need a reboot to reflect some of this great stuff across the chapters. Their rigidity is what's holding them back and making them so middling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(If it's not obvious from my post, I recommend proxying DW to any frustrated SM player. They're solid as heck, and have the most interesting troops choices in the game right now. Of course they're not top table material, but they really do *feel* like a marine army.)

 Insectum7 wrote:
So here's what I learned today: Being able to move with no penalty has no value. Maneuvering to deny cover has no value. And maneuvering to snipe characters has no value. I mean, why would you want the ability to take advantage of your opoonents board position or anything like that? :/

I think we're done here.

I'm not sure if the other poster was able to impart what they meant sufficiently. Those things absolutely have value.

But they do not have much value on a unit that can reach out without needing to maneuver to do so, isn't meant to take on the role of a character sniper because that's a one way ticket to scrap town, and whose range should be used as a defensive asset that far outweighs the perceived value of its mobility. It has a role, and it should play to that role. Getting bogged down in a unit's potential flexibility is a massive pitfall for marine armies everywhere. The ability to do something does not in any way create value for a unit that shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Full stop.

Let's also ignore the fact that the Fire Raptor is so expensive that the only fires it's starting is on the shelf where it'll sit for the next 3 years

Martel732 wrote:
Bobby G should have affected all Imperium equally. Much easier to balance.

The way I would fix him. Drop him to 280 points. He gives a 12" reroll all hits bubble to ultras and retains his other ability for imperium units. Flat out remove the reroll wounds aura and maybe give him plus 1 attack to compensate. Also make his fist do something.

Come on Insect.

Plasma with less shots, marginally more str, still heavy so minuses to hit, a 1/6 (or worse given all the -1, marginal -2 and rare but existing -3s to hit) chance to blow the model using up if we are going for 2d (so add that 7 points onto the cost of the weapon so it's sitting at 28 points too) and still costs more. Hell dark angels which increase the damage output by 50-100% of those weapons for 1cp still aren't performing (but at least the math is better). The new armigers with basically 2x pred auto cannons on a platform with better movement, wounds, close combat, PoTMS and army tactics for roughly 20% cost increase.

Math hammering out all of the weapons marines are lacking (read suck). 20-50%+ ON OUR BEST WEAPONS disadvantage across the board which is the result of balancing the dex around receiving free re-rolls of hits and wounds (IMHO). Assault cannons crushed by tau options, eldar and DE options but yet GW thought they needed a price INCREASE!?!?! Then we get into the "durability" of our troops and see the same disadvantage (although it's not quite as bad across the board but against the meta weapons we really suffer.)

Deathwatch getting special weapon ammo and free re-roll to wounds for a 5-10% cost increase (for what turns out to be a 30%ish increase in offensive capacity) and being basically competitive illustrates the mathematical disadvantage marines are starting with. Then I take a look at their strats and dream about deepstriking for 1cp or +1 to wound...

I love your optimism and can do attitude with marines. You have a great attitude and really try to apply tactical solutions to what I would consider a lesser dex. You inspire me to look inward for options I'm missing and try to outplay my opponent but that hill is getting steeper and steeper with each new release. I wonder how well you would do with a dex like DE or eldar or new knight soup?

I just look at what marines have and realize we are being left in the dust. I fear that codex Orcs will be the nail in coffin as we barely have enough to deal with their hordes as is, if they get any buffs (which they will and should) there will be 4-5 armies that barring crazy asymmetries in player skill/luck we will be at nearly insurmountable odds against.

I've been beating this drum since guard have dropped and I'm done. I'm going to focus on painting and buying cheap SM models to round out my collection (look at how cheap you can get most marine units on Ebay vs. other good armies). Hopefully once I hit the at least 2 of everything mark I've been aiming for (not counting FW I still need some stalkers, thunderfires, a couple other things) CA 2.0 will have dropped and I'll be able to step back and see where 8th is going and figure if it's a hobby I'm enjoying or just tolerating.

Just run everything as Deathwatch and you're gold basically. Vanilla codex offers these few things:
1. Scouts. They're still excellent
2. Ancients are pretty cool
3. Devastators and Hellblasters

With the latter you're better off with Dark Angel's though.

bananathug wrote:
Come on Insect.

Plasma with less shots, marginally more str, still heavy so minuses to hit, a 1/6 (or worse given all the -1, marginal -2 and rare but existing -3s to hit) chance to blow the model using up if we are going for 2d (so add that 7 points onto the cost of the weapon so it's sitting at 28 points too) and still costs more.

Okay what are we doing here? Arbitrarily adding points to the weapon? "Marginally more strength" in this case means 4+ (normal) or 3+ (overcharged) to wound the very popular T7 vehicles, monsters etc. that the Disintegrator only wounds on 5's. I don't think you're giving this a fair shake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So here's what I learned today: Being able to move with no penalty has no value. Maneuvering to deny cover has no value. And maneuvering to snipe characters has no value. I mean, why would you want the ability to take advantage of your opoonents board position or anything like that? :/

I think we're done here.

I'm not sure if the other poster was able to impart what they meant sufficiently. Those things absolutely have value.

Well here's the quotes:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It has no value on a unit like the Raptor if you ever bothered to read its weapon stats.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It has no value on a unit like the Fire Raptor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
YES it has no value. This isn't difficult to grasp at all.

So if he was trying to acknowledge that there was any value, that really didn't come across.

Lemondish wrote:

But they do not have much value on a unit that can reach out without needing to maneuver to do so, isn't meant to take on the role of a character sniper because that's a one way ticket to scrap town, and whose range should be used as a defensive asset that far outweighs the perceived value of its mobility. It has a role, and it should play to that role. Getting bogged down in a unit's potential flexibility is a massive pitfall for marine armies everywhere. The ability to do something does not in any way create value for a unit that shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Full stop.

Nonsense. "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man." -Patton. The Fire Raptor wouldn't be nearly as useful as a building with a 36" range main gun. If the Fire Raptor couldn't move, or moved slowly, your opponent would have a much easier time dodging the thing.

As for the rest of the codex, Marines are general purpose by design. I think you have two ways of thinking about this. You can try and use them like they're hyper-specialized units, but as many posters have complained about, they aren't pointed competitively for that. Or, you can try to leverage their lack of specialty and use them to do the most annoying thing to the opponent at any given time. You get more of your points worth if you use them as general purpose units. Shooting and assaulting nets you more casualties and makes more of a headache for the opponent than just shooting. Imo it's the way to go, at least for me.

Scouts are not excellent. They are 11 pt models with a 4+ save.

Martel732 wrote:
Scouts are not excellent. They are 11 pt models with a 4+ save.

They're denial units. They die but you aren't to expect them to do anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Come on Insect.

Plasma with less shots, marginally more str, still heavy so minuses to hit, a 1/6 (or worse given all the -1, marginal -2 and rare but existing -3s to hit) chance to blow the model using up if we are going for 2d (so add that 7 points onto the cost of the weapon so it's sitting at 28 points too) and still costs more.

Okay what are we doing here? Arbitrarily adding points to the weapon? "Marginally more strength" in this case means 4+ (normal) or 3+ (overcharged) to wound the very popular T7 vehicles, monsters etc. that the Disintegrator only wounds on 5's. I don't think you're giving this a fair shake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So here's what I learned today: Being able to move with no penalty has no value. Maneuvering to deny cover has no value. And maneuvering to snipe characters has no value. I mean, why would you want the ability to take advantage of your opoonents board position or anything like that? :/

I think we're done here.

I'm not sure if the other poster was able to impart what they meant sufficiently. Those things absolutely have value.

Well here's the quotes:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It has no value on a unit like the Raptor if you ever bothered to read its weapon stats.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It has no value on a unit like the Fire Raptor.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
YES it has no value. This isn't difficult to grasp at all.

So if he was trying to acknowledge that there was any value, that really didn't come across.

Lemondish wrote:

But they do not have much value on a unit that can reach out without needing to maneuver to do so, isn't meant to take on the role of a character sniper because that's a one way ticket to scrap town, and whose range should be used as a defensive asset that far outweighs the perceived value of its mobility. It has a role, and it should play to that role. Getting bogged down in a unit's potential flexibility is a massive pitfall for marine armies everywhere. The ability to do something does not in any way create value for a unit that shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Full stop.

Nonsense. "Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man." -Patton. The Fire Raptor wouldn't be nearly as useful as a building with a 36" range main gun. If the Fire Raptor couldn't move, or moved slowly, your opponent would have a much easier time dodging the thing.

As for the rest of the codex, Marines are general purpose by design. I think you have two ways of thinking about this. You can try and use them like they're hyper-specialized units, but as many posters have complained about, they aren't pointed competitively for that. Or, you can try to leverage their lack of specialty and use them to do the most annoying thing to the opponent at any given time. You get more of your points worth if you use them as general purpose units. Shooting and assaulting nets you more casualties and makes more of a headache for the opponent than just shooting. Imo it's the way to go, at least for me.

And yeah, the Fire Raptor's value isn't about its mobility. It could have a 10" move and still be as useful as it is now, because it overlays for mobility with those weapon stats.

That was literally not difficult to grasp at all from my posts and you seem to ignore it. I don't expect much from the poster putting value in Tactical Marines though.

And for the record quoting Patton doesn't make you special, especially when history can show you he actually wasn't terribly great when you analyze him (along with him not really getting tanks).

 Insectum7 wrote:
snip

I'm sorry, did you just quote Patton in a thread about a tabletop wargame that uses abstraction to simulate battles in a universe of genetically modified super soldiers in the far future and try to use it to explain that a fire raptor rushing into an opponent's lines is a valuable use of the unit that we should be thankful we have access to?

That is by far the biggest, most pretentious stretch of an argument I've ever seen on this, or any forum. And that's saying a lot given the nature of the posts here. I am legitimately speechless. You've certainly allowed your reputation to proceed you. I can but only gape at the time commitment you took to write that comment and think that this was time better spent not saying anything.

Anybody who isn't batgak fething crazy - do not think simply because your fire raptor can move vast distances that it should do so. You can reach what you need to shoot and stay at range so that the threats you face are reduced as much as possible. Do not (I can't believe I have to say this, but apparently some people are writing novels to argue you should) fly it directly into the enemy's deployment to snipe a soft character. I'm sure there's a Patton quote for not flying into suicide, but alas - the field in which I plant my feths is barren, so none can be given this day.

But scouts only deny anything for a single turn. For the low, low price of 165 pts. I can get 41 guardsmen for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
snip

I'm sorry, did you just quote Patton in a thread about a tabletop wargame that uses abstraction to simulate battles in a universe of genetically modified super soldiers in the far future and try to use it to explain that a fire raptor rushing into an opponent's lines is a valuable use of the unit that we should be thankful we have access to?

That is by far the biggest, most pretentious stretch of an argument I've ever seen on this, or any forum. And that's saying a lot given the nature of the posts here. I am legitimately speechless. You've certainly allowed your reputation to proceed you. I can but only gape at the time commitment you took to write that comment and think that this was time better spent not saying anything.

Anybody who isn't batgak fething crazy - do not think simply because your fire raptor can move vast distances that it should do so. You can reach what you need to shoot and stay at range so that the threats you face are reduced as much as possible. Do not (I can't believe I have to say this, but apparently some people are writing novels to argue you should) fly it directly into the enemy's deployment to snipe a soft character. I'm sure there's a Patton quote for not flying into suicide, but alas - the field in which I plant my feths is barren, so none can be given this day.

Patton was a hack anyway.

Martel732 wrote:
But scouts only deny anything for a single turn. For the low, low price of 165 pts. I can get 41 guardsmen for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
snip

I'm sorry, did you just quote Patton in a thread about a tabletop wargame that uses abstraction to simulate battles in a universe of genetically modified super soldiers in the far future and try to use it to explain that a fire raptor rushing into an opponent's lines is a valuable use of the unit that we should be thankful we have access to?

That is by far the biggest, most pretentious stretch of an argument I've ever seen on this, or any forum. And that's saying a lot given the nature of the posts here. I am legitimately speechless. You've certainly allowed your reputation to proceed you. I can but only gape at the time commitment you took to write that comment and think that this was time better spent not saying anything.

Anybody who isn't batgak fething crazy - do not think simply because your fire raptor can move vast distances that it should do so. You can reach what you need to shoot and stay at range so that the threats you face are reduced as much as possible. Do not (I can't believe I have to say this, but apparently some people are writing novels to argue you should) fly it directly into the enemy's deployment to snipe a soft character. I'm sure there's a Patton quote for not flying into suicide, but alas - the field in which I plant my feths is barren, so none can be given this day.

Patton was a hack anyway.

Well those Scouts are likely part of a mandatory tax, so you might as well enjoy them. I dont think anyone denies how stupid the AM Battalion is right now though.

I don't have to bring a marine battalion. I can bring zero marine troops. Because they're all awful.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't have to bring a marine battalion. I can bring zero marine troops. Because they're all awful.

Fair point. When it comes to Blood Angels you can stick strictly with Death Company and Slamguinus stuff.

Well, not DC. They are now garbage.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, not DC. They are now garbage.

Nah. Run Astorath to make them Fearless and you have the optional Forlorn Fury. I'll concede and say they're much worse than they used to be though.

The FAQ took away their only job.

Lemondish wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
snip

I'm sorry, did you just quote Patton in a thread about a tabletop wargame that uses abstraction to simulate battles in a universe of genetically modified super soldiers in the far future and try to use it to explain that a fire raptor rushing into an opponent's lines is a valuable use of the unit that we should be thankful we have access to?

That is by far the biggest, most pretentious stretch of an argument I've ever seen on this, or any forum. And that's saying a lot given the nature of the posts here. I am legitimately speechless. You've certainly allowed your reputation to proceed you. I can but only gape at the time commitment you took to write that comment and think that this was time better spent not saying anything.

Anybody who isn't batgak fething crazy - do not think simply because your fire raptor can move vast distances that it should do so. You can reach what you need to shoot and stay at range so that the threats you face are reduced as much as possible. Do not (I can't believe I have to say this, but apparently some people are writing novels to argue you should) fly it directly into the enemy's deployment to snipe a soft character. I'm sure there's a Patton quote for not flying into suicide, but alas - the field in which I plant my feths is barren, so none can be given this day.

Overreaction much?

The fact remains, if the Fire Raptor was a building it wouldn't have the same value. The fact that it moves fast not only prevents against models ducking behind terrain to avoid it, but also opens up interesting opportunities to take advantage of positioning mistakes or openings forced though attrition.