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.

RogueApiary wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 vonjankmon wrote:
I would love to see Chimera's useful again but that would require their firing points returning and veterans being worth taking as was stated above.

Scions could likely use a small point bump and then move Veterans back to Troop choices. If the Chimeras had their firing points back and were a bit cheaper I think you would see Veterans tooling around in them again.

I think putting in a kind of platoon requirement for Conscripts would also help a lot. Require two normal infantry squads per conscript squad and limit the size of conscript squads to 20 or 30. I think that would fix the problem without having to increase the point cost of conscripts, limiting commissar effectiveness, or any of the other more drastic fixes that would have a much wider effect than just fixing conscripts.

I think Russes would be worth taking again if you just tossed on a bunch more wounds. Their firepower is a bit meh but I think you would see people taking them again if they had the staying power to hang most of a game. Plus Vendetta's and Valks being tougher to kill than a Russ just feels extremely wrong.

For the most part I think you can balance the IG out by just moving around some units and making a few small changes.

Conscripts could be toned down slightly and still function (reduce their save to 6+ or 7+), alternatively guard could lose access to giant alph/beta strike components. Right now in the game Guard have
1.) The best(tied at worst) screen in the game
2.) The most access to good shooting that doesn't need LOS - this is an issue with the screen because the answer to their damage behind the screen could be shooting, but you cannot shoot what you cannot see, especially with the range it has.
3.) The best suicide deepstrike in the game, expendable plasma squads make a super alpha beta strike against many armies.
4.) Access to a ton of cheap anti-infantry fire, way cheaper than other books.

If you made conscripts have say a 6+ save, made units take a -1 to hit penalty for being out of LOS (and potentially reduced some range, but that isn't as needed in the case of a to hit penalty), recost plasma guns to 10-12 points for scions (maybe have millitarum tempestus have their own points table), raise cost on Mortars and Taurox.

Then buff their lesser units and I think they would be fine. They still have a cheap screen for their units, that will last a while but they will need to expose units if they want good shooting, and will have a bit less shooting overall.

-1 to hit for out of LOS firing and you'd never see arty again in competitive as long as Raven Guard and Alpha Legion are a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You could bring back minimum ranges for arty again, which would serm more reasonable than giving a flat -1 to hit and allowing for counterplay.

Because deploying them in LOS would be a problem? One faced by most heavy weapons in the game. Also you are talking about a match-up with 2 sub factions. Further maybe it means you don't spam them because in some match-ups they are sub-optimal. Minimum range is a poor solution because either it will be so large as to make them useless, or so small as to make no difference, because their screen will keep people out of the minimum range, it also doesn't solve any issue with them on turn 1 alpha striking armies with no real risk of retaliation.

Audustum wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Honestly, I think the LoS issue fixes them handily. The drop plasma hurts but it's SUPPOSED to. The Marine Codex has a Stratagem that gives a unit Intercept and I feel introducing more options like that raises tactical depth and solves plasma issues.

Anything that doesn't need LoS should just be capped at 24" or so. Let it shoot farther if it can draw line of sight, but cap it if it can't.

A single unit with 12 inch range requirement can shoot at -1 to hit for 2 command points? This fixes drop scions IYO?

I said more things like it. Yeah. I'd rather add counterplay then just straight up nerf the unit.

The issue is the point cost - not the counter play.

We really need weapons that become more efficient based on the size of the squad they're shooting, or if the targets have lower toughness.

For instance, consider this gun profile:

Machine Gun
Can be fired as one of two profiles:
Longshot: Strength 4, Rapid Fire 1, 24", AP0
Spray and Pray: Strength 1, Rapid Fire 3, 18", AP0, If the squad size being targeted is over 15 models and has a toughness 3 or less, this gun wounds on 2+. This weapon cannot wound targets with a toughness greater than 4.

As an example.

You might not like this weapon, but just think about the goals:

1. A weapon that is designed to shoot large squads, of low toughness models.
2. A weapon that can't wound anything, so it becomes highly situational to use this profile, to chew through hordes. Otherwise, when shooting at T8, you'd always use the "weaker" profile.
3. A weapon that has greatly diminished effectiveness against T3 models that aren't hordes, like Eldar.
4. A weapon that has greatly diminished effectiveness against T4+ hordes, like Orks.

This general *kind* of weapon is needed in the game. it doesn't exist right now. Anything that is efficient at killing Conscripts is absolutely devastating to Eldar and Orks, and will still be more efficient at killing MEQ than GEQ.

Even in the example I created, both gun profiles are equally effective at killing MEQ.

Breng77 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 vonjankmon wrote:
I would love to see Chimera's useful again but that would require their firing points returning and veterans being worth taking as was stated above.

Scions could likely use a small point bump and then move Veterans back to Troop choices. If the Chimeras had their firing points back and were a bit cheaper I think you would see Veterans tooling around in them again.

I think putting in a kind of platoon requirement for Conscripts would also help a lot. Require two normal infantry squads per conscript squad and limit the size of conscript squads to 20 or 30. I think that would fix the problem without having to increase the point cost of conscripts, limiting commissar effectiveness, or any of the other more drastic fixes that would have a much wider effect than just fixing conscripts.

I think Russes would be worth taking again if you just tossed on a bunch more wounds. Their firepower is a bit meh but I think you would see people taking them again if they had the staying power to hang most of a game. Plus Vendetta's and Valks being tougher to kill than a Russ just feels extremely wrong.

For the most part I think you can balance the IG out by just moving around some units and making a few small changes.

Conscripts could be toned down slightly and still function (reduce their save to 6+ or 7+), alternatively guard could lose access to giant alph/beta strike components. Right now in the game Guard have
1.) The best(tied at worst) screen in the game
2.) The most access to good shooting that doesn't need LOS - this is an issue with the screen because the answer to their damage behind the screen could be shooting, but you cannot shoot what you cannot see, especially with the range it has.
3.) The best suicide deepstrike in the game, expendable plasma squads make a super alpha beta strike against many armies.
4.) Access to a ton of cheap anti-infantry fire, way cheaper than other books.

If you made conscripts have say a 6+ save, made units take a -1 to hit penalty for being out of LOS (and potentially reduced some range, but that isn't as needed in the case of a to hit penalty), recost plasma guns to 10-12 points for scions (maybe have millitarum tempestus have their own points table), raise cost on Mortars and Taurox.

Then buff their lesser units and I think they would be fine. They still have a cheap screen for their units, that will last a while but they will need to expose units if they want good shooting, and will have a bit less shooting overall.

-1 to hit for out of LOS firing and you'd never see arty again in competitive as long as Raven Guard and Alpha Legion are a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You could bring back minimum ranges for arty again, which would serm more reasonable than giving a flat -1 to hit and allowing for counterplay.

Because deploying them in LOS would be a problem? One faced by most heavy weapons in the game. Also you are talking about a match-up with 2 sub factions. Further maybe it means you don't spam them because in some match-ups they are sub-optimal. Minimum range is a poor solution because either it will be so large as to make them useless, or so small as to make no difference, because their screen will keep people out of the minimum range, it also doesn't solve any issue with them on turn 1 alpha striking armies with no real risk of retaliation.

Yay, lets make all guns across all factions the same. While we're at it, why don't we buff artillery to be all T7/8 with 12 wounds and just call them tanks? And what type of tables are you playing on that you can't get a firing angle on a unit behind LOS after moving 10+ inches? Basilisk cannons are freaking huge and even mortar bases eat up a ton of real estate.

If they're running them as Earthshakers with the gakky little toy WW2 models, ITC is going to institute an original dimensions rule soon to force players to build them with a similar footpeint to the OOP FW model.

Right, because only those two factions have -1 to hit penalties. Not like Tau, Eldar, fliers, or any vehicle with smoke launchers are a thing. Also, Marines and Chaos are the vast majority of players and -1 to hit is one of the best chapter tactics, so brushing them off as some sort of edge case is disingenuous as all get out. Marines and Chaos had the highest player counts at NOVA.

A 18-24" min range means they stop firing when the opponent hits the screen on the long edge deployment types. Which should be turn 2 at the latest. It also nerfs them by effectively removing their overwatch.

Also, going by the average scores at NOVA, Marines slightly outperformed Guard. So are we going to nerf Marines too?

 Marmatag wrote:
We really need weapons that become more efficient based on the size of the squad they're shooting, or if the targets have lower toughness.

Well Dunno about the T thing as that is what STR is for

but we already kinda have weapons that get better depending on the unit size its shooting.

they just need to be better.

like the vindi goes from d3 to d6 against units of 5

personally feel like they should of gone a step further and went d3 for sub 5 d6 for 5, 6 for 10. or some flavor of that.

The issue is, again... we don't need a weapon to deal with larger sized units for tyranids hordes, or ork hordes, or even demon hordes (brimstone spam is generally msu anyways). If we add more weapons which scale based on unit size means we'd also need to buff multiple units across multiple armies.

The same applies to deepstrike. Most deepstriking isn't broken, adding more counters might balance guard deepstrike but it just screws up the balance for everyone else.

The issue is guard not paying the same price everyone else does, and anyone arguing for more counter play needs to explain why overhauling half the game is better than nerfing 1-2 units. Yes, I know guard players wnat to deflect to anything other than the issue being their underpriced cheese filled army, but lacking tools to deal with hordes is not the issue. It's just guard. Guard is entirely the issue.

 Marmatag wrote:
We really need weapons that become more efficient based on the size of the squad they're shooting, or if the targets have lower toughness.

The Grav Bombard of the Forgeworld Leviathan does. I think for every 5 models in the unti it gains another d3 hits? I don't remember correctly.

I think the use of more S2 weapons that have rules like,

24" range,S2 Ap 0 Rapid fire 1. If the target unit has more than 15 models this gun is Rapid fire 3.

SilverAlien wrote:
The issue is, again... we don't need a weapon to deal with larger sized units for tyranids hordes, or ork hordes, or even demon hordes (brimstone spam is generally msu anyways). If we add more weapons which scale based on unit size means we'd also need to buff multiple units across multiple armies.

The same applies to deepstrike. Most deepstriking isn't broken, adding more counters might balance guard deepstrike but it just screws up the balance for everyone else.

The issue is guard not paying the same price everyone else does, and anyone arguing for more counter play needs to explain why overhauling half the game is better than nerfing 1-2 units. Yes, I know guard players wnat to deflect to anything other than the issue being their underpriced cheese filled army, but that's not the issue. It's just guard. Guard is entirely the issue.

Well lets just hope gw figures it out when AM codex comes out.

Points updates are pretty needed.

Yep. They really need to adjust some underlying assumptions they have regarding balance, like the price to benefit ratio of HQ buffs and how they scale prices for fodder vs elite units. Those issues are most obvious in guard, but not exclusive to them (it's why named characters and hordes are both such fixtures of the meta).

RogueApiary wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 vonjankmon wrote:
I would love to see Chimera's useful again but that would require their firing points returning and veterans being worth taking as was stated above.

Scions could likely use a small point bump and then move Veterans back to Troop choices. If the Chimeras had their firing points back and were a bit cheaper I think you would see Veterans tooling around in them again.

I think putting in a kind of platoon requirement for Conscripts would also help a lot. Require two normal infantry squads per conscript squad and limit the size of conscript squads to 20 or 30. I think that would fix the problem without having to increase the point cost of conscripts, limiting commissar effectiveness, or any of the other more drastic fixes that would have a much wider effect than just fixing conscripts.

I think Russes would be worth taking again if you just tossed on a bunch more wounds. Their firepower is a bit meh but I think you would see people taking them again if they had the staying power to hang most of a game. Plus Vendetta's and Valks being tougher to kill than a Russ just feels extremely wrong.

For the most part I think you can balance the IG out by just moving around some units and making a few small changes.

Conscripts could be toned down slightly and still function (reduce their save to 6+ or 7+), alternatively guard could lose access to giant alph/beta strike components. Right now in the game Guard have
1.) The best(tied at worst) screen in the game
2.) The most access to good shooting that doesn't need LOS - this is an issue with the screen because the answer to their damage behind the screen could be shooting, but you cannot shoot what you cannot see, especially with the range it has.
3.) The best suicide deepstrike in the game, expendable plasma squads make a super alpha beta strike against many armies.
4.) Access to a ton of cheap anti-infantry fire, way cheaper than other books.

If you made conscripts have say a 6+ save, made units take a -1 to hit penalty for being out of LOS (and potentially reduced some range, but that isn't as needed in the case of a to hit penalty), recost plasma guns to 10-12 points for scions (maybe have millitarum tempestus have their own points table), raise cost on Mortars and Taurox.

Then buff their lesser units and I think they would be fine. They still have a cheap screen for their units, that will last a while but they will need to expose units if they want good shooting, and will have a bit less shooting overall.

-1 to hit for out of LOS firing and you'd never see arty again in competitive as long as Raven Guard and Alpha Legion are a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You could bring back minimum ranges for arty again, which would serm more reasonable than giving a flat -1 to hit and allowing for counterplay.

Because deploying them in LOS would be a problem? One faced by most heavy weapons in the game. Also you are talking about a match-up with 2 sub factions. Further maybe it means you don't spam them because in some match-ups they are sub-optimal. Minimum range is a poor solution because either it will be so large as to make them useless, or so small as to make no difference, because their screen will keep people out of the minimum range, it also doesn't solve any issue with them on turn 1 alpha striking armies with no real risk of retaliation.

Yay, lets make all guns across all factions the same. While we're at it, why don't we buff artillery to be all T7/8 with 12 wounds and just call them tanks? And what type of tables are you playing on that you can't get a firing angle on a unit behind LOS after moving 10+ inches? Basilisk cannons are freaking huge and even mortar bases eat up a ton of real estate.

If they're running them as Earthshakers with the gakky little toy WW2 models, ITC is going to institute an original dimensions rule soon to force players to build them with a similar footpeint to the OOP FW model.

Right, because only those two factions have -1 to hit penalties. Not like Tau, Eldar, fliers, or any vehicle with smoke launchers are a thing. Also, Marines and Chaos are the vast majority of players and -1 to hit is one of the best chapter tactics, so brushing them off as some sort of edge case is disingenuous as all get out. Marines and Chaos had the highest player counts at NOVA.

A 18-24" min range means they stop firing when the opponent hits the screen on the long edge deployment types. Which should be turn 2 at the latest. It also nerfs them by effectively removing their overwatch.

Also, going by the average scores at NOVA, Marines slightly outperformed Guard. So are we going to nerf Marines too?

Is artillery supposed to be good at killing flyers? Beyond which when won't you have LOS to flyers? Making Smoke a good thing to use is a bad thing? There are plenty of tables I have been on that given the essentially infinite range of many artillery units, that they can be hidden very well from most of the table, especially in short edge deployment types.

As for 18" to 24" min range, that only works if the screen doesn't move up, you are deployed properly to get into that range quickly. The prime targets for the artillery are moving up to the screen.

Though if you really want I can say No LOS means you hit on an unmodifiable 5+ I'd be fine with that. Min range just isn't a good rule, as it doesn't solve the main issues with the unit. They used to be worse at shooting when they had no LOS (used to not hit flyers at all.)

Also disingenuous to say marines did better at NOVA when they were basically absent from the top bracket, and many marine armies were taking Guard units in them. As for chapter tactics, Marines taking -1 to hit forgo taking Rowboat.. Those two factions are the only factions with blanket -1 to hit. I really have no issue if particular units are good against artillery.

Further you could go -1 to hit, then give a stratagem something like "Spotters, ignore the -1 to hit for non-los shooting this turn."

Take away conscripts armor save
Reduce the amount of special weapons units with deepstriking can take

Done

Of course none of this solves the area denial, which is half the problem.

Area denial isn't a problem if you can route the unit that's denying you the area. The problem is area denial plus a large amount of the game to kill the screen while the other player just murders your stuff from outside LoS.

Ah yes, area denial. Marines are not good at it so no one should be.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Ah yes, area denial. Marines are not good at it so no one should be.

Area denial negates quite a few armies. Straight up Adeptus Astartes actually can deal with it better than most.

Tau, Tyranids, Genestealers, Harlequins, Orks, all struggle with AM because of the giant shield in the way.

I like how everyone who hates marines assumes that any criticism must come from a marine centric viewpoint. If i was playing a Guilliman parking lot, I wouldn't care nearly as much about Conscripts shielding things, because I can blow those up from range.

You can completely negate commander spam, for instance, by having a swath of conscripts. Commanders will arrive, and will not be within 24" of your artillery or HWT. You'll force them to deep strike out of shooting range of anything meaningful, and then annihilate them, with your range + beta strike. All because you denied them the ability to drop in and actually fight.

The conscripts could vanish from the board after they deep strike in this case, because you have all the tools you need at that point on the table to light them up.

Or you could look at Orks. What can Orks do to get to you?

(a) slog across the board... nope, they will get blasted off the board by things like Wyverns (4d6, reroll wounds, lol seriously?)
(b) attempt to Da Jump / Stormboyz in? Nope, area denial.
(c) drive across the board in trukks or wagons. Nah, those die really fast to IG artillery.

But i guess "marines" therefore "buff guard."

When Chaos wants 6 CP, they bring useless cultists. When Guard wants 18 CP, they bring OP conscripts.

Balance!

Conscripts with commissars is nothing new.
In fact, with combined squads, it used to be 'proper' guardsmen with assault weapons!

So why are they better?

- You now have no prerequisites - you don't need a hundred and umpty ump point platoon for each one you field.
- You actually get your save reliably against small arms
-In theory you can hurt anything
- Orders are automatic and really powerful. Given that a unit cant have a transport, the double move order lets you get your coñscripts into the mid board, and fix bayonets gives you some serious melee power.

I would probably go with taking orders away, if anything.
Renegades and heretics militia have sub flak armour (6+) which doesnt feel too bad.

The commissar is fine -especially with conscripts and yarrick being a very characteristic armageddon list.

 Arkaine wrote:
When Chaos wants 6 CP, they bring useless cultists. When Guard wants 18 CP, they bring OP conscripts.

Balance!

When Marines want anything they scream and whine until GW grants it.
Balance.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
When Chaos wants 6 CP, they bring useless cultists. When Guard wants 18 CP, they bring OP conscripts.

Balance!

When Marines want anything they scream and whine until GW grants it.
Balance.

Please tell us where the Space Marine touched you.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
When Chaos wants 6 CP, they bring useless cultists. When Guard wants 18 CP, they bring OP conscripts.

Balance!

When Marines want anything they scream and whine until GW grants it.
Balance.

As far as I have seen that is just you projecting.

I thought i'd share the batrep from the NOVA invitational, which was from the final table versus Astra Militarum.

For this batrep i'll keep track of them as "AM Player" and "Other Player."

AM player wins roll to go first, and Other Player fails to seize.
Other player concedes.

Pretty interesting tactics he used against AM, at the final table of a major tournament.

 Quickjager wrote:
Lets get with Melissa as well.

What I said about Celestine and the Sisters of Battle still stands. Do you dispute the well-documented fact that Sisters haven't been given any new units since third edition?

In other words, I'm right, and you know I'm right, you're just upset about it.

Galas wrote:
Please tell us where the Space Marine touched you.

sossen wrote:
As far as I have seen that is just you projecting.

So may I presume that the last few editions no longer exist or have existed?

 master of ordinance wrote:

Galas wrote:
Please tell us where the Space Marine touched you.

sossen wrote:
As far as I have seen that is just you projecting.

So may I presume that the last few editions no longer exist or have existed?

Those editions where Space Marines were so bad, they literally needed like 500-600 worth of free points in tanks and transports to compete? (Plus grav spam, I'll concede you that. But Grav was stupid)
But I'm not arguing about how SPace Marines aren't powerfull (In nearly every edition at least theres some kind of space marine flavour that is in the top end of the competitive scene)

I was just taking a laugh about your obsesion with Space Marines. "Imperial Guard..." "But space marines!".

 Marmatag wrote:
I thought i'd share the batrep from the NOVA invitational, which was from the final table versus Astra Militarum.

For this batrep i'll keep track of them as "AM Player" and "Other Player."

AM player wins roll to go first, and Other Player fails to seize.
Other player concedes.

Pretty interesting tactics he used against AM, at the final table of a major tournament.

But Imperial Guard are fan-favourites! They aren't Grey Knights, or Eldar or Tau, so is fine if they are stupidly broken.

The fact that this two armies are... literally 50-60% Imperial Guard is just a coincidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZJfcuvh3E

Imperium vs Genestealer Cults

 Galas wrote:

But Imperial Guard are fan-favourites! They aren't Grey Knights, or Eldar or Tau, so is fine if they are stupidly broken.

The fact that this two armies are... literally 50-60% Imperial Guard is just a coincidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZJfcuvh3E

Imperium vs Genestealer Cults

I don't think people understand just how broken imperial guard is in this edition.

I've started playing Harlequins, because in order to stay competitive with Grey Knights, I would have to be at least 1,000 points of Imperial Guard, which i'm not willing to do. feth that.

 Marmatag wrote:
I thought i'd share the batrep from the NOVA invitational, which was from the final table versus Astra Militarum.

For this batrep i'll keep track of them as "AM Player" and "Other Player."

AM player wins roll to go first, and Other Player fails to seize.
Other player concedes.

Pretty interesting tactics he used against AM, at the final table of a major tournament.

Yeah, I'm sure none of that had to do with the Chaos player having an error in his list and not being able to transport his Berserkers in the assault claws for the final game once it was pointed out. But yeah, a dude totally gave up a shot at winning $1000 the final table because AM so OP.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/6ybh47/nova_invitational_2018_lists/

RogueApiary wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I thought i'd share the batrep from the NOVA invitational, which was from the final table versus Astra Militarum.

For this batrep i'll keep track of them as "AM Player" and "Other Player."

AM player wins roll to go first, and Other Player fails to seize.
Other player concedes.

Pretty interesting tactics he used against AM, at the final table of a major tournament.

Yeah, I'm sure none of that had to do with the Chaos player having an error in his list and not being able to transport his Berserkers in the assault claws for the final game once it was pointed out. But yeah, a dude totally gave up a shot at winning $1000 the final table because AM so OP.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/6ybh47/nova_invitational_2018_lists/

So in other words, the final match at NoVa was:

 Galas wrote:
I doubt theres a point-time invested efficient way to remove Conscripts in the game.

 Quickjager wrote:
To everyone saying point efficient weapons haven't been used against Conscripts. That is because there is literally no weapon that is point efficient. .

Genestealers and Berzerkers would appear to be point efficient, no? If you don't think so, I would like to know why. Seriously.

 Galas wrote:
Conscripts aren't a unit well balanced. And the proof is that that they are used in winning lists in tournaments.

That is the weirdest proof ever. Conscripts were not the only units in those lists, nor does winning automatically mean OP instead of strong.

. . .

 Quickjager wrote:
I can go quote you too Insectum.

Is that a threat? I mean, you could, but make sure to put it in the proper context. If I was truly rude, pointing it out wouldn't really absolve yourself of responsibility regardless. You started this thread. Did you want an echo chamber or a discussion?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You realize Insectum thinks Tactical Marines are good. You really take him seriously at this point?

You might be surprised to know that Tacticals fare better against Conscripts, point for point, than the Scouts you prefer. But more to the point, is this truly the tenor here? The pro-nerf conscripts crowd has to refer to other topics in other threads to discredit the opposition?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I doubt theres a point-time invested efficient way to remove Conscripts in the game.

 Quickjager wrote:
To everyone saying point efficient weapons haven't been used against Conscripts. That is because there is literally no weapon that is point efficient. .

Genestealers and Berzerkers would appear to be point efficient, no? If you don't think so, I would like to know why. Seriously.

 Galas wrote:
Conscripts aren't a unit well balanced. And the proof is that that they are used in winning lists in tournaments.

That is the weirdest proof ever. Conscripts were not the only units in those lists, nor does winning automatically mean OP instead of strong.

. . .

 Quickjager wrote:
I can go quote you too Insectum.

Is that a threat? I mean, you could, but make sure to put it in the proper context. If I was truly rude, pointing it out wouldn't really absolve yourself of responsibility regardless. You started this thread. Did you want an echo chamber or a discussion?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You realize Insectum thinks Tactical Marines are good. You really take him seriously at this point?

You might be surprised to know that Tacticals fare better against Conscripts, point for point, than the Scouts you prefer. But more to the point, is this truly the tenor here? The pro-nerf conscripts crowd has to refer to other topics in other threads to discredit the opposition?

Actually no they don't but you can continue to believe that if you want.

And yes it's totally legit to discredit people when they have incorrect beliefs. You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Scatterbikes from 6th-7th are fair? You really think anyone will listen to the guy that says Riptides from 6th-7th are fair? You really anyone will listen to the guy that says Rubric Marines were ever worth anything until this edition? You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Tactical Marines are good and were ever good?

It's a very easy way to sift through bad commenters.