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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
To be fair I really don't consider sisters of battle an army. It's a space marine spoof army. They have always had OP rules too - they just suffer for the same reason as space marines. Their power armor sucks.

Ah the old "Your army isn't an army" argument.

Yes, Space Marines are the worst army, if all the armies worse than them aren't armies at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"That by itself proves that models are still important. "

No, it doesn't. Conscripts are still points on the table that happen to take up space cheaply and efficiently. Yes, models matter, but points matter more.

No, no they don't.

If you truly believe that, then surely you must believe that over the long run games are completely mathematically predictable. Do you think you could predict the winrate of a given Imperial Guard army over, say, 50 games?

Probably not of an entire army. But I predict enough to judge the value of units for sure.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think I want to lay off hating on guard so much. Initially it looked like the eldar release was going to be weak but then they cut the cost of half the codex by 30%. Now that I have seen tyraind leaks - It is clear. Space marines are just back to having the worst codex in the game again - pigeonholed into using what would be the most gamebreaking unit in any other army (Guilliman) just to be able to compete. GG GW. Good thing I have both eldar and tyranid armies so I can actually enjoy this game.

When was the last time Marines had the worst codex in the game?

7th edition. Same as this one. Worst codex in the game - with one gamebreaking thing if it was removed it would all collapse. In 7th it was gladius. Without gladius - space marines aren't even a competitve army. Without Gladius you'd just pick what characters you wanted out of the book to throw in your superfriends deathstar (that is not codex marines). In 8th it's Guilliman - bad codex - with brokenly powerfull force multiplier.

Please answer me this - it's a clear indicator of how weak the space marine really are. If Guilliman gave reroll hits and wounds to imperial gaurd - do you think gaurd would ever lose a game?

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"That by itself proves that models are still important. "

No, it doesn't. Conscripts are still points on the table that happen to take up space cheaply and efficiently. Yes, models matter, but points matter more.

No, no they don't.

If you truly believe that, then surely you must believe that over the long run games are completely mathematically predictable. Do you think you could predict the winrate of a given Imperial Guard army over, say, 50 games?

Probably not of an entire army. But I predict enough to judge the value of units for sure.

Surely armies are made up of units and it's a simple matter of extrapolation from each unit's performance?

 Xenomancers wrote:
To be fair I really don't consider sisters of battle an army. It's a space marine spoof army. They have always had OP rules too - they just suffer for the same reason as space marines. Their power armor sucks.

Sisters have always had OP rules...?

w...wat?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think I want to lay off hating on guard so much. Initially it looked like the eldar release was going to be weak but then they cut the cost of half the codex by 30%. Now that I have seen tyraind leaks - It is clear. Space marines are just back to having the worst codex in the game again - pigeonholed into using what would be the most gamebreaking unit in any other army (Guilliman) just to be able to compete. GG GW. Good thing I have both eldar and tyranid armies so I can actually enjoy this game.

When was the last time Marines had the worst codex in the game?

7th edition. Same as this one. Worst codex in the game - with one gamebreaking thing if it was removed it would all collapse.

Wait...Space Marines in 7E without the Gladius were the worst codex in the game?

Worse than Orks? Worse than IG? Worse than Dark Eldar? Worse than Harlequins? Worse than Sisters?

Your recollection of 7E I imagine is somewhat radically different than that of most others. Event data would not back up your assertion.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think I want to lay off hating on guard so much. Initially it looked like the eldar release was going to be weak but then they cut the cost of half the codex by 30%. Now that I have seen tyraind leaks - It is clear. Space marines are just back to having the worst codex in the game again - pigeonholed into using what would be the most gamebreaking unit in any other army (Guilliman) just to be able to compete. GG GW. Good thing I have both eldar and tyranid armies so I can actually enjoy this game.

When was the last time Marines had the worst codex in the game?

7th edition. Same as this one. Worst codex in the game - with one gamebreaking thing if it was removed it would all collapse. In 7th it was gladius. Without gladius - space marines aren't even a competitve army. Without Gladius you'd just pick what characters you wanted out of the book to throw in your superfriends deathstar (that is not codex marines). In 8th it's Guilliman - bad codex - with brokenly powerfull force multiplier.

Please answer me this - it's a clear indicator of how weak the space marine really are. If Guilliman gave reroll hits and wounds to imperial gaurd - do you think gaurd would ever lose a game?

Yes.

Because most guard players I know wouldn't take Guilliman, as they play Guard, not soup.

 Davidian wrote:

How about have it only effect one unit per turn as he can only shoot one guy at a time?

That would be a good fix.

It would be also be kind of like the Commissars worked in some previous editions: they could only inspire one unit at a time.

So, if you do want to inspire three units, you have to pay at least 93 points for three models that won't be doing any meaningful killing. And use three Elite-slots, which are on high demand. Or shell over 50 points for a Lord Commissar.

My idea is that Commissars worked like they used to do (like 3-4 editions in the past?) : The first time an unit would fail a morale-check, the commissar executes the leader of the unit (or one model in case of conscripts) and assumes command (getting a free 6" to move to coherency). From here on out, the Commissar is part of the unit and the unit uses the commissars Ld. No more summary executions after that point... unless you have a second Commissar near the unit.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"That by itself proves that models are still important. "

No, it doesn't. Conscripts are still points on the table that happen to take up space cheaply and efficiently. Yes, models matter, but points matter more.

No, no they don't.

If you truly believe that, then surely you must believe that over the long run games are completely mathematically predictable. Do you think you could predict the winrate of a given Imperial Guard army over, say, 50 games?

Probably not of an entire army. But I predict enough to judge the value of units for sure.

Surely armies are made up of units and it's a simple matter of extrapolation from each unit's performance?

No, it's not, and you know that.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think I want to lay off hating on guard so much. Initially it looked like the eldar release was going to be weak but then they cut the cost of half the codex by 30%. Now that I have seen tyraind leaks - It is clear. Space marines are just back to having the worst codex in the game again - pigeonholed into using what would be the most gamebreaking unit in any other army (Guilliman) just to be able to compete. GG GW. Good thing I have both eldar and tyranid armies so I can actually enjoy this game.

When was the last time Marines had the worst codex in the game?

7th edition. Same as this one. Worst codex in the game - with one gamebreaking thing if it was removed it would all collapse. In 7th it was gladius. Without gladius - space marines aren't even a competitve army. Without Gladius you'd just pick what characters you wanted out of the book to throw in your superfriends deathstar (that is not codex marines). In 8th it's Guilliman - bad codex - with brokenly powerfull force multiplier.

Please answer me this - it's a clear indicator of how weak the space marine really are. If Guilliman gave reroll hits and wounds to imperial gaurd - do you think gaurd would ever lose a game?

Its very odd the way you justify a top tier tournament winning codex in 7th as being the worst in the game because it was only due to a massive formation that played exactly like how marines wanted their army to play for a long time. Of course the strength of the codex had nothing to do with half a dozen other support formations, strong units, and generally well costed gear.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"That by itself proves that models are still important. "

No, it doesn't. Conscripts are still points on the table that happen to take up space cheaply and efficiently. Yes, models matter, but points matter more.

No, no they don't.

If you truly believe that, then surely you must believe that over the long run games are completely mathematically predictable. Do you think you could predict the winrate of a given Imperial Guard army over, say, 50 games?

Probably not of an entire army. But I predict enough to judge the value of units for sure.

Surely armies are made up of units and it's a simple matter of extrapolation from each unit's performance?

No, it's not, and you know that.

I do, but I am trying to understand your logic.

Can you tell me 'why' you cant mathematically extrapolate from unit performance to army performance?

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think I want to lay off hating on guard so much. Initially it looked like the eldar release was going to be weak but then they cut the cost of half the codex by 30%. Now that I have seen tyraind leaks - It is clear. Space marines are just back to having the worst codex in the game again - pigeonholed into using what would be the most gamebreaking unit in any other army (Guilliman) just to be able to compete. GG GW. Good thing I have both eldar and tyranid armies so I can actually enjoy this game.

When was the last time Marines had the worst codex in the game?

Early 3rd edition, during the Age of Starcannon?

"I do, but I am trying to understand your logic. "

No, you'r not. Because you have already passed judgment. Don't worry, so have I.

Xenomancers wrote:To be fair I really don't consider sisters of battle an army. It's a space marine spoof army. They have always had OP rules too - they just suffer for the same reason as space marines. Their power armor sucks.

Well, that and the fact that SoB are kind of rare to see out in the wild being played by anyone that is just starting out or not a GW employee. That stuff'll bankrupt you!

Xenomancers wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Honestly I'm a Tyranid player (with about 4000 points worth of them) and with all the things we're getting, I'm genuinely puzzled as to why there isn't a billion threads popping up condemning us like they did with Guard, since we're essentially receiving better versions of everything people complained about them (and depending on how GSC works, we might actually get everything they have).

I think most people just hate soup, but can't hate on marines (because it ain't cool no more) nor SoB (because the internet will maul you) so they went after guard because, reasons.

No it's not that. It's the fact that tyranids have worse durability and are coming to you. They can't camp in their deployment zone and crush you with artillery (they could try but it wouldn't work). Even if you lose to the tyranids - it was probably a fun game reminiscent of star-ship troopers or something. Losing to gaurd you just wish you never played the game and did something more interesting with your day. This is ofc speaking to the original release of the gard codex. Now seeing eldar and nids leaks. I'm not certain they are going to dominate the game anymore. It's probably going to be the eldar or nids pretty soon.

I find that this is only true when both parties aren't involved in setting up the terrain on the board. This was a big issue in 7th with Tau as well, I feel.

There is a lot to be said for simply flipping the script with regards to terrain setup or deployment zones and not just letting one guy control the placement of terrain or having a deployment zone full of the stuff.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Honestly I'm a Tyranid player (with about 4000 points worth of them) and with all the things we're getting, I'm genuinely puzzled as to why there isn't a billion threads popping up condemning us like they did with Guard, since we're essentially receiving better versions of everything people complained about them (and depending on how GSC works, we might actually get everything they have).

I think most people just hate soup, but can't hate on marines (because it ain't cool no more) nor SoB (because the internet will maul you) so they went after guard because, reasons.

If I'm going to be honest, I kind of feel like it's because people haven't ever really considered Guard infantry armies to be "viable". Look at what was necessary in 7th to run Guard Infantry:
-Blob Squads
-Priests
-Commissars
-Inquisitors
-Azrael
etc all jammed into/near the blob in order for it to be remotely threatening.

Now? Now Conscripts are a thing which makes people act like they're the most terrifying enemy to face, ever.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
To be fair I really don't consider sisters of battle an army. It's a space marine spoof army. They have always had OP rules too - they just suffer for the same reason as space marines. Their power armor sucks.

Ah the old "Your army isn't an army" argument.

Yes, Space Marines are the worst army, if all the armies worse than them aren't armies at all.

Sisters of battle are space marines that are girls...they use practically the same vehicles and units - just with different names and get to army them differently. It's the definition of a spoof.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think I want to lay off hating on guard so much. Initially it looked like the eldar release was going to be weak but then they cut the cost of half the codex by 30%. Now that I have seen tyraind leaks - It is clear. Space marines are just back to having the worst codex in the game again - pigeonholed into using what would be the most gamebreaking unit in any other army (Guilliman) just to be able to compete. GG GW. Good thing I have both eldar and tyranid armies so I can actually enjoy this game.

When was the last time Marines had the worst codex in the game?

Early 3rd edition, during the Age of Starcannon?

I joined in 5th, so I've only known marines to be mid to upper tier. I have no clue how they fared from 4th earlier or who was powerful then.

So far I have one vote for 2nd, and one for 3rd.

"Now Conscripts are a thing which makes people act like they're the most terrifying enemy to face, ever."

No, the cheap bodies are just enablers for the host of undercosted tanks and artillery. A manticore is a 150 pt model at least, not 125.

 Blacksails wrote:
When was the last time Marines had the worst codex in the game?

Would you like the Marine answer or the actual answer? The former being "always", the latter being "never".

Martel732 wrote:
"I do, but I am trying to understand your logic. "

No, you'r not. Because you have already passed judgment. Don't worry, so have I.

Yes, actually, I am.

I really do want to understand why, if you truly believe math matters, you cannot predict an army's success mathematically.

Please explain that to me! I'm genuinely curious.

 Blacksails wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think I want to lay off hating on guard so much. Initially it looked like the eldar release was going to be weak but then they cut the cost of half the codex by 30%. Now that I have seen tyraind leaks - It is clear. Space marines are just back to having the worst codex in the game again - pigeonholed into using what would be the most gamebreaking unit in any other army (Guilliman) just to be able to compete. GG GW. Good thing I have both eldar and tyranid armies so I can actually enjoy this game.

When was the last time Marines had the worst codex in the game?

Early 3rd edition, during the Age of Starcannon?

I joined in 5th, so I've only known marines to be mid to upper tier. I have no clue how they fared from 4th earlier or who was powerful then.

So far I have one vote for 2nd, and one for 3rd.

Marines started 3rd as stupid OP and ended shockingly average. They were unplayable against competitive players in 2nd. Marines traditional spot is shockingly mediocre is you average everything out. Which I"m fine with, actually. They were the very definition of average in 5th, maybe a bit below average, actually.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
When was the last time Marines had the worst codex in the game?

Would you like the Marine answer or the actual answer? The former being "always", the latter being "never".

Both? I guess?

I have my own fairly balanced answer for 5th and beyond, but I have no clue about anything prior.

For what its worth, as far as I'm concerned and this forum frankly, marines have either been solidly mid tier to top tier from 5th onwards.

 Blacksails wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think I want to lay off hating on guard so much. Initially it looked like the eldar release was going to be weak but then they cut the cost of half the codex by 30%. Now that I have seen tyraind leaks - It is clear. Space marines are just back to having the worst codex in the game again - pigeonholed into using what would be the most gamebreaking unit in any other army (Guilliman) just to be able to compete. GG GW. Good thing I have both eldar and tyranid armies so I can actually enjoy this game.

When was the last time Marines had the worst codex in the game?

Early 3rd edition, during the Age of Starcannon?

I joined in 5th, so I've only known marines to be mid to upper tier. I have no clue how they fared from 4th earlier or who was powerful then.

So far I have one vote for 2nd, and one for 3rd.

I had marines in mid 4th. Jump Pack Chaplain + Lightning Claws = nitrus-boosted turbo-blender. I threw a Melta Bomb on him once and he plowed through 2 walkers and 40 infantry in 3 turns.

Martel732 wrote:

Marines started 3rd as stupid OP and ended shockingly average. They were unplayable against competitive players in 2nd. Marines traditional spot is shockingly mediocre is you average everything out. Which I"m fine with, actually. They were the very definition of average in 5th, maybe a bit below average, actually.

I'd put them as the average in 5th. They could win tourneys with some combos, but were good to play with and against with good variety of usable units. I liked 5th ed marines, but then again, I liked 5th overall, so maybe I'm biased.

Marines in 4th lost hard to fish of fury and transports were death traps. But assault cannons are pretty brutal. Probably stronger than 5th and the end of 3rd, but not as good as gladius stupidity and the beginning of 3rd.

Why should termagants be the gold standard that Guardsmen are held to though? What if guardsman are fine, and it's termagants who are garbage?

Let's look at how a squad of 26 termagants, the "gold-standard of balance", stands up to two 5-man squads of tactical marines, the "worst unit in the game", with no upgrades, except free chainswords on the sergeants because that's basically auto-take. Both are exactly 130 points. They're starting 24" away, because that's the width of the deployment zone. I'll go ahead and give the termagants first turn so they'll have a leg up. I'll also give the termagants free synapse even though they normally would have to pay at least 72 points to get it, because they're going to need it.

Turn 1:
'Nid turn:
Fleshborer is out of range. Termagants move up and advance to get in range. Let's say they got a 6 (probably spending a CP to improve their chances), so they're barely in range now.

Probably 1/3-ish of the fleshborers can fire, at -1 because they advanced. 9 fire, 3.5 hit (thanks to re-rolling 1s adding 0.5 hits), 1.75 wound, 0.58 failed saves. Most likely 0 space marines die, 10 remain.

Marine turn:
Space Marines move up 6" and double-tap their bolters. 20 shots, 13 hit, 9 wound, 7 fail to save. 19 termagants remain.

The Space Marines now charge, because of course they do. At 6" they'll make it more likely than not.

Termagants take overwatch. They're all easily in range now, so 19 shots hitting on 6s. 3 hit, 1.5 wound, 0.5 failed saves. I'll say one space marine dies to make up for them saving the other 0.5 earlier.

Two sergeants and seven tactical marines have a total of 13 attacks. 9 hit, 6 wound, 5 fail saves. 14 termagants remain. Now they would be taking 7+1d6 more from morale, but lucky for them I gave them free synapse.

14 termagants get 14 attacks hitting on 4+. 7 hit, 2 wound, 0.67 failed saves.

Turn 2:
Nid turn:
The gaunts won't fall back because they'd just get run down with no way to retaliate. So they fight. Repeat above for another 0.67 failed saves, 1 space marine dies.

Two sergeants and 6 tactical marines get 12 attacks. 8 hit, 5 wound, 4 fail saves. 10 termagants remain.

Marine turn:
The marines are not going to fall back because they don't want to back out of a fight that they're winning. The

6 tactical marines fire their bolt pistols for 6 shots. 4 hit, 3 wound, 2 fail their saves. 8 termagants remain.

Two sergeants and 6 tactical marines get 12 attacks. 8 hit, 5 wound, 4 fail saves. 4 termagants remain. They would be wiped here, if not for that unrealistic free synapse I gave them.

Not that it helps much, the termagants are not likely to kill any marines at this point and will be wiped in their next fight phase.

Result:
2 dead tactical marines, 26 dead termagants.

Well would you look at that. The "worst unit in the game" just absolutely blenderized an equal points' worth of the "gold standard of balance", despite going second AND spotting them free synapse. Gee, maybe they're something wrong with one or both of those assumptions. It's almost as if guard players might have a very good reason to not be made equal to termagants.


Edit: removing the quote stack to clean up broken quote tags

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

I had marines in mid 4th. Jump Pack Chaplain + Lightning Claws = nitrus-boosted turbo-blender. I threw a Melta Bomb on him once and he plowed through 2 walkers and 40 infantry in 3 turns.

Was 4th also the rhino rush era? Or was that 3rd?

 Kanluwen wrote:

And what's making those Conscripts more durable?
Oh right...a Commissar, who just got nerfed to hell and back again while the Synapse range just got extended for the same effect.

Yep. I don't understand what you think we're arguing about right now. You seem to just want to complain about how Guard are getting the short end of the stick like you do in most threads. I don't think anything I've said could reasonably be interpreted as saying that Conscripts and Commissars together are still really good. I suppose it's possible that some of the weird workarounds suggested involving relics or warlord traits or whatever keep Conscripts on top, but I don't have enough experience with these to say.

You claimed that you had to spend "at least 90 points" in order to bring Synapse that gets character protection, which I might add is a rather arbitrary goalpost to put up there because y'know, no other army gets anything that brings similar without it being on a character(which means it is on an HQ or Elite choice).

Warriors are a Troops choice that brings Synapse.
When you bring Warriors you get Synapse.
When you bring a Tyranid Prime, he's an HQ choice bringing Synapse while gaining protection for being a character and buffing up your Warriors who you brought along for Synapse.

Now, continue moving those goalposts.

I think if you go back and read my first post, you'll understand all of this in context. I've even repeated the basic point a couple times. Again: the problem people had with Conscripts and Commissars is that the Conscripts are very good (certainly much better than Termagants) except for their poor Ld, and the Commissars are cheap, negate that disadvantage, and are very hard to deal with. They're very hard to deal with because they're characters. While Warriors do make Termagants fearless, it is very easy to kill 3 Warriors and the Termagants are not as good as Conscripts anyway, and so this strikes me as a much less problematic combo. I'm not saying it will definitely not be a problem, but it seems extremely premature to start talking like it's the next Conscript spam.

I actually liked 5th too! My army was ridiculously bad (as tanks couldn't score, even as troops) but it was still really very fun.

I feel like the 5th Edition Armoured Company list hit that fluffy sweet-spot, even if it never won a game. I loved it and miss it dearly.

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Marines started 3rd as stupid OP and ended shockingly average. They were unplayable against competitive players in 2nd. Marines traditional spot is shockingly mediocre is you average everything out. Which I"m fine with, actually. They were the very definition of average in 5th, maybe a bit below average, actually.

I'd put them as the average in 5th. They could win tourneys with some combos, but were good to play with and against with good variety of usable units. I liked 5th ed marines, but then again, I liked 5th overall, so maybe I'm biased.

There were too many lists better than them to be called average. Every snowflake power armor list, including CSM (only because of one build, though), the Orks, and I'd say DE were all better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

I had marines in mid 4th. Jump Pack Chaplain + Lightning Claws = nitrus-boosted turbo-blender. I threw a Melta Bomb on him once and he plowed through 2 walkers and 40 infantry in 3 turns.

Was 4th also the rhino rush era? Or was that 3rd?

3rd. You couldn't use transports reliably in 4th except land raiders. Too death trappy.

 ross-128 wrote:

Why should termagants be the gold standard that Guardsmen are held to though? What if guardsman are fine, and it's termagants who are garbage?

Sure, maybe. My point was just that Termagants seem far worse than Guardsmen. As-is I think that Infantry are a little on the strong side but it's not too bad, and I don't see much reason to take Conscripts anymore. It seemed to me that people were talking like Gaunts would be the new Conscripts because they're cheap models with fearless. I was pointing out that actually they're a lot worse than Conscripts used to be because they're more expensive and have worse saves and guns, and so I'm not very worried about this. I did not intend to express a judgment about the appropriateness of their power level.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I actually liked 5th too! My army was ridiculously bad (as tanks couldn't score, even as troops) but it was still really very fun.

I feel like the 5th Edition Armoured Company list hit that fluffy sweet-spot, even if it never won a game. I loved it and miss it dearly.

I played 7 Russes and 5 Chimeras in 5th when I wasn't powerblobbing. I knew squadrons were awful stuff, but it was a riot when you get all the executioners in range to drop 9 small plasma plates on someone.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Marines started 3rd as stupid OP and ended shockingly average. They were unplayable against competitive players in 2nd. Marines traditional spot is shockingly mediocre is you average everything out. Which I"m fine with, actually. They were the very definition of average in 5th, maybe a bit below average, actually.

I'd put them as the average in 5th. They could win tourneys with some combos, but were good to play with and against with good variety of usable units. I liked 5th ed marines, but then again, I liked 5th overall, so maybe I'm biased.

There were too many lists better than them to be called average. Every snowflake power armor list, including CSM (only because of one build, though), the Orks, and I'd say DE were all better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

I had marines in mid 4th. Jump Pack Chaplain + Lightning Claws = nitrus-boosted turbo-blender. I threw a Melta Bomb on him once and he plowed through 2 walkers and 40 infantry in 3 turns.

Was 4th also the rhino rush era? Or was that 3rd?

3rd. You couldn't use transports reliably in 4th except land raiders. Too death trappy.

Right, I get my old edition history messed up all the time. Hard when you didn't play it.