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.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
If Grey Knights aren't a real army, then they shouldn't have a codex. They do have a codex, so presumably GW expects them to be a legitimate, stand-alone army.

Sorry bud, but your teamkilling Mary Sues are best played as auxiliaries in a competitive environment. You can't reasonably expect an army designed to screw over a single type of opponent (Demons) to also be balanced against Xenos/other Imperium. Whether you think your increased ability vs demons is worth sucking vs everything else is a separate matter.

At least you're not as bad as the Deathwatch, where even winning a casual game is an uphill fight. Don't even have any anti xenos abilities to justify being terrible at everything.

What do you mean "mine"? If it isn't obvious I play Thousand Sons. And for the record I think making GK's especially good against daemons is remarkably stupid, and that their anti-daemon stuff should be dialed back so they can just be "hyper-elite psyker marines".

People often have multiple armies, so flair is pretty meaningless for drawing conclusions.

It's meaningless to draw conclusions on what army I play, so it's safe to assume I'm a GK player just looking to be overpowered against everything... All right, buddy.

Martel732 wrote:
There is also the bitter taste of expectation. The expectation that I wouldn't have to do crap like this in 8th. If GW tanks my faction, or any faction for that matter, three editions in a row, then they clearly don't want me playing their game. So I won't.

Christ Martel, how salty can you be that you are complaining about your army being bad before it even reached the rumors stage x_x

I guarantee the prices for assault marines and vanguards and such are just copy/pasted from the marine codex. Which is instant failure for ba. We need more bodies. There is no stratagem that fixes concept failure. Just ask the gk.

Yep. There is no way (berzerkers) that anything the same price or god forbid even more expensive than marines (berzerkers) with a 3+ save (berzerkers) and T4 (berzerkers) could ever be made good at melee (berzerkers) regardless of what stratagems (berzerkers) you use or what army traits (berzerkers) you have.

All hope is lost.

Also, berzerkers.

That's one unit out of half a dozen power armor codices and BA won't be getting anything nearly as efficient. Mark my words.

Martel732 wrote:
That's one unit out of half a dozen power armor codices and BA won't be getting anything nearly as efficient. Mark my words.

They're marked.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems unlikely. The last time BA got ANY love was from Matt Ward. It's bad when I wish for the Warddex.

They'll do a lazy cut and paste job and the BA will be the worst power armor list. Again.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems unlikely. The last time BA got ANY love was from Matt Ward. It's bad when I wish for the Warddex.

They'll do a lazy cut and paste job and the BA will be the worst power armor list. Again.

Yep. And then I'll log in and watch you moan about it, and then the sun will come up.

Another day, another dollar.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems unlikely. The last time BA got ANY love was from Matt Ward. It's bad when I wish for the Warddex.

They'll do a lazy cut and paste job and the BA will be the worst power armor list. Again.

See this quote is misleading because the BA have had a grand total of 1 codex since Ward, and that one only became bad when Vanilla Marines got buffed, so it didn't even go 1 full edition of being bad.

Dark Angels, on the other hand, have been the laughing stock since late 4th edition (that's three codexes).

It was bad when it was published. Get real. 6th ed Eldar and Tau stomped all over it the day it dropped.

Yes, DA have had it bad as well. Team Angels of Death have really been cursed over the years. DA were terrible in 2nd as well, don't forget.

Martel732 wrote:
It was bad when it was published. Get real. 6th ed Eldar and Tau stomped all over it the day it dropped.

Yes, DA have had it bad as well. Team Angels of Death have really been cursed over the years. DA were terrible in 2nd as well, don't forget.

Yep, Tau and Eldar stomped all over it.

Geeze MechaEmperor7000 didn't you know this game was only 4 factions? Tau, Eldar, Bad (Red) Marines, and Good (Blue) Marines?

Clearly if it didn't measure up to 7th Ed. Taudar it must truly have been trash.

Most other 6th lists stomped them, too. How many BA players in your meta? Or are you just conveniently forgetting?

Martel732 wrote:
Most other 6th lists stomped them, too. How many BA players in your meta? Or are you just conveniently forgetting?

At the time there were two, and they routinely trashed my armoured company list.

They also usually had close games with my Sisters, though I don't have a w/l for you.

Only time I ever felt like I totally crushed a BA player was in a heresy game with Cybernetica vs BA legion and I barrage-sniped the praetor with Thanatars.

Martel has a superpower of turning literally any thread into a BA complaint thread.

Not a particularly great superpower, mind you. Difficult to fight crime with, or become a super villain.

Superpower nonetheless. We'll call it "Martel's Law - As a thread increases in length, the probability that Martel complains about BA increases to 100%"

Then you are a poor player. There's no reason for an armored company to ever lose to that trash codex. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Of the friends I have that played warhammer and collected them (rather than just borrow my models), about 5 of them out of 10 have BAs (still currently). Of those 5, 2 only have BAs (as in, no other armies) and run them as such. This is in contrast to Eldar (only 1 player has them) and tau (3 players in total owns them). Orks, Dark Eldar, and IG are unheard of.

I play at various stores across the city so there's no set meta for me, but I see Marines the most. I have yet to see anyone with a Dark Eldar Army, only Eldar occasionally, twice I saw an IG force (although it was mostly FW tanks). I mainly see Space Wolves and the occasional Grey Knight outside of marines. I can't tell if the marines are vanilla or not because I usually get a game with someone else and their paintjobs are not indicative of the rules (they don't do existing chapters so I have no idea who they are).

Martel732 wrote:
Then you are a poor player. There's no reason for an armored company to ever lose to that trash codex. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Yep, no way at all that an army with little way of fending off assault gets crushed by deep striking assault units.

Nosiree.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Then you are a poor player. There's no reason for an armored company to ever lose to that trash codex. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Yep, no way at all that an army with little way of fending off assault gets crushed by deep striking assault units.

Nosiree.

Irrelevant deep striking units. Overcosted. Underpowered. Play better.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Then you are a poor player. There's no reason for an armored company to ever lose to that trash codex. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Yep, no way at all that an army with little way of fending off assault gets crushed by deep striking assault units.

Nosiree.

Irrelevant deep striking units. Overcosted. Underpowered. Play better.

Irrelevant? I get one battlecannon shot, that bounces off of 2+ armour, and then they charge me and wreck my units.

My list did have 2 Vanquishers and 2 Thunderers at the time, but the latter were usually Target Number 1 for enemy fire support units (such as, idk, lascannon preds) and were easily shaken or stunned, while the Vanquisher shells could be Look Out Sir'd away.

But sure, go ahead and complain about your codex, to the point where you call me a bad player for losing to it.

Martel732 wrote:
Then you are a poor player. There's no reason for an armored company to ever lose to that trash codex. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Or maybe his opponent's didn't have fixation that army must be all tacticals with ml&flamer

tneva82 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Then you are a poor player. There's no reason for an armored company to ever lose to that trash codex. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Or maybe his opponent's didn't have fixation that army must be all tacticals with ml&flamer

What are you talking about?

Martel, you realise that the point you're making is INCREDIBLY biased?

You're so obsessed with BA being bad that even when people say that they've lost to them, you dismiss it, without any evidence or actual data, as being a player error, ignoring any other argument.

If you win a game, does that mean that I'm just playing badly? If you lose, that's not because you weren't playing badly at all, or just got unlucky? You're ALWAYS 100% on it, but the only way you can EVER win is by someone else being bad? I call false on that entire notion.

I've got no idea why you even bother with this if you have such a massive chip on your shoulder.

I have some evidence. I have the posts from this particular poster. No grasp of math. No grasp of game meta. No grasp of how or why a list is dangerous.

If someone says they had a rough time in 5th vs BA, I take that without question, because BA could do some BRUTAL things in 5th. No questions. 6th/7th? Really? BA lost during unit placement half the time by just being THAT inefficient.

Martel732 wrote:
I have some evidence. I have the posts from this particular poster. No grasp of math. No grasp of game meta. No grasp of how or why a list is dangerous.

If someone says they had a rough time in 5th vs BA, I take that without question, because BA could do some BRUTAL things in 5th. No questions. 6th/7th? Really? BA lost during unit placement half the time by just being THAT inefficient.

I ran the same list in 5th and 6th and 7th because it was fluffy to do so.

Just because I don't want to optimize my lists beyond what was fluffy doesn't mean I have no grasp of things.

But yeah, sure, you're right. I've no grasp of anything.

BA were suppose to be epic in 3rd too but I regularly stomped them with World Eaters (although to be fair WE weren't exactly bottom tier at the time either).

I've also had success with Furiosos (the double-fisters, not the frag cannon ones) and HF-totting tacticals in 7th edition despite everyone saying they're worthless (And by "success" i don't mean I won one game with them, I mean they're consistently good at doing their job; i.e shredding infantry and tearing tanks apart respectively).

What does blood angels have to do with a thread about berzerkers tabling eldar turn one?

 daedalus wrote:
What does blood angels have to do with a thread about berzerkers tabling eldar turn one?

BA being bad means Power Armour Melee is bad meaning this never could have happened.

Don't you get it?

Martel is fast becoming my favourite Dakka user.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Martel is fast becoming my favourite Dakka user.

When you're never sure if the person is trolling or not, that's when you know you have a gold nugget (with appropriate iconography).