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.

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

With only a few codex out?

Let's wait for 10-12 more codexes to say if the SM one is the worst. I bet they will remain top 3 even in this edition, maybe top 4 if chaos is allowed to bring FW malefic lords.

I really doubt that deathguard, grey knights and tyranids are better than SM.

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What SM do have are Scouts. 3 units of 5 Scouts cost 165 points and instead of numbers you can use their Infiltration rule to create a pretty big Deep Strike null zone with some clever deployment so you have less reason to fear an Alpha Strike on turn one.

This makes your point 1 void and I stand by my point that Roboute, while powerfull, isn't required in a SM tournament list.

Eligius wrote:

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What SM do have are Scouts. 3 units of 5 Scouts cost 165 points and instead of numbers you can use their Infiltration rule to create a pretty big Deep Strike null zone with some clever deployment so you have less reason to fear an Alpha Strike on turn one.

This makes your point 1 void and I stand by my point that Roboute, while powerfull, isn't required in a SM tournament list.

Void how, here is your errors in judgement:

1) you assumed deepstrike was necessary for anything and that denying the locations would somehow save you

> With a Chaos list you'd simply have troop choices strenching from one table end to the other and marching forward, no deepstrike for you, while none is necessary for them

2) Marines don't have powerful characters to do the heavy hitting, meaning you must invest in transports, so that your heavy hitters don't get wiped on turn 1 if you don't get to go 1st

> With Chaos, you can do the heavy hitting with any unit, due to strategems and spells, even a basic unit like Pox Walkers, can very effectively wound marine vehicles on 3+ and hit on 2+

3) After 2 turns of your shooting Chaos will have more points than they started with due to strategems and on turn 3 they will charge, table wide and table you by turn 4, turn 5 if you're very lcuky

Eligius wrote:

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What? You DO have access to cheap screens. One detachment slot and 200 points gets you FORTY ld 7 objsec bodies with orders AND 3 CP. Just because you choose not to use the tools doesn't mean they aren't there. If you want to play a fluffy mono faction army, thats fine, but if you're serious about being competitive, don't hamstring yourself with artificial restrictions. Play the game to its rules at that point and take advantage of the IMPERIUM key word to its fullest.

 Dovis wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Worst compared to what?
What DG or GK have of comparable?

Are you joking?

DG is the BEST codex by far

Is beyond the point. My criticism was " you cannot compare a codex to ONE faction and say is the worst".
AdMech players jumped in too, in addition to GK ones. I just picked up 2 factions.
Also, your points about DG are fine but you are over-selling it. Is a fine, awesome faction that I love but you still need soup to be on top, and then maybe.

RogueApiary wrote:

Eligius wrote:

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What? You DO have access to cheap screens. One detachment slot and 200 points gets you FORTY ld 7 objsec bodies with orders AND 3 CP. Just because you choose not to use the tools doesn't mean they aren't there. If you want to play a fluffy mono faction army, thats fine, but if you're serious about being competitive, don't hamstring yourself with artificial restrictions. Play the game to its rules at that point and take advantage of the IMPERIUM key word to its fullest.

This really is the crutch of GW's ally system, and why I really do hate it. Since they are making the Imperium all one mega-faction, they can't have any substantial strengths individually over other factions. If they did, it would make the Imperium a mega-faction with every major strength and none of the weaknesses. What this means is that armies like Marines or Ad Mech are designed around running other Imperium armies for competitive, and others like Grey Knights are only designed as a small allied detachment. If they would get rid of this ally system, they could make these armies individually more pronounced and more expressive, promoting their unique strengths without offering it to every other released imperium army, as well as offering some sort of weakness that would exist (say like 'lack of chaff' in marines/GK, lack of elite infantry for IG).

RogueApiary wrote:

Eligius wrote:

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What? You DO have access to cheap screens. One detachment slot and 200 points gets you FORTY ld 7 objsec bodies with orders AND 3 CP. Just because you choose not to use the tools doesn't mean they aren't there. If you want to play a fluffy mono faction army, thats fine, but if you're serious about being competitive, don't hamstring yourself with artificial restrictions. Play the game to its rules at that point and take advantage of the IMPERIUM key word to its fullest.

Exactly, you have to replace marines with IG, the more replacing you do - the stronger the list gets, that is exactly he point, Marines are weak for their points, very few units in their roster are worth the point cost

There's no evidence to suggest that marines need replacing to make stronger. Marines without guard are damn strong.

Eligius wrote:

 Dovis wrote:

Eligius wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

So from that we assume that nobody in the world is good at 40k and plays SM...Hmmmm....

I said nothing of that sort in my post.

Just because a codex can't reliably win tournaments doesn't mean that it's a bad codex: In most cases it's the best player that goes home with the first price.

Tht's exactly what it means.

You can reliably go with CSM /Renegades + DG or Imperial Guard, which are above the rest by a noticeable margin

There are certain things that are a pre-requisite for a good list:

(1) Choice of cheap screening units to absorb alpha strikes

(2) Hard hitting units

(3) Utility options (to get stuff in place to do what you want them to do), comes in the form of psychics, strategems and mobile units/transports


SM doesn't have (1) and that's pretty much why they will not be a top tier list in 8th, they are above average in (2) and mediocre in (3). Gulliman raises (2) to such a height that it can compensate for the lack of (1) and having mediocre (3)

If you're talking competitive, you have to assume the skill gap between players isn't that high and when it isn't that high - the tools they bring do the talking and that's exactly what we see in tournaments.

Regarding point 1:

Space marines don't have access to big units with cheap bodies like Cultists, Conscripts or Pox Walkers to absorb an Alpha strike through sheer attrition: They're just not that kind of army and something you'll need to accept when making a SM tourny list.

What SM do have are Scouts. 3 units of 5 Scouts cost 165 points and instead of numbers you can use their Infiltration rule to create a pretty big Deep Strike null zone with some clever deployment so you have less reason to fear an Alpha Strike on turn one.

This makes your point 1 void and I stand by my point that Roboute, while powerfull, isn't required in a SM tournament list.

Scouts are really squishy for their points. While they can prevent 1st turn deepstrike, they are easily killed by just about anything decent in the game. Basically, if Marine don't get 1st turn, the screen will not exist when Turn 2 comes when enemy deepstrike unit comes in and cannot stop the "move twice" fly units to jump over them (such as Flyrant (especially those supported by Swarmlord) or Daemon Princes) and / or fast moving assault units like Genestealers. By then the Razorbacks will be tied in combat and drag down under either the weight of attacks (Genestealers) or high quality of attacks (Flyrant / Daemon Princes), at minimum, it is gonna be silenced from Turn 2 onwards. That is what even Guiliman cannot stop, since it cannot fix the problem of how squishy marines on foot are in current edition environment for their overcosted points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

EDIT:

And the Annihilator doesn't even come out that badly. The Leman Russ Annihilator with Grinding Advance (its direct competitor) gets 5 BS4+ Lascannon shots, while the Pred gets 4 BS3+ lascannon shots. The only regimental doctrines that help the Leman Russ Annihilator are 1) Cadian (if it never moves) which is essentially the same as having it near a Captain or having Chronus, 2) Tallarn, so the think can fire it's 5th lascannon shot at 4+ even if it moves, instead of 5+. 3) Steel Legion (I guess?) that lets it ignore AP -1 on weapons that have that (meh), 4) Valhallan, who essentially keep it hitting on a 4+ when it should be a 5+ and a 5+ when it should be a 6+ (Since the Pred never drops below 5+ without being dead, this makes them about even) and 5) Mordian, so that it can overwatch on a 5+ if you bought another vehicle to go with it. woo.

The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

 Melissia wrote:
The a quadlas annihilator is a reasonably durable platform for its points, and still perfectly usable. Compared to a lascannon dev squad, it takes more damage before its damage average is lowered (and its average is lowered, not its maximum damage; even damaged it's helped more by a nearby captain than a half-strength dev squad), but misses out on the dev squad's fifth shot on turn one.

I completely agree. That's what I was just looking at: Even without Grinding Advance, the quadlas predator is about on par with the Leman Russ Annihilator; it misses out on one Lascannon shot but has a higher BS, faster movement (both in the absolute sense and in the "doesn't have to move half speed to actually do anything" sense), and is cheaper.

 Lance845 wrote:
Is most eldar shooting on a 3+ or 4+?

Because most armys out there have their rank and file hitting on a 4+ normally. Which means the OP statment that space marines are not hitting anything on their -1 is nonsense.

If eldar are normally bs 4+ then the stratagem being the same cost without the penalty makes a lot of sense. For the same price you get the same chance to hit.

12" range is odd..... But why would anyone have a deepstrike unit they are not placing as close as possible?

Eldar don't have a single 4+ to hit unit in their army. Everything is BS 3+. These strategems are the same cost. The aim do to the same thing. One has a -1 to hit disadvantage and only allowed to use 12" range. To defend this is pretty absurd - it's a clear proof of gross imbalance. The other has 0 restrictions other than the unit you select has to be within 6" of a farseer. Which is going to be in possition to support your best shooting units anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:
With only a few codex out?

Let's wait for 10-12 more codexes to say if the SM one is the worst. I bet they will remain top 3 even in this edition, maybe top 4 if chaos is allowed to bring FW malefic lords.

I really doubt that deathguard, grey knights and tyranids are better than SM.

They are all better. Unless it's ultra marines with guilliman in which case only the tyranids are going to be better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
WTF... Eldar should be better at DSing than SM, different armies have different tricks...

Hrm, deep striking armies are a pretty deep schtick with Space Marines, the whole "drop pod assault" thing and teleporting terminators and whatnot is all pretty iconic Space Marine deep-strikey stuff.

Though you still have drop pods.
And terminators.


The stratagem just lets you "deep strike" things you really shouldn't, like sternguard without a pod.

Ahh yes...the 87 point drop pods that can only deep strike an infantry unit with a max capacity of 10. While other units deep strike for free...or can pay 1 command point to deep strike...this codex is terrible.

Ah, yes, the old "directly-comparable things are different between codices and therefore they are imbalanced" argument.

Because nowhere in the history of gaming have there been two directly comparable options in two completely different situations and one was better.

Like wtf, why does a wizard get more spell slots than my fighter. The number of spell-slots is directly comparable but I get less! So unfair, much imbalance.

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

What are you even saying? If you can't win with space marines without guilliman you are a bad player? No...it's actually quite the opposite. If you can't win with space marines without guilliman - that's pretty much the expected result from any player.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ah, yes, the old "directly-comparable things are different between codices and therefore they are imbalanced" argument.

Because nowhere in the history of gaming have there been two directly comparable options in two completely different situations and one was better.

Like wtf, why does a wizard get more spell slots than my fighter. The number of spell-slots is directly comparable but I get less! So unfair, much imbalance.

I don't think dungeons and dragons is even supposed to be balanced. In this case though your fighter would have a higher strength characteristic which allows him to wield more powerful weapons or something like that. There would be a balancing factor or an attempt at one in the least. Anyways...I don't know RPG's. Here is a clear example of 2 strategems that do exactly the same thing - except one has 2 restrictions (to the point it becomes worthless) and the other essentially has no restriction(to the point that deep striking anything against this army is just giving away a unit) - is there a balancing factor here? Are marines so wildly better than eldar that eldar need their stratagems to be twice as good to beat them?

Its pretty easy to claim marines are the worst when we ignore all tournament results and make some baseless emotional, hyperbolic arguments not grounded in reality.

Its probably easier to just play the victim and ignore all the lists that have made it to the top tables without G-man.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ah, yes, the old "directly-comparable things are different between codices and therefore they are imbalanced" argument.

Because nowhere in the history of gaming have there been two directly comparable options in two completely different situations and one was better.

Like wtf, why does a wizard get more spell slots than my fighter. The number of spell-slots is directly comparable but I get less! So unfair, much imbalance.

I don't think dungeons and dragons is even supposed to be balanced. In this case though your fighter would have a higher strength characteristic which allows him to wield more powerful weapons or something like that. There would be a balancing factor or an attempt at one in the least. Anyways...I don't know RPG's. Here is a clear example of 2 strategems that do exactly the same thing - except one has 2 restrictions (to the point it becomes worthless) and the other essentially has no restriction(to the point that deep striking anything against this army is just giving away a unit) - is there a balancing factor here? Are marines so wildly better than eldar that eldar need their stratagems to be twice as good to beat them?

Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?

And your hyperbole is showing: one stratagem being better does not make "their stratagems twice as good." It makes one stratagem better, that's all we can say.

Yes, I concede that the Eldar anti-DS shooting stratagem is better than the Space Marine one.

I do not concede the point that we can somehow draw wholesale conclusions about the balance of the game from that singular fact.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

uhh what?

-Only raven guard can use the infiltrate just before the beginning of the game stratagem.
-Any Eldar craft-world can use the webway portal.

Then we have Chapter tactics rule which only affects infantry bikers and dreads - Not our tanks...which are actually the only thing that is competitive in our codex. Which is also sad. Every other army? Unlimitted access to their army traits. The only thing the marines have is Guilliman. Is chapter approved going to fix all this?

Some armies are still without Codexes - given that almost every codex so far has been some variety of Marines it is to be hoped that Chapter Approved does not waste even more time buffing the already codex blessed who already have their widespread points drops, free artefacts, unique stratagems, Chapter tactics etc etc.

Leave Chapter Approved to those who are still languishing in the land of the Index and might be still waiting 3, 6 months or even longer (never) for an actual dex.

On you specifics: If the tanks are in your own words "Competitive" well then they don't need further boosts do they?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

Effective against what targets:

Against another Russ (Assuming BS 4+):
3 Lascannons: 2.91 damage
Battlecannon: 1.16 damage

Marine players get criticized for playing soup list.

Then, when Marine players point out they don't have cheap screening units like Cultists, they get criticized for not playing soup lists.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ah, yes, the old "directly-comparable things are different between codices and therefore they are imbalanced" argument.

Because nowhere in the history of gaming have there been two directly comparable options in two completely different situations and one was better.

Like wtf, why does a wizard get more spell slots than my fighter. The number of spell-slots is directly comparable but I get less! So unfair, much imbalance.

I don't think dungeons and dragons is even supposed to be balanced. In this case though your fighter would have a higher strength characteristic which allows him to wield more powerful weapons or something like that. There would be a balancing factor or an attempt at one in the least. Anyways...I don't know RPG's. Here is a clear example of 2 strategems that do exactly the same thing - except one has 2 restrictions (to the point it becomes worthless) and the other essentially has no restriction(to the point that deep striking anything against this army is just giving away a unit) - is there a balancing factor here? Are marines so wildly better than eldar that eldar need their stratagems to be twice as good to beat them?

Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?

And your hyperbole is showing: one stratagem being better does not make "their stratagems twice as good." It makes one stratagem better, that's all we can say.

Yes, I concede that the Eldar anti-DS shooting stratagem is better than the Space Marine one.

I do not concede the point that we can somehow draw wholesale conclusions about the balance of the game from that singular fact.

The eldar one is infinitely better in so far as no player with knowledge of marine stratagems would deep strike next to a big shooting unit. They will just deep strike farther away or deep strike withing 12 inches of a unit that can't hurt them much but out of 12 inch from anything that can hurt them. The eldar one has 0 counterplay - except coming in out of line of site which often means doing 0 damage that turn.

"Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?"
are you saying that the eldar can't use the strategem as well as the marines could? And so the marines strategem was double nerfed to prevent them from abusing it. When in fact - there is no better unit in the game to use this strategem on other than a unit of dark reapers?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets take a look at these stratagems.

-Eldar have a new one called forewarned 2CP. Allows a unit within 6" of a farseer to get a free turn of shooting against any enemy unit that deep strike that turn. Unlimited range, no negatives to hit.
Think 10 man dark reapers....
-Space marine have auspex scanner 2 CP. Allows a space marine unit to shoot at a unit entering from reserves at -1 to hit if they are within 12 inches. So -1 to hit and extremely short range...the enemy has to willing drop within range of a super unit that still wont be able to hit them with -1 to hit. for the same cost.

uhh what?

-Only raven guard can use the infiltrate just before the beginning of the game stratagem.
-Any Eldar craft-world can use the webway portal.

Then we have Chapter tactics rule which only affects infantry bikers and dreads - Not our tanks...which are actually the only thing that is competitive in our codex. Which is also sad. Every other army? Unlimitted access to their army traits. The only thing the marines have is Guilliman. Is chapter approved going to fix all this?

Some armies are still without Codexes - given that almost every codex so far has been some variety of Marines it is to be hoped that Chapter Approved does not waste even more time buffing the already codex blessed who already have their widespread points drops, free artefacts, unique stratagems, Chapter tactics etc etc.

Leave Chapter Approved to those who are still languishing in the land of the Index and might be still waiting 3, 6 months or even longer (never) for an actual dex.

On you specifics: If the tanks are in your own words "Competitive" well then they don't need further boosts do they?

You should take comfort in the fact that your codex is probably already written and it's going to be better than the space marine codex when it comes out.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The eldar one is infinitely better in so far as no player with knowledge of marine stratagems would deep strike next to a big shooting unit. They will just deep strike farther away or deep strike withing 12 inches of a unit that can't hurt them much but out of 12 inch from anything that can hurt them. The eldar one has 0 counterplay - except coming in out of line of site which often means doing 0 damage that turn.

"Wait so you're saying that the strength of one character / army list may in fact exist independently of two statistics taken completely out of context?"
are you saying that the eldar can't use the strategem as well as the marines could? And so the marines strategem was double nerfed to prevent them from abusing it. When in fact - there is no better unit in the game to use this strategem on other than a unit of dark reapers?

Here's some food for thought:

The Eldar one, well, it's one use, and you just have to accept you're going to get shot by it. Doesn't affect my thinking at all. It's unavoidable, so may as well just bite the bullet.

The Space Marine one: you may think it's worthless and not use it at all! But if you do, then I might be in big trouble. So maybe I'll deep strike outside of 12", and then be outside of that crucial rapid-fire plasma range or completely out of meltagun range. Or maybe I can just take the losses - heck, it may be easier to just target a different unit entirely that can't kill me as well - ah crap, that unit is screened. Well, bugger.

Ta-da! The Space Marine one actually affects the opponents planning and psychology more than the eldar one. It can have a meaningful effect on the opponent's thinking and decision loop without costing any CP at all!

Not that I'd expect anyone that thinks mathhammer is the One True God to understand how important it is to affect the opponents planning and psychology...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

Effective against what targets:

Against another Russ (Assuming BS 4+):
3 Lascannons: 2.91 damage
Battlecannon: 1.16 damage

You know the battle cannon is 2d6 str 8 shots right? I can tell that math is wrong just by looking at the results. Here - I will help you.
The battle cannon averages close to 3 las cannons against a non optimal target. t8 is exceedingly rare. Vs t7 the results become laughable. that a 28 point weapon produces MORE damage than 75 points of las cannons against a rhino.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Eligius wrote:
Frankly, if you absolutely need a crutch like Roboute in order to get a decent result with a SM army in a tournament I fear the fault doesn't lie with the codex: I think it's more reasonable to assume that you're not as good at 40k and SM armies as you'd like to believe.

What are you even saying? If you can't win with space marines without guilliman you are a bad player? No...it's actually quite the opposite. If you can't win with space marines without guilliman - that's pretty much the expected result from any player.

No, I'm saying that claiming Roboute is a defacto auto-include your SM army for tournaments is pure hyperbole.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm more annoyed that, on top of vehicles not getting Chapter Tactics (though that would be silly on Ultramarines vehicles), is apparently even Tyranids are getting a Grinding Advance rule on the Tyrannofex. It wouldn't have killed GW to throw Chaos Marines and Loyalist Scum a bone to Predators.

It's worth noting that the Destructor model of predator (the autocannon one) already kind of got it, with the 2d3 rather than 2 shots. They doubled, on average, it's number of shots.

It was part of the reason the battlecannon was so bad on the Russ - the Predator's gun had 1 lower strength and AP but a higher number of hits. Compared to how they were earlier editions, and the LRBT came out the loser.

It's just the Annihilator that misses out really.

It is also important to take note here that even without Grinding Advance, a heavy support Predator Annihilator is a way better tank/monster hunter and is putting out far more damage on average than any Heavy Support Russ variant even with double firing, unless we're talking a hideously expensive stationary russ with Multimelta sponsons at close range. Even with double-firing, the Russ tanks seem to largely be merely "Ok" rather than "amazing" for the most part. Though the Fire Prism now seems to be an autotake x2 in almost every Eldar list looking at the army list forum

Also, talking Autocannon variants, the Predator Destructor went from 2 shots to 2D3 (average 4, max 6), the Leman Russ Exterminator went from a 4 shot Twin Linked Autocannon to...a 4 shot autocannon, it was one of the only units in the game not to get its twin linked rate of fire doubled in its native profile in the Index or Codex in the transition from 7E to 8E. It's weapon has worse range, AP and S than a Battlecannon...and lower average and lower max damage against most kinds of targets...and somehow is more expensive than a battlecannon. Thanks GW!

A battlecannon costs about the same as a lascannon and is as effective as 3 of them on a russ.

Effective against what targets:

Against another Russ (Assuming BS 4+):
3 Lascannons: 2.91 damage
Battlecannon: 1.16 damage

You know the battle cannon is 2d6 str 8 shots right? I can tell that math is wrong just by looking at the results. Here - I will help you.

You know that the 2d6 shots is incorporated in the cost of the platform and not the weapon, right? Because the platform has the special rule?

Or did you think that Malcador's battlecannon should go up in price because the Leman Russ can shoot it twice?