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.

the_scotsman wrote:

So if you're setting their craftworld to Alaitoc (ignoring the fact that Dark Reapers are always going to be Ynnari), giving them a dedicated warlock for Conceal, spending 2CP for Lightning Fast Reflexes, and another 2CP to trigger Forewarned, can I say that I'm just going to run White Scars, Saint Celestine or whoever else and just turn 1 charge them from downtown?

Alaitoc is probably one of the best craftworlds unless the -1's stacking gets faq'd, and then it's probably one of the worst, i just watched a game where the dark reapers weren't Ynnari, the warlock doesn't have to be dedicated, just within range when it seems like it's a good idea, and it's not like you're just not going to have a warlock, with the rest being reactive options. It's not an difficult setup to have, and it's still effective even if you're missing parts of it.

Meanwhile the imperial setup requires everything to be set up in list building for all of that.

This is rapidly devolving into the mythical "Bullgryn 2++" situation where you bring 200+ point celestine, spend a CP, cast two psychic powers, play on a tuesday, be in cover, and you have an invincible unkillable abusive OP unit!!!!one!

I'm not sure what all went into that combo, but I believe this one is significantly more useful. And from the sounds of it, vastly less contrived.

Also, what unit could possibly have more firepower than 10 Reaper Launcher Reapers hitting on 3s with 20 S5 AP-2 2 damage shots or 10 S8 AP-2 D3 shots plus a Farseer, for 370 points?

I dunno, how about Pask in a punisher? 49 shots at BS2+.
3 Dakkastelans? 54 shots at BS3+.
A stormraven? A Land Raider? Most units of that point value purely focused on long-range shooting are going to put out a heavy amount of firepower. They're one unit. If you're not on a table where you can't either A, land your stuff out of their sight, or B, they are exposed enough that you can get in and focus them down, then I don't know what to tell you other than that you've probably earned the loss of a unit.

And you know what? I'm 100% okay with that. I've been saying that pure GK and SM players have been playing the game fundamentally wrong by only playing with one fraction of Codex: Imperium. I can totally accept that and live with the ramifications of that. I'm just saying that if that's the solution, then I don't want to hear any more whining about the solution..

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

The Annihilator is actually probably one of the better variants, particularly for tank hunting, especially against T8 targets. Against a T8 3+sv tank target, the FW Annihilator is putting out 4.86 wounds for 192pts, a las Vanq is outputting....2.83 for 167pts (3.45 wounds against a T7 target), a Quadlas Predator is doing 5.2 wounds against T7 and T8 targets for 190pts.

Yes, the Annihilator is a lame tank pattern, in it's Malcador variety, Leman Russ variety, and Predator variety.

If only (renegades and heretics) there was a way for your (renegades and heretics) iron warriors (renegades and heretics) to use Leman (renegades and heretics) Russ tanks (renegades and heretics).

 Xenomancers wrote:
Somone just told me to take devestator centurions. I am shocked.

These guys were only good in 7th because you could pair them with a lead blocker, and deep strike with pods. Both of these things are gone.

Who knew people would easily destroy 2 wound models with no invuln?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, the Annihilator is a lame tank pattern, in it's Malcador variety, Leman Russ variety, and Predator variety.

If only (renegades and heretics) there was a way for your (renegades and heretics) iron warriors (renegades and heretics) to use Leman (renegades and heretics) Russ tanks (renegades and heretics).

I don't want a Russ. I want a Predator.

If you're telling people the solution is to ally, you don't get the fundamental issues with internal and external balance.
Allies are supposed to be a supplement, not a crutch. Do you understand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Somone just told me to take devestator centurions. I am shocked.

These guys were only good in 7th because you could pair them with a lead blocker, and deep strike with pods. Both of these things are gone.

Who knew people would easily destroy 2 wound models with no invuln?

3 wounds, but they're 85 points without any gear I think so if you can't kill that you have issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

The Annihilator is actually probably one of the better variants, particularly for tank hunting, especially against T8 targets. Against a T8 3+sv tank target, the FW Annihilator is putting out 4.86 wounds for 192pts, a las Vanq is outputting....2.83 for 167pts (3.45 wounds against a T7 target), a Quadlas Predator is doing 5.2 wounds against T7 and T8 targets for 190pts.

There's nothing T8 being ran that anyone should fear in the first place. It's a niche that doesn't get used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 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.

The Annihilator is one of the worst Russes! Why is being on par with that a good comparison?

Because it's the one most directly comparable to a Predator Annhilator.

What, are you upset that predators don't get battle cannons? You know codices have different options and that's a good thing, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
360 points for a reroll 1's bubble when you can have reroll 1's for free from cadians trait....is not worth it. Guilliman is only worth it with an ultra marines army.

Your consistent comparisons of apples and oranges is not doing you any favors.

Unless you're going to somehow argue the Cadians get re-roll ones while moving, just like Guilliman has (they don't).

But sure, conveniently ignoring data that does not support your viewpoint is, I suppose, consistent with the anti-intellectual bent that some sects of modern American culture has. Fortunately, some of us don't outright ignore data when it doesn't support our narrative; I only pray that GW also uses data when balancing its books, instead of listening to folks like you.

Are you purposely being obtuse or did the point fly right over your head? Lemme bullet point it for ya.
1. Annihilator is a lamer pattern of Russ.
2. Predator, with a similar loadout, is similarly lame.
3. You say it's fine for both of them.

I'm not asking for the fething Battle Cannon. I'm asking for a Predator that's good to run with my Iron Warriors lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
How is the Iron Hands one better than Graia?

It works on every wound, while Graia only works on the last wound before the model dies.

And it helps with Morale losses. That's more even than anything.

It...really isn't. Admech only has 4 units total with only one wound. For every other unit, this 6++ save only applies on half their wounds or less. Also, it comes with a drawback for some reason - kill any characters and the whole army can't fall back anymore.

I love pedantic objections as much as the next guy, but how about a different example so you can try again, but maybe with a response to the actual argument presented: Iyanden and Valhalla. Iyanden is a straight up upgrade over the Valhalla trait - same for vehicles, better for infantry. Does that make Guard the single worst codex?

The key here is that it doesn't actually matter if the conclusion is wrong or right: Your reasoning is such that you can't even get to the point of being right. If your argument is "9/11 was an inside job, and the space aliens put mind control drugs in the drinking water, therefore the sky is blue" you are wrong, even if the sky is in fact blue.

Seeing as they need those 1 wound units for screening and grabbing CP, yeah that's pretty good. Dragoons only get you so far.

Also I'm not saying that the Marine codex is the worst one, but it's definitely near GK and AdMech as we are slowly discovering.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, the Annihilator is a lame tank pattern, in it's Malcador variety, Leman Russ variety, and Predator variety.

If only (renegades and heretics) there was a way for your (renegades and heretics) iron warriors (renegades and heretics) to use Leman (renegades and heretics) Russ tanks (renegades and heretics).

I don't want a Russ. I want a Predator.

If you're telling people the solution is to ally, you don't get the fundamental issues with internal and external balance.
Allies are supposed to be a supplement, not a crutch. Do you understand?

Yeah, I understand.

From my point of view, predators are adequate tanks. If you don't want Leman Russes, what do you want? The Predator is not and never has been as good of a tank as a Leman Russ, so if you want a tank as good as a Leman Russ, then you can't (and never have been able to) use a Predator.

That's a deliberate design choice based in the fluff.

In the vaunted 3.5e Chaos codex, Iron Warriors could take Basilisks - not because "allying was a crutch" but because as the siege specialist Space Marines they needed artillery on par with the Imperial Guard. So they got the Imperial Guard's artillery. It's not hard.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



There's nothing T8 being ran that anyone should fear in the first place. It's a niche that doesn't get used.

Other Russ tanks, Land Raiders, LoW's like Knights and Shadowswords, etc.

Even without the T8 niche, focusing mainly on T7 units, the LR Annihilator is actually still generally by far the best performing tank hunter Russ, and the Pred Annihilator is notably better than every other equivalent tank short of the absurd doubleshotting reroll everything twin fire prism combo that now appears to be mandatory in every Eldar list

 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.

So the good players just "feel like taking Guillimann for fun" despite not needing it? NOT related at all that it's pretty much competive build marines can have.

You indicated marines don't need Guillimann so if you don't win without it you are bad player. On this logic there should be good players without Guillimann on tournament top standings(not neccessarily even win but on say top 10) but there isn't. Therefore either all marine players suck or Guillimann IS essential for any competive marine player. Or good SM players all take Guillimann "just for fun" despite top tournament lists not really being known for being "just for fun" element lists but minmaxed to death lists.

There's saying "where there is smoke there is fire". There's precious few if any marine lists without Guillimann that gets to top spots. That's very clear sign of smoke so about that fire....

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Greyknights are not actually as bad as marines.

Blood of Kittens 8th edition tournament results compendium.

Marines: 12 results in the Top 3.
GK: 1 result that came 2nd.

At least try and have some sort of logical argument when you claim nonsense like this.

I'm going to bring attention to this one because it ignores entirely what was brought in those lists without actually bringing any actual tournament info to the bar.

There's a major difference between a pure SM list and one that's just Guilliman + few tanks and the rest soup.

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

Prove it. Show those teeming hordes of top ranking marine lists without Guillimann. I'm waiting. Not holding breath while doing it though.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, the Annihilator is a lame tank pattern, in it's Malcador variety, Leman Russ variety, and Predator variety.

If only (renegades and heretics) there was a way for your (renegades and heretics) iron warriors (renegades and heretics) to use Leman (renegades and heretics) Russ tanks (renegades and heretics).

I don't want a Russ. I want a Predator.

If you're telling people the solution is to ally, you don't get the fundamental issues with internal and external balance.
Allies are supposed to be a supplement, not a crutch. Do you understand?

Yeah, I understand.

From my point of view, predators are adequate tanks. If you don't want Leman Russes, what do you want? The Predator is not and never has been as good of a tank as a Leman Russ, so if you want a tank as good as a Leman Russ, then you can't (and never have been able to) use a Predator.

That's a deliberate design choice based in the fluff.

In the vaunted 3.5e Chaos codex, Iron Warriors could take Basilisks - not because "allying was a crutch" but because as the siege specialist Space Marines they needed artillery on par with the Imperial Guard. So they got the Imperial Guard's artillery. It's not hard.

It's relatively a simple understanding of what I want if you had been paying attention at all.
1. Predators get Grinding Advance.
2. Predators get Chapter Tactics.

Everyone else is getting Grinding Advance on their main battle tanks (or for the Tyranids case the Tyrannofex which is their equivalent), and there's no reason my Iron Warriors Predator doesn't ignore cover like the rest of the army.

Not to mention that the 3.5 Chaos Codex is a terrible equivalent and you know it. That's literally a way to represent having any artillery as the Chaos codex had none.
A better equivalent is that the ever-loved 6th edition codex had nothing for Iron Warriors. They wanted good artillery and were told to ally in Renegades. Literally the whole codex could do that. Hence why you ended up with Nurgle Marines everywhere but painted as Iron Warriors because the codex was lazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



There's nothing T8 being ran that anyone should fear in the first place. It's a niche that doesn't get used.

Other Russ tanks, Land Raiders, LoW's like Knights and Shadowswords, etc.

Even without the T8 niche, focusing mainly on T7 units, the LR Annihilator is actually still generally by far the best performing tank hunter Russ, and the Pred Annihilator is notably better than every other equivalent tank short of the absurd doubleshotting reroll everything twin fire prism combo that now appears to be mandatory in every Eldar list

Nobody is using Imperial Knights and Land Raiders.

1) But, as Vaktathi has shown, Predators don't need Grinding Advance to be good. The Predator Annihilator is as good a tank hunter as the best Leman Russ tank hunter, including Grinding Advance.

2) They don't have them. I'm sorry, but they don't. They seem fine without it - I've certainly seen more than zero Predators in lists - but they don't. I don't know what to tell you. I didn't make the decision, write the codex, or the like. They don't have it.

Why are you comparing a Predator to a Russ anyways? You make it sound like you want the Predator to be as good as a Russ.

The argument keeps shifting. Centurions weren't brought up as a competitive alternative to Dark Reapers. They were brought up to respond to the claim that Reapers have the best firepower in a single unit *in the game*. Of course they have other drawbacks. So do reapers. So does (almost) everything. That wasn't the question.

I don't think anyone's arguing that Reapers aren't good. IMO they really didn't need the price drop. People are arguing about outlandish claims, and then you're reframing those arguments into your preferred strawmen.

A couple posts have shown that the same arguments you make could be applied the other way. So A > B and B < A. That's a very valid rhetorical method. Others were pointing out some factual inaccuracies in statements made here (some by you, some by others).

There's been no real solid evidence that SM are (one of the) worst books in the game. There has been some evidence that some options CWE have are better than SM in some ways. Reapers in particular are really good too. But the same arguments could be used to show that SM are better than CWE in some ways. Gilleman and Lascannons are good too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) But, as Vaktathi has shown, Predators don't need Grinding Advance to be good. The Predator Annihilator is as good a tank hunter as the best Leman Russ tank hunter, including Grinding Advance.

2) They don't have them. I'm sorry, but they don't. They seem fine without it - I've certainly seen more than zero Predators in lists - but they don't. I don't know what to tell you. I didn't make the decision, write the codex, or the like. They don't have it.

Why are you comparing a Predator to a Russ anyways? You make it sound like you want the Predator to be as good as a Russ.

It's not as good. It can't move and shoot without penalty - it's not t8 - it has less wounds. It gets an army trait which can give you reroll 1's or stop you from degrading. These are all things that matter a great deal for balance. While I think a 6 las predator is somewhat absurd - the russ main gun shooting twice is equally absurd so why stop there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
The argument keeps shifting. Centurions weren't brought up as a competitive alternative to Dark Reapers. They were brought up to respond to the claim that Reapers have the best firepower in a single unit *in the game*. Of course they have other drawbacks. So do reapers. So does (almost) everything. That wasn't the question.

I don't think anyone's arguing that Reapers aren't good. IMO they really didn't need the price drop. People are arguing about outlandish claims, and then you're reframing those arguments into your preferred strawmen.

A couple posts have shown that the same arguments you make could be applied the other way. So A > B and B < A. That's a very valid rhetorical method. Others were pointing out some factual inaccuracies in statements made here (some by you, some by others).

There's been no real solid evidence that SM are (one of the) worst books in the game. There has been some evidence that some options CWE have are better than SM in some ways. Reapers in particular are really good too. But the same arguments could be used to show that SM are better than CWE in some ways. Gilleman and Lascannons are good too.

I asked what units have the firepower of a 10 man dark reaper. Nothing even remotely within the price range can be demonstrated. When I asked that question I ment viable units ofc. Not the most ridicules a ount of guns you can get on a single unit without regards to viability or cost. The best example given was actually a bane blade (or varient) as with this eldar strategem would basically make it so no army could every deep strike on you - because of the weapons they can feild and their ranges.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) But, as Vaktathi has shown, Predators don't need Grinding Advance to be good. The Predator Annihilator is as good a tank hunter as the best Leman Russ tank hunter, including Grinding Advance.

2) They don't have them. I'm sorry, but they don't. They seem fine without it - I've certainly seen more than zero Predators in lists - but they don't. I don't know what to tell you. I didn't make the decision, write the codex, or the like. They don't have it.

Why are you comparing a Predator to a Russ anyways? You make it sound like you want the Predator to be as good as a Russ.

It's not as good. It can't move and shoot without penalty - it's not t8 - it has less wounds. It gets an army trait which can give you reroll 1's or stop you from degrading. These are all things that matter a great deal for balance. While I think a 6 las predator is somewhat absurd - the russ main gun shooting twice is equally absurd so why stop there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
The argument keeps shifting. Centurions weren't brought up as a competitive alternative to Dark Reapers. They were brought up to respond to the claim that Reapers have the best firepower in a single unit *in the game*. Of course they have other drawbacks. So do reapers. So does (almost) everything. That wasn't the question.

I don't think anyone's arguing that Reapers aren't good. IMO they really didn't need the price drop. People are arguing about outlandish claims, and then you're reframing those arguments into your preferred strawmen.

A couple posts have shown that the same arguments you make could be applied the other way. So A > B and B < A. That's a very valid rhetorical method. Others were pointing out some factual inaccuracies in statements made here (some by you, some by others).

There's been no real solid evidence that SM are (one of the) worst books in the game. There has been some evidence that some options CWE have are better than SM in some ways. Reapers in particular are really good too. But the same arguments could be used to show that SM are better than CWE in some ways. Gilleman and Lascannons are good too.

I asked what units have the firepower of a 10 man dark reaper. Nothing even remotely within the price range can be demonstrated. When I asked that question I ment viable units ofc. Not the most ridicules a ount of guns you can get on a single unit without regards to viability or cost. The best example given was actually a bane blade (or varient) as with this eldar strategem would basically make it so no army could every deep strike on you - because of the weapons they can feild and their ranges.

Did you see the part where I agree with you?

Of course the Predator is not as good. It's not supposed to be. It never has been, and never should be. The Predator is a worse tank than the Leman Russ, in fluff, and rules, and that's okay because armies have strengths and weaknesses and are different. The IG strengths are their Main Battle Tanks, and the Space Marine's isn't.

I think the relative weakness of the SM codex is a huge flashing light that more Primarchs are in the works.

Ultras are just too good with Gullyman and hot trash without him. I think SM and to a lesser extent CSM are going to be primarch dependent armies. They would be way over powered with these new tools if they dex were balanced without them so the codexes are tuned to run with these OP beasts and are going to be under-tuned until these center piece models are released.

Until they are enjoy facing my black templ...really dirty Ultras with rowboat.

The over-representation of SM armies in the tops of tournies is due to timing (IMHO). We had the first codex and dominated the handful of tournies until the rest of you guys get your books (outside of chaos soup). Now it is more likely to see Imperial soup instead of rowboat + and as more dexes come out I think we will see SM fall even further until we get more O.P. cash grab ugly models (Primarchs)

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
The argument keeps shifting. Centurions weren't brought up as a competitive alternative to Dark Reapers. They were brought up to respond to the claim that Reapers have the best firepower in a single unit *in the game*. Of course they have other drawbacks. So do reapers. So does (almost) everything. That wasn't the question.

I don't think anyone's arguing that Reapers aren't good. IMO they really didn't need the price drop. People are arguing about outlandish claims, and then you're reframing those arguments into your preferred strawmen.

A couple posts have shown that the same arguments you make could be applied the other way. So A > B and B < A. That's a very valid rhetorical method. Others were pointing out some factual inaccuracies in statements made here (some by you, some by others).

There's been no real solid evidence that SM are (one of the) worst books in the game. There has been some evidence that some options CWE have are better than SM in some ways. Reapers in particular are really good too. But the same arguments could be used to show that SM are better than CWE in some ways. Gilleman and Lascannons are good too.

I asked what units have the firepower of a 10 man dark reaper. Nothing even remotely within the price range can be demonstrated. When I asked that question I ment viable units ofc. Not the most ridicules a ount of guns you can get on a single unit without regards to viability or cost. The best example given was actually a bane blade (or varient) as with this eldar strategem would basically make it so no army could every deep strike on you - because of the weapons they can feild and their ranges.

Except that I gave you several examples of that, which you ignored. And again, you've migrated the old goalposts. Your statement was, literally "There is no unit with more firepower in the game." And now we're just limiting that to units which are (i presume) judged by YOU to be "viable".

3 Dakkastelans - same price range, similar range, comparable ballistic skill, better durability, much better firepower against many different unit types and comparable firepower against others, access to a better buffer (Cawl as opposed to just the reroll 1s of an Autarch or the 1-unit buff of Guide)

Pask Punisher - again, similar price band, less range, better BS, but far, far more effective against hordes, the competitive boogeyman du jour.

The 'viable units' was lost in your hyperbole. You do realize, no matter how many Reapers and Farseers they bring, they can kill 1 unit that turn? Perhaps try approaching a DS-Deathstar-Killer with MSU? Spend less than 300+ points on one unit? DS more than one thing?

There should be counterplay to DS. Most armies can do reasonably-durable chaffe. There are complaints that Tacs aren't durable enough for it. CWE has it even worse for chaffe (DAs have half the durability for 1 less ppm, Guardians are Guardsmen for 8ppm). Further, most SM options aren't as boned by DS as most CWE options. Drop a naked Tac squad next to Devs w/o the stratagem, and you'll do a little damage. Drop a naked Tac squad next to Reapers, Fragons, Guardians, or DAs, and you'll do a lot of damage. And Tacs aren't exactly a major DS threat.

It's starting to sound more and more like you're upset that CWE was given a meaningful counterplay to DS. There are still ways to DS on them even with it, but it's not as free as it was. Why shouldn't they have counterplay to DS?

SM can do things CWE can't, and CWE can do things that SM can't. It's an asymetric game. If they gave a rule that let IG squads deepstrike within 7", it wouldn't be nearly as powerful as if they gave a rule that let CWE squads deepstrike within 7". A Powersword does more on an SM than it does on a Storm Guardian. Different options have different values for different armies.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Greyknights are not actually as bad as marines.

Blood of Kittens 8th edition tournament results compendium.

Marines: 12 results in the Top 3.
GK: 1 result that came 2nd.

At least try and have some sort of logical argument when you claim nonsense like this.

I'm going to bring attention to this one because it ignores entirely what was brought in those lists without actually bringing any actual tournament info to the bar.

There's a major difference between a pure SM list and one that's just Guilliman + few tanks and the rest soup.

It doesn't ignore anything. Just about anything winning tournaments these days is a soup of some kind. Its the nature of the rampant ally abuse GW has allowed with their free form army construction rules. Even most of the top IG lists are a soup to shore up their weaknesses. That said, of the 12 marine lists on that site, a full 5 are nearly 100% pure (one or two assassins show up), and the GK couldn't break the top tables without having a list that 75% not GK.

Which, if you look at the point I was making, shows that GK is in a far worse state than the marine codex which has cracked the top tables regularly on their own, and more consistently with higher percentage of their own codex making up the list.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's relatively a simple understanding of what I want if you had been paying attention at all.
1. Predators get Grinding Advance.
2. Predators get Chapter Tactics.

At which point your Quadlas Predator Annihilator is going to be averaging 7.77 wounds a turn on anything T8 or below with a 3+sv, which, for 190pts, is 35% more efficient at killing tanks per point invested than a stationary special character Pask in a double firing Las Vanquisher, and 32pts less in absolute terms to boot. Such a Predator would be doubling the wound output of a basic HS Las vanquisher per point invested while costing only 23pts more, while a 140pt naked Quadlas predator will match the already "best in class" current 190pt Quadlas pred. You'd be matching the damage output of a quad brace of BS3+ meltaguns at half range from from across the board.

Thats probably why they didnt get Grinding Advance.

(And I say that as someone with 4 lascannon predators for my Iron Warriors)

Nobody is using Imperial Knights and Land Raiders.

Yup, nobody anywhere takes those, they ceased existing entirely with 7E

Which is besides the point either way, which was that the quadlas Predator, regardless of T8 or T7 target, is the best performing tank hunter already, short of the double firing reroll everything Fire Prism combo, and even then its only slightly worse and doesnt require 2 tanks and a CP.

Also, what about the Falcon? Hammerhead? Necrons? Orkz? (nids we'll see soon)

Also, FWIW...your claim about what the Reapers can "one round" is also false.

I remember you mentioned Flying Hive Tyrants and GMNDKs.

for both, the reapers do 6.6 wounds on average. If you drop them down and let them trigger the stratagem, they don't one-round them, they deal a little over half their health.

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, FWIW...your claim about what the Reapers can "one round" is also false.

I remember you mentioned Flying Hive Tyrants and GMNDKs.

for both, the reapers do 6.6 wounds on average. If you drop them down and let them trigger the stratagem, they don't one-round them, they deal a little over half their health.

Exactly. And assuming you are buffing up those Reapers, you are actually spending 2-3 times the cost of a Flyrant or GMDK because of all the Characters need to buff those 10 Reapers

Reapers are good, but let's not pretend they are an auto-win choice.

-

 Galef wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, FWIW...your claim about what the Reapers can "one round" is also false.

I remember you mentioned Flying Hive Tyrants and GMNDKs.

for both, the reapers do 6.6 wounds on average. If you drop them down and let them trigger the stratagem, they don't one-round them, they deal a little over half their health.

Exactly. And assuming you are buffing up those Reapers, you are actually spending 2-3 times the cost of a Flyrant or GMDK because of all the Characters need to buff those 10 Reapers

Reapers are good, but let's not pretend they are an auto-win choice.

-

This is a free round of shooting with the forewarned strategem - any buffs you can give them were duplicated in your actual shooting phase. Basically - this would be the best use of the buffs anyways. Like...I'm not going to a take a 10 man dark reaper without at least reroll 1's buff ether or I will probably guide them turn 1 if i am going first. Calculating a game situation without applying buffs is just foolish.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) But, as Vaktathi has shown, Predators don't need Grinding Advance to be good. The Predator Annihilator is as good a tank hunter as the best Leman Russ tank hunter, including Grinding Advance.

2) They don't have them. I'm sorry, but they don't. They seem fine without it - I've certainly seen more than zero Predators in lists - but they don't. I don't know what to tell you. I didn't make the decision, write the codex, or the like. They don't have it.

Why are you comparing a Predator to a Russ anyways? You make it sound like you want the Predator to be as good as a Russ.

It isn't really the best Tank Hunting Russ. The Annihilator with a Heavy Bolter (180 points) is getting 5.3 damage on a t8 vehicle with a 3+. Against the same kind of vehicle, a Battle Cannon Russ with a Lascannon (slightly cheaper) is getting 7 wounds total. I also have points left there for a HK Missile, so that'll potentially make the damage greater. What the math is on that I don't know because I don't know the HK states off the top of my head. Either way, that's not including any regimental bonuses for offensive power (you'd probably just do Cadian for the Annihilator and Catachan for the Battle Cannon, correct?)

Why is the Annihilator being touted as the gold standard?

 Galef wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, FWIW...your claim about what the Reapers can "one round" is also false.

I remember you mentioned Flying Hive Tyrants and GMNDKs.

for both, the reapers do 6.6 wounds on average. If you drop them down and let them trigger the stratagem, they don't one-round them, they deal a little over half their health.

Exactly. And assuming you are buffing up those Reapers, you are actually spending 2-3 times the cost of a Flyrant or GMDK because of all the Characters need to buff those 10 Reapers

Reapers are good, but let's not pretend they are an auto-win choice.

-

Not to mention the new Flyrant can drop 12.1" away from your reapers with farseer and unload enough dakka to wipe both reapers and farseer off the board.

Edit: My bad, thought the CW strat had a range of 12" - please disregard what I have to say

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It's relatively a simple understanding of what I want if you had been paying attention at all.
1. Predators get Grinding Advance.
2. Predators get Chapter Tactics.

At which point your Quadlas Predator Annihilator is going to be averaging 7.77 wounds a turn on anything T8 or below with a 3+sv, which, for 190pts, is 35% more efficient at killing tanks per point invested than a stationary special character Pask in a double firing Las Vanquisher, and 32pts less in absolute terms to boot. Such a Predator would be doubling the wound output of a basic HS Las vanquisher per point invested while costing only 23pts more, while a 140pt naked Quadlas predator will match the already "best in class" current 190pt Quadlas pred. You'd be matching the damage output of a quad brace of BS3+ meltaguns at half range from from across the board.

Thats probably why they didnt get Grinding Advance.

(And I say that as someone with 4 lascannon predators for my Iron Warriors)

Nobody is using Imperial Knights and Land Raiders.

Yup, nobody anywhere takes those, they ceased existing entirely with 7E

Which is besides the point either way, which was that the quadlas Predator, regardless of T8 or T7 target, is the best performing tank hunter already, short of the double firing reroll everything Fire Prism combo, and even then its only slightly worse and doesnt require 2 tanks and a CP.

Already sorta covered this, but you're being intellectually dishonest by talking about the Vanquisher. That's easily the worst one for even the dedicated Anti-Tank job.

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, FWIW...your claim about what the Reapers can "one round" is also false.

I remember you mentioned Flying Hive Tyrants and GMNDKs.

for both, the reapers do 6.6 wounds on average. If you drop them down and let them trigger the stratagem, they don't one-round them, they deal a little over half their health.

Hummm...so they only need to roll a little about average or you roll a little below average and you lose a 300 point unit for 2 command points....you also didn't factor reroll 1's buff which they are sure to have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

strepp wrote:

 Galef wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, FWIW...your claim about what the Reapers can "one round" is also false.

I remember you mentioned Flying Hive Tyrants and GMNDKs.

for both, the reapers do 6.6 wounds on average. If you drop them down and let them trigger the stratagem, they don't one-round them, they deal a little over half their health.

Exactly. And assuming you are buffing up those Reapers, you are actually spending 2-3 times the cost of a Flyrant or GMDK because of all the Characters need to buff those 10 Reapers

Reapers are good, but let's not pretend they are an auto-win choice.

-

Not to mention the new Flyrant can drop 12.1" away from your reapers with farseer and unload enough dakka to wipe both reapers and farseer off the board.

The stratagem takes place instantly - There is a good chance that you are dead or shooting back at 5+ (I think his BS degrades not sure)

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Also, FWIW...your claim about what the Reapers can "one round" is also false.

I remember you mentioned Flying Hive Tyrants and GMNDKs.

for both, the reapers do 6.6 wounds on average. If you drop them down and let them trigger the stratagem, they don't one-round them, they deal a little over half their health.

Exactly. And assuming you are buffing up those Reapers, you are actually spending 2-3 times the cost of a Flyrant or GMDK because of all the Characters need to buff those 10 Reapers

Reapers are good, but let's not pretend they are an auto-win choice.

-

This is a free round of shooting with the forewarned strategem - any buffs you can give them were duplicated in your actual shooting phase. Basically - this would be the best use of the buffs anyways. Like...I'm not going to a take a 10 man dark reaper without at least reroll 1's buff ether or I will probably guide them turn 1 if i am going first. Calculating a game situation without applying buffs is just foolish.

Boy, I just can't wait for the next three pages of you making a hyperbolic claim, being shown to be wrong, and ignoring the proof in favor of a post-hoc rationalization.

With maximum buffs up on the reapers, you have devoted 3 psychic powers (Guide, Fortune, and Conceal, the odds of getting all three off being 28%, divide that in two if you decide to factor in the fact that you have to go first to make it happen at all), 4CP for Lightning Reaction and Forewarned, positioned in cover, outside of 12" of all enemy units, with perfect line of sight to the entire board, and your opponent decides to be a complete doofus and instead of starting his GMNDK or Flyrant on the board, he deep strikes it directly in front of you to use the stratagem.

You deal 8.8 wounds on average. STILL not enough to reliably one-round the unit as you claimed.

The "no counterplay" gameplay situation you're describing requires dedication of a huge amount of resources (over half the CPs that the average Eldar army tends to have) and requires three successful psychic power casts, and it requires your opponent to make a blatantly stupid decision to deep strike their incredibly expensive unit who happens to be exactly the kind of unit Reapers want to attack without the possibility of putting him outside the line of sight of the reapers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
1) But, as Vaktathi has shown, Predators don't need Grinding Advance to be good. The Predator Annihilator is as good a tank hunter as the best Leman Russ tank hunter, including Grinding Advance.

2) They don't have them. I'm sorry, but they don't. They seem fine without it - I've certainly seen more than zero Predators in lists - but they don't. I don't know what to tell you. I didn't make the decision, write the codex, or the like. They don't have it.

Why are you comparing a Predator to a Russ anyways? You make it sound like you want the Predator to be as good as a Russ.

It isn't really the best Tank Hunting Russ. The Annihilator with a Heavy Bolter (180 points) is getting 5.3 damage on a t8 vehicle with a 3+. Against the same kind of vehicle, a Battle Cannon Russ with a Lascannon (slightly cheaper) is getting 7 wounds total. I also have points left there for a HK Missile, so that'll potentially make the damage greater. What the math is on that I don't know because I don't know the HK states off the top of my head. Either way, that's not including any regimental bonuses for offensive power (you'd probably just do Cadian for the Annihilator and Catachan for the Battle Cannon, correct?)

Why is the Annihilator being touted as the gold standard?

Your math for the battlecannon is wrong.

Battlecannon Russ w/ Lascannon:
- Battlecannon: Shoots twice (7 shots avg). Hits 3.5 times. Wounds 1.75 times. Gets through the save with 1.16 wounds, doing 2.3 damage.
- Lascannon: Shoots once (1 shot). Hits .5 times. Wounds .33 times. Gets through the save with .28 wounds, doing .97 damage.

Total: 3.2 damage

Annihilator Russ w/ Heavy Bolter:
- Twin Lascannon: Shoots twice (4 shots). Hits 2 times. Wounds 1.33 times. Gets through the save with 1.11 wounds, doing 3.89 damage.
- Heavy Bolter: Shoots once (3 shots). Hits 1.5 times. Wounds .5 times. Gets through the save with .25 wounds, doing .25 damage.

Total: 4.14 damage

EDIT:
Just for completeness:

- Hunter-Killer Missle: Shoots once (1 shot). Hits .5 times. Wounds .25 times. Gets through the save with .17 wounds, doing .583 wounds, bringing the Battlecannon Russ up to a total of 3.78 damage, still less than the Annihilator.