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.
2017/11/13 19:22:03
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Except that you still get CPs for detachments, and pure detachments can still use their regiment/chapter/hivefleet/legion/craftworld rules. And you pay points.
Okay, so you're suggesting every list should be imperial guard + malefic lords, and a couple other chaos highlights.
No? Because Malefic Lords and "other chaos highlights" aren't generic, and neither are Imperial Guard.
Breng77 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think that's the point - use it to cover your army's weaknesses.
If Space Marines were having trouble screening, use the A Generic Screening Unit with whatever you wanted, and call them "Chapter Serfs."
If Tau were having trouble being stabbed, use A Generic Assault Unit and call them Kroot mercenaries.
If Necrons are having trouble capturing objectives, call in the A Generic Cheapo Infantry and name them the "we'll deal with you later, allies!" brigade.
etc. etc.
Then you can just leave in existing allies as well, so that Inquisition can still use Leman Russ tanks or Land Raiders instead of A Generic Tank or A Generic Transport, but Tau now actually have something they can use as allies as well.
So it becomes Imperium gets the good allies, but here is a bone for you other armies with these crappy generic allies? No thanks, but then I think armies should have weaknesses and the issue with soup armies for me is that those gaps get plugged.
Yes? Because the idea behind allies is you plug gaps. If you want to plug gaps, you need allies, so you get allies. The fact that these random mercenaries don't have "Mercenary Quirks" or something is so that the mono-versions of the other factions don't get outshined (i.e. you'd want a Leman Russ to be better than A Generic Tank).
2017/11/13 19:23:49
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Galas wrote: I like my mixed Imperium army with SoS, Custodes, Ogryns, Celestine, Tempestus and Sisters of Battle
As always, when a problem arise the solution is "Just destroy the sistem!" instead of fixing the problems. Keywords where a great add-on to the game to stop from allied shenanigans.
Why don't we fix the allies system instead of just destroying it? Allies are like Flyers and Superheaveis, they are here to stay, so we can try to fix them or keep moaning on internet about the good old days.
So how would you fix a system that requires some factions to be balanced assuming the inclusion of allies? It literally means that in competitive play those factions can never be optimized on their own because they must assume the ability to take out of faction choices that would make their army stronger. My only thought was to disallow any "chapter" specific rules if you have any non-chapter models in your army. But most people don't like that idea.
I suppose you could add increasing benefits the more narrow your focus, but that still pisses people off because they feel like they are losing out on something. Lets put it this way, I'm fine with allies as long as taking them requires sacrificing other advantages, if not there is literally no reason not to optimize other than fluff. Given that the allies system can never be both fluffy and balanced I think it is a poor system and the easiest way to fix it would be to throw it out. When I mentioned previously "lose chapter specific relics, strategems, and tactics if you take allies." in another thread almost universally I got the response "I shouldn't be penalized for wanting allies." The result of which is people not taking allies will be penalized because their army is suboptimal.
I like the Age of Sigmar system. In 2k point games, you can have up to 400 points in allies. More than that, you lost all of your faction bonuses.
Faction bonuses shouldn't be for Soup lists. And yes I know "But why a Salamander marine forgot how salamanders tactics work when he fights with imperial guardsmen?" And I'll say: Balance>Fluff in "Matched Play"
I'd be fine with allies being that restricted because then it isn't as much of an obvious choice. I'd still prefer their to be an additional bonus for no allies at all, I think similar to old Warmahordes theme lists where there were levels of benefits for taking more restrictive lists.
To be honest the 400 points of allies without losing your faction bonuses is more of a band-aid because in Age of Sigmar theres a TON of factions without a purpose so you can't have a Giant with your orcs without losing your Greenskin bonuses (I know, madness), or even a Manticore with your Chaos Warriors or Beastmen army.
In 40K theres no need for that because the factions are much more clear and you don't have something like Firebellys that is literally a Faction with one model. So it could be that having allies just don't allow you to have any kind of faction bonuses. I'll be totally fine with that. I know the strenght of my mixed imperium army is how flexible they are. They don't need on top of that faction bonuses by putting all my tempestus, for example, on one detachment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 19:25:53
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/11/13 19:27:15
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/13 19:28:01
2017/11/13 19:38:25
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
That won't work very well because if a leman russ is costed appropriately for filling gaps in other forces it is likely not appropriately costed for not filling gaps in other armies. Further codex units have a lot of built in advantages that are not accounted for in points costs (stratagems, tactics). So it is likely not ok.
2017/11/13 20:20:47
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also you really have no idea what's going on if you think Necrons are middle of the road. They're easily one of the worst index armies, and the highest we had a placing for in the last big tournament that happened was 42. Or that was the previous one and we didn't even have a placing.
Oh you meant tournaments.
Yeah I have no idea how to help 'crons. Hopefully their codex will bring some needed buffs.
Locally we have 2 Necron players and they're doing fairly well, I'd say. One of them is on the opposing team in the local campaign and I think he actually fought our Adeptus Mechanicus player to a standstill a few weeks ago, though the game ended early.
Literally anyone can do anything in a casual setting because nobody cares. Otherwise there's no point to the Tactics Subforum, to be frank.
Nobody cares? I daresay that's bordering on an insult. I take my games very seriously!
And yeah, I don't go to the tactics subform for just that reason: I find it pointless and unhelpful. I'll be like "what variant of the Leman Russ is best?" and they're like "the Manticore."
Except you do get told which Russ variants are the best, you're just also told why to take Manticores instead. To be honest I think you're missing the point in purpose.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2017/11/13 20:44:23
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
That won't work very well because if a leman russ is costed appropriately for filling gaps in other forces it is likely not appropriately costed for not filling gaps in other armies. Further codex units have a lot of built in advantages that are not accounted for in points costs (stratagems, tactics). So it is likely not ok.
What? No, the Leman Russ will be costed assuming it gets Codex Buffs (stratagems and regiment traits) and A Generic Tank would not be.
If you're taking a Russ without codex traits, then you are overpaying for A Generic Tank anyways, essentially.
2017/11/13 20:53:48
Subject: Re:Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
That won't work very well because if a leman russ is costed appropriately for filling gaps in other forces it is likely not appropriately costed for not filling gaps in other armies. Further codex units have a lot of built in advantages that are not accounted for in points costs (stratagems, tactics). So it is likely not ok.
What? No, the Leman Russ will be costed assuming it gets Codex Buffs (stratagems and regiment traits) and A Generic Tank would not be.
If you're taking a Russ without codex traits, then you are overpaying for A Generic Tank anyways, essentially.
Except because all the traits are different it is a safe assumption that the Russ is not really pointed at all based on said tactics, other than very minimally. The same is obvious between many units between index and codex. Even if so that doesn't answer to the leman russ filling holes in armies changing its inherent value. Point of fact either units are balanced assuming they can be used with all other available units, or they are not. It cannot be both ways, so if a russ is balanced in mono-guard, it is inherently unbalanced in the role of a gap filler in an army that doesn't have a unit that fills said role.
A better example is Chaff units, space marines are either balanced competitively assuming they will take chaff, or they are not. If they are balanced assuming chaff, and the best available chaff, you will always need to take said chaff to have an optimal list. Essentially forcing allies. This is not the case if there are benefits to forgoing said chaff, currently these do not exist.
My opinion is that I would rather see things that encourage a variety of builds rather than having all builds amount to everyone taking the same "allies' to fill their holes.
2017/11/13 21:10:01
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
That won't work very well because if a leman russ is costed appropriately for filling gaps in other forces it is likely not appropriately costed for not filling gaps in other armies. Further codex units have a lot of built in advantages that are not accounted for in points costs (stratagems, tactics). So it is likely not ok.
What? No, the Leman Russ will be costed assuming it gets Codex Buffs (stratagems and regiment traits) and A Generic Tank would not be.
If you're taking a Russ without codex traits, then you are overpaying for A Generic Tank anyways, essentially.
Except because all the traits are different it is a safe assumption that the Russ is not really pointed at all based on said tactics, other than very minimally. The same is obvious between many units between index and codex. Even if so that doesn't answer to the leman russ filling holes in armies changing its inherent value. Point of fact either units are balanced assuming they can be used with all other available units, or they are not. It cannot be both ways, so if a russ is balanced in mono-guard, it is inherently unbalanced in the role of a gap filler in an army that doesn't have a unit that fills said role.
A better example is Chaff units, space marines are either balanced competitively assuming they will take chaff, or they are not. If they are balanced assuming chaff, and the best available chaff, you will always need to take said chaff to have an optimal list. Essentially forcing allies. This is not the case if there are benefits to forgoing said chaff, currently these do not exist.
My opinion is that I would rather see things that encourage a variety of builds rather than having all builds amount to everyone taking the same "allies' to fill their holes.
I disagree.
I think there is a price at which the LRBT is costed appropriately to work with mono-Guard and would be slightly overcosted if it was taken outside of an IG detachment.
This would mean that armies which wish to cover their weaknesses have fewer points to reinforce their strengths, whereas an army that embraced its weaknesses and brought no allies would be able to also reinforce its strengths. A good player would naturally do this, as I imagine they would very quickly learn how to mitigate the weaknesses without just crutching them with allies, and therefore their strengths would blow away the opposition, being so much stronger due to not wasting points on junk.
2017/11/13 21:30:10
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
GW could just designate specific units from a codex that can ally with a specific set of other armies with a different point cost than the mono codex cost.
For example (and I'm just making this up) the entry for the chimera might say that it can be used by AM but the cost is 90 points as opposed to the IG cost of 75. So the AM can have their transports but they pay a premium for it and SM can't have any chimeras since they are not listed as an available ally.
2017/11/13 23:23:41
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Didn't you get the memo? If you have the ability to take imperial guard as an ally with your force, then your army is simply not intended to be played as a standalone faction.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
2017/11/14 00:31:12
Subject: Re:Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
I think it should be handled in Matchrd Play by giving escalating benefits for being closer to a mono build. For example, having three levels of keyword: Allegiance, Faction (i.e. Codex book) and Sub-Faction (e.g. Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, Ultramarines).
If your entire army (not just Detachment) has a common Allegiance, it can be Battle-Forged.
If your entire army has a common Allegiance and Faction, you gain access to your Codex Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Relics.
If your entire army has a common Allegiance, Faction and Sub-Faction, you gain access to Chapter(/equivalent) Tactics and Chapter-specific Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Relics.
The only real change here is that the restrictions are on the entire army rather than just Detachment. It would need a few caveats - for example that for Grey Knights/Blood Angels/Space Wolves/Dark Angels/Death Guard/Thousand Sons both their Faction and Sub-Faction would be the same, and that the various Guard elements such as Navy and Prefectus would need exceptions (that they already sort of have).
Ultimately this gives you three options: stick to a mono build meaning you have built-in weaknesses but get a pile of powerful bonuses, cherry-pick an army that has no weaknesses but lacks the powerful bonuses, or cut somewhere down the middle. And as anyone who’s ever used a Tactical Squad will tell you, the competitive meta will gravitate toward the highly specialised armies and play around their weaknesses. Souping should be an option, but you shouldn’t be able to have your soup and eat it too - you should have to give something up to be able to cover your weaknesses.
Not sure what to do about Orks, Necrons and Tau though. Maybe give them Xenos as their Allegiance so they can soup up with each other.
2017/11/14 00:54:02
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
If the balance between sub-faction bonuses and cherrypicking is well made, Tau, Orks and Necrons don't need allies. Yeah. they will be less flexible than Imperium, but they should be at the same level competitively.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/11/14 01:45:25
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Didn't you get the memo? If you have the ability to take imperial guard as an ally with your force, then your army is simply not intended to be played as a standalone faction.
Let me know when you are finished tearing up that strawman so we can have a real discussion.
2017/11/14 13:09:24
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Galas wrote: If the balance between sub-faction bonuses and cherrypicking is well made, Tau, Orks and Necrons don't need allies. Yeah. they will be less flexible than Imperium, but they should be at the same level competitively.
Problem is that's not going to happen. It's pretty much impossible to have so that say:
necron vs imperium is balanced
necron vs IG is balanced
necron vs space marines is balanced
If Imperium can pick up things at will they can become more powerful than the individuals would be together. For necron to be able to combat that they then need power up. But what happens when you play part of Imperium that does not ally? They are then screwed.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2017/11/14 13:30:13
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Galas wrote: If the balance between sub-faction bonuses and cherrypicking is well made, Tau, Orks and Necrons don't need allies. Yeah. they will be less flexible than Imperium, but they should be at the same level competitively.
Problem is that's not going to happen. It's pretty much impossible to have so that say:
necron vs imperium is balanced
necron vs IG is balanced
necron vs space marines is balanced
If Imperium can pick up things at will they can become more powerful than the individuals would be together. For necron to be able to combat that they then need power up. But what happens when you play part of Imperium that does not ally? They are then screwed.
That is why faction bonuses should be tied to how strict you stick to faction. If Space Marines only got chapter tactics if they stuck to a single chapter, it could be designed to be the balancing factor.
Breng77 wrote: Yes, but if I plug my gap with generic tank x, and you plug yours with a Leman russ because IMPERIUM. That isn't really a fair and balanced system
It is if the Leman Russ costs more points than A Generic Tank because it is better. That's the point of points costs - you can have a worse unit that fulfills the same role, and it's okay because it also costs less.
That won't work very well because if a leman russ is costed appropriately for filling gaps in other forces it is likely not appropriately costed for not filling gaps in other armies. Further codex units have a lot of built in advantages that are not accounted for in points costs (stratagems, tactics). So it is likely not ok.
What? No, the Leman Russ will be costed assuming it gets Codex Buffs (stratagems and regiment traits) and A Generic Tank would not be.
If you're taking a Russ without codex traits, then you are overpaying for A Generic Tank anyways, essentially.
Except because all the traits are different it is a safe assumption that the Russ is not really pointed at all based on said tactics, other than very minimally. The same is obvious between many units between index and codex. Even if so that doesn't answer to the leman russ filling holes in armies changing its inherent value. Point of fact either units are balanced assuming they can be used with all other available units, or they are not. It cannot be both ways, so if a russ is balanced in mono-guard, it is inherently unbalanced in the role of a gap filler in an army that doesn't have a unit that fills said role.
A better example is Chaff units, space marines are either balanced competitively assuming they will take chaff, or they are not. If they are balanced assuming chaff, and the best available chaff, you will always need to take said chaff to have an optimal list. Essentially forcing allies. This is not the case if there are benefits to forgoing said chaff, currently these do not exist.
My opinion is that I would rather see things that encourage a variety of builds rather than having all builds amount to everyone taking the same "allies' to fill their holes.
I disagree.
I think there is a price at which the LRBT is costed appropriately to work with mono-Guard and would be slightly overcosted if it was taken outside of an IG detachment.
This would mean that armies which wish to cover their weaknesses have fewer points to reinforce their strengths, whereas an army that embraced its weaknesses and brought no allies would be able to also reinforce its strengths. A good player would naturally do this, as I imagine they would very quickly learn how to mitigate the weaknesses without just crutching them with allies, and therefore their strengths would blow away the opposition, being so much stronger due to not wasting points on junk.
This only works if the LRBT has abilities within guard that it cannot get in other factions. Right now this is not the case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/14 13:31:07
2017/11/14 15:17:45
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Galas wrote: If the balance between sub-faction bonuses and cherrypicking is well made, Tau, Orks and Necrons don't need allies. Yeah. they will be less flexible than Imperium, but they should be at the same level competitively.
Problem is that's not going to happen. It's pretty much impossible to have so that say:
necron vs imperium is balanced
necron vs IG is balanced
necron vs space marines is balanced
If Imperium can pick up things at will they can become more powerful than the individuals would be together. For necron to be able to combat that they then need power up. But what happens when you play part of Imperium that does not ally? They are then screwed.
As Breng77 said, if by playing Imperium you lose access to all Stratagems, Chapter/Regiment/Etc Tactics, Relics, Warlord Traits, and you need to use generic ones, the game can be balanced. The problem is with how, right now, you don't have to sacrifice anything of that playing soup. Put everything in their own detachment and you are good to go.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2017/11/14 15:58:36
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
This thread reminds me of the time I proved 1 = 2 to the Calc teacher.
I overheard him saying something one day as I was leaving (another class, never had him, hadn't talked to him before). Asked him a few questions. He showed me some cool things about math I never knew. One was that the area under a point is basically 0.
I got his proof. Understood what he was saying. Saw the logic. But the area under the point couldn't be zero. I proved that if it was, then 1 = 2. Came back to him the next day with that proof. He showed me where one of my premises - that the area under a point was 0 was wrong. It was *virtually* 0, as in infintesimal.
It accomplished what it was supposed to. I didn't think I cleverly showed 1 = 2, or anything like that. It's a common technique for disproving something - by using it as an assumption and showing it not to be true. But to do so, you need to be very careful that each supporting argument is valid.
This is what this thread is all about. Some 'proof' gets bandied about with some faulty premises and flawed logic. It doesn't matter if the conclusion is accurate (seeing as there are exactly as many worse than them as better, not accurate at all, but not relevant). The faulty premises should be exposed. The flawed logic should be refuted.
2017/11/14 16:20:19
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Didn't you get the memo? If you have the ability to take imperial guard as an ally with your force, then your army is simply not intended to be played as a standalone faction.
Let me know when you are finished tearing up that strawman so we can have a real discussion.
It's kinda an exaggeration of what you've said, but the premise itself is in the spirit of your argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/14 16:29:21
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2017/11/14 16:45:41
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Very good point about all premises must be valid or the conclusion is false!
Bow down to Guilliman for he is our new God Emperor!
Martel - "Custodes are terrible in 8th. Good luck with them. They take all the problems of marines and multiply them."
"Lol, classic martel. 'I know it was strong enough to podium in the biggest tournament in the world but I refuse to acknowledge space marines are good because I can't win with them and it can't possibly be ME'."
DakkaDakka is really the place where you need anti-tank guns to kill basic dudes, because anything less isn't durable enough.
2017/11/14 16:52:03
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the time I proved 1 = 2 to the Calc teacher.
I overheard him saying something one day as I was leaving (another class, never had him, hadn't talked to him before). Asked him a few questions. He showed me some cool things about math I never knew. One was that the area under a point is basically 0.
I got his proof. Understood what he was saying. Saw the logic. But the area under the point couldn't be zero. I proved that if it was, then 1 = 2. Came back to him the next day with that proof. He showed me where one of my premises - that the area under a point was 0 was wrong. It was *virtually* 0, as in infintesimal.
It accomplished what it was supposed to. I didn't think I cleverly showed 1 = 2, or anything like that. It's a common technique for disproving something - by using it as an assumption and showing it not to be true. But to do so, you need to be very careful that each supporting argument is valid.
This is what this thread is all about. Some 'proof' gets bandied about with some faulty premises and flawed logic. It doesn't matter if the conclusion is accurate (seeing as there are exactly as many worse than them as better, not accurate at all, but not relevant). The faulty premises should be exposed. The flawed logic should be refuted.
This, right here. People like to call me out as some kind of "guard fanboy" or "marine hater" or something, when all I really hate is crappy arguments and hyperbolic crap. You'll find me in the conscript thread arguing against people screaming "Commissars are dead! They're useless and there's no reason to ever use them again GW screwed us because the whiny marine players!" and in the marine thread saying that it's only fair that Marine factions get chapter tactics on their vehicles because it just makes sense to keep it consistent.
Just don't make arguments that are dumb and run around screaming that the sky is falling and everyone and GW are out to get your hobby and its all a vast conspiracy.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
2017/11/14 20:39:14
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
This, right here. People like to call me out as some kind of "guard fanboy" or "marine hater" or something, when all I really hate is crappy arguments and hyperbolic crap. You'll find me in the conscript thread arguing against people screaming "Commissars are dead! They're useless and there's no reason to ever use them again GW screwed us because the whiny marine players!" and in the marine thread saying that it's only fair that Marine factions get chapter tactics on their vehicles because it just makes sense to keep it consistent.
Just don't make arguments that are dumb and run around screaming that the sky is falling and everyone and GW are out to get your hobby and its all a vast conspiracy.
We all know Andy Chambers got sacked for trying to protect the Orks (and probably Squats), GW hates greenskins (and probably Squats).
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
2017/11/14 20:51:14
Subject: Proof that space marine codex is the worst.
Pure AM list won Warzone followed by chaos monster mash list. No SM in top 15 for the second large tournament in a row. This seems to be the hardest "proof" that SM are in a bad place competitively.
AdMech is supposedly getting some new Forged World goodies to help them. The newest codices seem to outclass what SM can offer (Eldar at least Ynnari and Nids).
GK and SM seem to be in a tough place. Deathguard at least have Morty to keep them in the mix although they probably require soup to compete but we are now seeing SM dropped out of the soup as well. Hell even GK have a role in soup armies that SM are quickly seeing themselves phased out of.
