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.

 Blackie wrote:
SM already have the most undercosted transports in the game.

Yeah, Rhinos and Razorbacks are amazing for their cost. Two flamer/combiflamer tactical squads in a rhino are a nice objective capture package.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Battle Sister Squads got brought up a couple pages back. For a few editions now, BSSes have worked better than Tacs at being useful Troops choices.

Not really. The only Sister squads taken less often than Battle Sisters in an Adepta Sororitas army are Celestians (who are just expensive BSSs with GW having no idea what to do with them) and Repentia (who GW cannot ever quite balance properly-- and Repentia have made a minor resurgence due to becoming so much cheaper to field than before). They're far, FAR less durable than tactical marines, and massively more vulnerable to assault than tacticals. If tacticals become 11ppm, that makes the comparison even LESS favorable towards Sisters, since for two points, Tacticals would pay to get an upgrade of +1 to three different and vitally important stats, far better special and heavy weapon options as well as superior options on their sarge, and better leadership rules-- you know how marines have ATSKNF? Well, Sisters don't have any leadership rule at all and must rely on a non-combatant character to give them leadership rerolls instead.

Yes, Marines cost four points more than Battle Sisters do. They're also WORTH those four points more, with +1 to WS, Strength, and Toughness, Chapter Tactics, ATSKNF, as well as superior weapon options-- and just the WS, S, and T increases alone would be worth far more than 4 points if purchased as an actual upgrade. The ability to take two special weapons at base squad strength isn't really worth much when all the battle sister squad can take for special weapons are storm bolters, meltaguns, and flamers--and barring maybe flamers, none of those three options are the kind of firepower that the people in this thread (and elsewhere) who are incessantly whining about marines supposedly sucking would be excited about having more of.

It's always Marine players saying they think Battle Sister squads are better. They really aren't. They're way easier to kill off than tacticals are, and if you're having problems with them you'd have problems against tacticals, too.

 Insectum7 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Who's talking about storybook marines?

The primaris statline is hardly "1 marine takes on an a whole army" and they are obviously not dominating any meta's.

Metas actually have nothing to do with my point. My point is still that Space Marines and Aspect Warriors should be roughly equivalent.

A Primaris marine takes 2 full squads of Lasgun rapid-fire to take down. 4 (4!!) if he's in cover. 80ish lasgun shots. That's bolter-porn territory if I ever heard of it.

Aspect Warriors are roughly equivalent due to them being able to specialise their weapons to fit their role, much better than a tac squad could ever achieve. I wish Bolters had the shuriken rule. I'd argue that most aspect warriors are better than a marine in most cases.

Well then, a unit of 5 terminators must be tabling entire IG armies. Who knew they were the answer

Plasma and Grav does a pretty good number on Aspect Warriors. The real dangerous Aspect Warriors cost a lot more per model.

The Terminators comment is out of context. We know they don't fare well because of the setting of the actual game, which is equally(ish) matched armies with lots of fancy units on either side usually on a high-los table. While Terminators are actually equipped for close quarters boarding actions and the like. Put Terminators into a confined space where they face room after room of Guardsmen and they can chew through them at a rate of 20 per turn, possibly 30 if you include morale. On the table they're guys in tank suits in an environment with a bunch of anti-tank weapons. It's only natural they get targeted by lots of heavy weapons and get killed.

It's not out of context. Your comment that 2W marines is black library fandom and present a vacumm scenario that favours your argument, that if they were in cover they would need 80 shots to kill from lasguns. I present that a unit of Terminators must be unstoppable for you to disregard them that they wouldn't work in an actual game? How is it different? 2W marines would have more resistance against S3 0AP small arms but still be just as susceptible to heavier weapons - which most armies will have no shortage of.

GW have already done this anyway with Primaris - which you don't see doing well in the competitive sense without soup nonsense. My comment is about increasing the viability of taking more than min tac squads and encouraging players to use a Marine list that actually includes Space Marines

 Melissia wrote:
It's always Marine players saying they think Battle Sister squads are better. They really aren't. They're way easier to kill off than tacticals are, and if you're having problems with them you'd have problems against tacticals, too.

Not point-for-point they're not.

Points lost per hit:
S3AP0 S4AP0 S4AP-1 S5AP0 S5AP-1 S6AP-3 tacmarine 1.44 2.17 3.25 2.89 4.33 7.22 sister 1.50 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.00 6.25

Do other bad armies have supporters that think their worst units are amazing? Or is this unique to space marines.

 Melissia wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
SM already have the most undercosted transports in the game.

Yeah, Rhinos and Razorbacks are amazing for their cost. Two flamer/combiflamer tactical squads in a rhino are a nice objective capture package.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Battle Sister Squads got brought up a couple pages back. For a few editions now, BSSes have worked better than Tacs at being useful Troops choices.

Not really. The only Sister squads taken less often than Battle Sisters in an Adepta Sororitas army are Celestians (who are just expensive BSSs with GW having no idea what to do with them) and Repentia (who GW cannot ever quite balance properly-- and Repentia have made a minor resurgence due to becoming so much cheaper to field than before). They're far, FAR less durable than tactical marines, and massively more vulnerable to assault than tacticals. If tacticals become 11ppm, that makes the comparison even LESS favorable towards Sisters, since for two points, Tacticals would pay to get an upgrade of +1 to three different and vitally important stats, far better special and heavy weapon options as well as superior options on their sarge, and better leadership rules-- you know how marines have ATSKNF? Well, Sisters don't have any leadership rule at all and must rely on a non-combatant character to give them leadership rerolls instead.

Yes, Marines cost four points more than Battle Sisters do. They're also WORTH those four points more, with +1 to WS, Strength, and Toughness, Chapter Tactics, ATSKNF, as well as superior weapon options-- and just the WS, S, and T increases alone would be worth far more than 4 points if purchased as an actual upgrade. The ability to take two special weapons at base squad strength isn't really worth much when all the battle sister squad can take for special weapons are storm bolters, meltaguns, and flamers--and barring maybe flamers, none of those three options are the kind of firepower that the people in this thread (and elsewhere) who are incessantly whining about marines supposedly sucking would be excited about having more of.

It's always Marine players saying they think Battle Sister squads are better. They really aren't. They're way easier to kill off than tacticals are, and if you're having problems with them you'd have problems against tacticals, too.

I'd agree with most of that -although have found Storm Bolters as having very nice firepower - 4 shots each at 12" or less does tend to cut enemy infantry down, flamers not as convinced by due to range and unreliability. Melta Guns seem to be either awesome or useless for me.

 Melissia wrote:


Yes, Marines cost four points more than Battle Sisters do. They're also WORTH those four points more, with +1 to WS, Strength, and Toughness, Chapter Tactics, ATSKNF, as well as superior weapon options-- and just the WS, S, and T increases alone would be worth far more than 4 points if purchased as an actual upgrade. The ability to take two special weapons at base squad strength isn't really worth much when all the battle sister squad can take for special weapons are storm bolters, meltaguns, and flamers--and barring maybe flamers, none of those three options are the kind of firepower that the people in this thread (and elsewhere) who are incessantly whining about marines supposedly sucking would be excited about having more of.

WS and Strength, on models that will never be able to leverage those stats, are wasted points. No one would honestly say that a Rhino's Strength of 6 makes it an amazing close combat fighter. A Tac marine does not have volume attacks, nor do they have good armor piercing attacks, nor do they have good high damage/high yield attacks.

ATSKNF is practically useless in a game/codex where you're mostly taking MSU anyway and need to lose most of your unit before it becomes a threat anyway, at which point your unit is gone to begin with. Literally the only unit I have that benefits from ATSKNF is a big group of Death Company.

I'll grant you that Toughness and Chapter Tactic have actual real-value. If SoB get a codex, I imagine they'll end up with some kind of Chapter Trait as that seems like the direction that all Armies are going. So we'll have to have a final evaluation at that point.

Regarding weapons; that's hilarious. I'm of the opinion that Storm Bolters are fantastic, particularly on a shooty unit like Battle Sisters or Tacs that primarily want to be shooting and only punching as a last resort. I think Flamers suck hard this edition (range and variable hits don't compensate for autohits with BS 3+ models) and Meltas are situationaly useful, but Tacs and Battle Sisters seem to be the right squads to put them on, if you're going to have them at all, although I also think they are overpriced for what they do.

Rocmistro wrote:

 Melissia wrote:


Yes, Marines cost four points more than Battle Sisters do. They're also WORTH those four points more, with +1 to WS, Strength, and Toughness, Chapter Tactics, ATSKNF, as well as superior weapon options-- and just the WS, S, and T increases alone would be worth far more than 4 points if purchased as an actual upgrade. The ability to take two special weapons at base squad strength isn't really worth much when all the battle sister squad can take for special weapons are storm bolters, meltaguns, and flamers--and barring maybe flamers, none of those three options are the kind of firepower that the people in this thread (and elsewhere) who are incessantly whining about marines supposedly sucking would be excited about having more of.

WS and Strength, on models that will never be able to leverage those stats, are wasted points. No one would honestly say that a Rhino's Strength of 6 makes it an amazing close combat fighter. A Tac marine does not have volume attacks, nor do they have good armor piercing attacks, nor do they have good high damage/high yield attacks.

ATSKNF is practically useless in a game/codex where you're mostly taking MSU anyway and need to lose most of your unit before it becomes a threat anyway, at which point your unit is gone to begin with. Literally the only unit I have that benefits from ATSKNF is a big group of Death Company.

I'll grant you that Toughness and Chapter Tactic have actual real-value. If SoB get a codex, I imagine they'll end up with some kind of Chapter Trait as that seems like the direction that all Armies are going. So we'll have to have a final evaluation at that point.

Regarding weapons; that's hilarious. I'm of the opinion that Storm Bolters are fantastic, particularly on a shooty unit like Battle Sisters or Tacs that primarily want to be shooting and only punching as a last resort. I think Flamers suck hard this edition (range and variable hits don't compensate for autohits with BS 3+ models) and Meltas are situationaly useful, but Tacs and Battle Sisters seem to be the right squads to put them on, if you're going to have them at all, although I also think they are overpriced for what they do.

Well a Rhino does not hitt opponents on a 3+ either. If Sister get into H=t+H they are alot worse than Marines.

Toughness is big and its still if the sisters ge a Codex......

Agreed re Storm Bolters

Hand to hand in 8th. Lol.

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, Rhinos and Razorbacks are amazing for their cost. Two flamer/combiflamer tactical squads in a rhino are a nice objective capture package.

Rhinos are overpriced. Razorbacks provide a nice platform to make a gunboat out of, to be sure, but which is eclipsed by Wave Serpents.

And that "objective capturing package" comes in at 242 points. I can get 3 squads of 5 scouts for that price who can just deploy on top of those objectives (with redundant backup, no less), who have overall more board presence, kick out more total shots and at longer range, and fill all my troop choices and still have ~80 pts to put towards more useful models.

So what of it is eclipsed by the serpent... the serpent is eclipsed by the Russ.

 Mr Morden wrote:


Well a Rhino does not hitt opponents on a 3+ either. If Sister get into H=t+H they are alot worse than Marines.

Toughness is big and its still if the sisters ge a Codex......

Agreed re Storm Bolters

1. I agree; my point here is only that it takes more than WS3+ and Str4 to have a "good close combat" profile.

2. I acknowledged that, and that is where the increase in points from BS to Tac should come in. I'm not arguing that Tacs aren't better than BS. I'm arguing that several of those stats that Melissia (and others) have noted look more valuable than they really are. Neither Tacs nor Battle Sisters should be getting into close combat for any scenario other than 'guaranteed mop up duty', or to get extra movement, to push you into, for example, an enemy's deployment zone for linebreaker, or extra movement to claim an objective, or some calculus where you require them to fall back to prevent them from shooting. None of those scenarios rely on Tacs or BS actually winning combat by doing wounds, because they both pretty much suck at it. It does depend on them not dying, which I acknowledge Tacs have the advantage there, which is where the real calculus comes in for determing points.*

3. Yeah, loving Storm Bolters this edition.

*I have had soooooo many games/situations where I sent in a group of 5 tacs to mop up something like a single guardian or fire warrior...and they were unable to get the job done, which is, when you crunch the math not really that statistically unlikely, despite the fluff which suggests that 5 Marines should be eating a Tau Fire Warrior's liver before he even realized his gun was jammed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:
So what of it is eclipsed by the serpent... the serpent is eclipsed by the Russ.

It's not that big a deal..except for so many people who seem to contend that the Rhino or Razorback are AMAZEBALLS.

They're ok...they get the job done. Nothing wrong with that but let's not trump it up as if it were the great equalizer to the otherwise lackluster SM codex.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Who's talking about storybook marines?

The primaris statline is hardly "1 marine takes on an a whole army" and they are obviously not dominating any meta's.

Metas actually have nothing to do with my point. My point is still that Space Marines and Aspect Warriors should be roughly equivalent.

A Primaris marine takes 2 full squads of Lasgun rapid-fire to take down. 4 (4!!) if he's in cover. 80ish lasgun shots. That's bolter-porn territory if I ever heard of it.

Aspect Warriors are roughly equivalent due to them being able to specialise their weapons to fit their role, much better than a tac squad could ever achieve. I wish Bolters had the shuriken rule. I'd argue that most aspect warriors are better than a marine in most cases.

Well then, a unit of 5 terminators must be tabling entire IG armies. Who knew they were the answer

Plasma and Grav does a pretty good number on Aspect Warriors. The real dangerous Aspect Warriors cost a lot more per model.

The Terminators comment is out of context. We know they don't fare well because of the setting of the actual game, which is equally(ish) matched armies with lots of fancy units on either side usually on a high-los table. While Terminators are actually equipped for close quarters boarding actions and the like. Put Terminators into a confined space where they face room after room of Guardsmen and they can chew through them at a rate of 20 per turn, possibly 30 if you include morale. On the table they're guys in tank suits in an environment with a bunch of anti-tank weapons. It's only natural they get targeted by lots of heavy weapons and get killed.

It's not out of context. Your comment that 2W marines is black library fandom and present a vacumm scenario that favours your argument, that if they were in cover they would need 80 shots to kill from lasguns. I present that a unit of Terminators must be unstoppable for you to disregard them that they wouldn't work in an actual game? How is it different?

For one, Terminators cost a lot more.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

2W marines would have more resistance against S3 0AP small arms but still be just as susceptible to heavier weapons - which most armies will have no shortage of.

Just S3 AP0 small arms? That's somewhat misrepresenting things. How many single damage weapons are there in the game? Should basic marines really be twice as durable against Shuriken Catapults, Heavy Bolters, Assault Cannons, Deathspitters, Sniper Rifles etc? I'd argue not. 12 Assault Cannon shots only gets you 2.6 kills vs. Marines as is.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

GW have already done this anyway with Primaris - which you don't see doing well in the competitive sense without soup nonsense. My comment is about increasing the viability of taking more than min tac squads and encouraging players to use a Marine list that actually includes Space Marines

I regularly use 70+ marines in my lists, and get good mileage out of them. Imo Primaris are actually at a disadvantage because they don't get to mix and match weapons in their squads. If you combined the abilities of both unit you'd have an extremely potent baseline unit, and I think it wouldn't be good for the game, for a number of reasons. The most important reason for me would be the quick dilution of relative potency of various xenos races.

*Old man voice* Back in my day, Genestealers, Aspect Warriors, and Necron Warriors were things that a normal marine respected and feared. Giving marines double the wounds harms that relationship. I don't want my "heroes" to just be big meatheads to pummel the enemy. I want them to have to be smart about it, which is what they have to be now.

It's balanceing that fine line where they can mix it up with aspect warriors etc and do ok but not get blown away by sheer volumes of fire. And as far as I can tell most aspect warriors aint exactly considered good by eldar players dark reapers obviously excluded, probably shining spears aswell. How many scorpions, banshees and fire dragon's does anyone see?

Dude 70 marines... what are you thinking? Can you post your full list?

Ice_can wrote:
It's balanceing that fine line where they can mix it up with aspect warriors etc and do ok but not get blown away by sheer volumes of fire. And as far as I can tell most aspect warriors aint exactly considered good by eldar players dark reapers obviously excluded, probably shining spears aswell. How many scorpions, banshees and fire dragon's does anyone see?

That's really quite beside the point. Aspect Warriors can also get blown away by volumes of fire. Them not showing up on games I'd argue has more to do with overall metas and low-losblocking terrain rules.

But to frame it another way. How many marines should ten Striking Scorpions be able to kill in a round of combat? Howabout 10 Genestealers?

 Marmatag wrote:
Dude 70 marines... what are you thinking? Can you post your full list?

I just have to laugh - this made me laugh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
It's balanceing that fine line where they can mix it up with aspect warriors etc and do ok but not get blown away by sheer volumes of fire. And as far as I can tell most aspect warriors aint exactly considered good by eldar players dark reapers obviously excluded, probably shining spears aswell. How many scorpions, banshees and fire dragon's does anyone see?

All the aspects that are shooting focused are considered playable. They are all superior to MEQ units. Added to the fact that waveserpants/deep strike stratgems increase their play-ability a great deal.

Dire avengers because they can be taken in 2x 5 mans to fill a battalion and put in a serpent until they are needed (cheap with decent firepower) - even these take a back seat to rangers though.
Reapers are basically the best infantry unit in the game.
Firedragons are outmatched by reapers but are better than sterngaurd at the role they fill.
Banshees/scorpions are mediocre melle units. They would be gems in the space marine arsenal though.
Swooping hawks are actually pretty good and have a lot of uses but why would you ever take these over shining spears (which are the only unit in the game even more OP than reapers)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
It's balanceing that fine line where they can mix it up with aspect warriors etc and do ok but not get blown away by sheer volumes of fire. And as far as I can tell most aspect warriors aint exactly considered good by eldar players dark reapers obviously excluded, probably shining spears aswell. How many scorpions, banshees and fire dragon's does anyone see?

That's really quite beside the point. Aspect Warriors can also get blown away by volumes of fire. Them not showing up on games I'd argue has more to do with overall metas and low-losblocking terrain rules.

But to frame it another way. How many marines should ten Striking Scorpions be able to kill in a round of combat? Howabout 10 Genestealers?

How many more points should a sterngaurd vet with a melta cost compared to a firedragon? Currently their is a 9 point difference in favor of the dragon.

 Marmatag wrote:
Dude 70 marines... what are you thinking? Can you post your full list?

I'll post what I'm building towards, which will be about 80.

UM chapter

Captain w/Jump Pack, Thunder hammer
Lt. W/ Jump Pack, Thunder hammer
Company Ancient, Relic Banner
Tactical Squad 10, Grav Cannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma
Tactical Squad 10, Grav Cannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma
Tactical Squad 10, Grav Cannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma
Scouts 10, Heavy Bolter
Sternguard 10, Special Issue Bolters
Devastators 9, Cherub, 4 Plasma Cannons
Devastators 9, Cherub, 4 Plasma Cannons
Devastators 8, Cherub, 4 Plasma Cannons
Drop Pod
Drop Pod
Drop Pod

Or I drop the Ancient and replace the scouts with another Tac squad, downgrade the Charcters and get different heavy weapons. But thats around where I'll be. Current list is a double battalion but I don't like spending all the points on HQs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

How many more points should a sterngaurd vet with a melta cost compared to a firedragon? Currently their is a 9 point difference in favor of the dragon.

Buy Plasma for the Sternguard, it'll save you some points and be more useful.

Again, how many marines should 10 Scorpions or Stealers kill on a charge?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Dude 70 marines... what are you thinking? Can you post your full list?

I'll post what I'm building towards, which will be about 80.

UM chapter

Captain w/Jump Pack, Thunder hammer
Lt. W/ Jump Pack, Thunder hammer
Company Ancient, Relic Banner
Tactical Squad 10, Grav Cannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma
Tactical Squad 10, Grav Cannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma
Tactical Squad 10, Grav Cannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma
Scouts 10, Heavy Bolter
Sternguard 10, Special Issue Bolters
Devastators 9, Cherub, 4 Plasma Cannons
Devastators 9, Cherub, 4 Plasma Cannons
Devastators 8, Cherub, 4 Plasma Cannons
Drop Pod
Drop Pod
Drop Pod

Or I drop the Ancient and replace the scouts with another Tac squad, downgrade the Charcters and get different heavy weapons. But thats around where I'll be. Current list is a double battalion but I don't like spending all the points on HQs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

How many more points should a sterngaurd vet with a melta cost compared to a firedragon? Currently their is a 9 point difference in favor of the dragon.

Buy Plasma for the Sternguard, it'll save you some points and be more useful.

Again, how many marines should 10 Scorpions or Stealers kill on a charge?

In a 100% balanced game approximately their points cost or slightly more, and like wise marines should be able to kill approximately their points cost or slightly more of aspect warriors points wise over a game. But the issue isn't realy marines vrs scorpions or banshees as no-one is playing them. Its dark reapers obviously and astra militarum, and other things that kill their points in a single turn that are super broke.

So the solution is to further break Scorpions?

People play Genestealers. How many marine kills for 10 stealers?

 Insectum7 wrote:
So the solution is to further break Scorpions?

People play Genestealers. How many marine kills for 10 stealers?

That's assuming said units like Scorpions are worth playing in the first place

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Dude 70 marines... what are you thinking? Can you post your full list?

I'll post what I'm building towards, which will be about 80.

UM chapter

Captain w/Jump Pack, Thunder hammer
Lt. W/ Jump Pack, Thunder hammer
Company Ancient, Relic Banner
Tactical Squad 10, Grav Cannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma
Tactical Squad 10, Grav Cannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma
Tactical Squad 10, Grav Cannon, Plasma, Combi-Plasma
Scouts 10, Heavy Bolter
Sternguard 10, Special Issue Bolters
Devastators 9, Cherub, 4 Plasma Cannons
Devastators 9, Cherub, 4 Plasma Cannons
Devastators 8, Cherub, 4 Plasma Cannons
Drop Pod
Drop Pod
Drop Pod

Or I drop the Ancient and replace the scouts with another Tac squad, downgrade the Charcters and get different heavy weapons. But thats around where I'll be. Current list is a double battalion but I don't like spending all the points on HQs.

I really like this list - Martel should be taking notes.

That's literally the opposite of what he should be doing.

That's totally a BA list, let me tell you. Maybe you should take some notes on the different chapters.

He plays BA, I'm not sure they'd add up the same way. I think he's been podding Grav Cannons recently though.

My biggest forseeable issue is that while Plasma scores as well as Grav Cannons against T7, it takes a hit at T8. Our local Guard guy recently traded in his Basilisk carriages for Leman Russes and a superheavy, so I expect that'll bite me pretty hard at some point. I'll cross that bridge when I get there. I still have some guys to paint before I start in with it. I have a fresly painted Tyranid army that I'll be playing with until I finish more Devastators and new charcters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
That's totally a BA list, let me tell you. Maybe you should take some notes on the different chapters.

Ninja'd. Right. Do your tacs even get grav cannons now?

Yeah, they get everything.

Martel732 wrote:
That's totally a BA list, let me tell you.

But what about other chapters?

 Primark G wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's totally a BA list, let me tell you.

But what about other chapters?

That might be relevant if you hadn't CALLED ME OUT BY NAME.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, they get everything.

Nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Primark G wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's totally a BA list, let me tell you.

But what about other chapters?

Personally, I get a lot of use out of the UM ability to fall back and shoot. The pattern of shoot-charge, you can't shoot me then I shoot you again can really help.

How does this list beat nidswarm or anything with deepstrike bombs?

Am I taking crazy pills? I see so many issues with this in a competitive TAC setting.

I don't see the fire-power to remove any type of horde with 35 bolter shots at > 12" plus your sternguard shots. At least not before they are ontop of you in melee. I only see protection for 30 models out of pods but as soon as they drop they are swarmed and dead.

You either have to castle up really close around your two buff characters (who have thunderhammers and jump-packs?) or spread out and severely handicap your fire-power.

No mobility so you either land on objectives (and then promptly get blown off of them) or you don't get them.

What do you do against 6 flyrants? Alpha legion berzerkers and some demon princes? Tzangors and enlightened? Or any top tier meta list?

I guess you don't give up a lot of secondary points but you'll give up all the primary that an opponent can ask for in ITC.

It may do alright against reaper spam due to number of bodies but that is just one list out of the meta. But 2x20 guardians out of the webway ruins this list.

Psychic defense?

Anything that can screen out your pods to over 24" (every competitive list) kills you before you can kill it. Heavy weapons with only 36" at most means you are shooting at a -1 first turn (often into another -1 so overcharge if you want to) with little to no way to mitigate opponents alpha/beta strikes.

Without Gman re-rolls grav cannons are middling weapons at best.

3x fire-raptors + guilliman eat this thing turn 1 (10 wounds per raptor with just the quad-bolters so that's 30 models gone + bolt cannons for another 5 per Fr so thats 45 models gone) or all of your devs and your sternguard leaving you with 3 grav cannons and some plasma to fight back with. You can't hide out of LOS or out of range, you can't move and overcharge plasma so you're not killing a fireraptor a turn so you are tabled as soon as you land your deepstrikers...

This list is bad and isn't top tier competitive at all. No wonder you and primark think marines are fine as are...Yeah martel, you should really take notes...

bananathug wrote:
How does this list beat nidswarm or anything with deepstrike bombs?

Am I taking crazy pills? I see so many issues with this in a competitive TAC setting.

No, you're not.

Insectum7 seems like a genuinely nice guy, he just plays in a very, very casual meta, and assumes that is just how 40k is.