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.

If only Marines had had access to Deathstars? Really?

Bharring wrote:
What about the SM armies that were doing so well that were monofaction, and included no Centurions? Were they Soup, CentStar, or Superfriends?

Each of those 3 were variants Marines did well with, but so were Obsec Spam and Biker Spam, for instance.

Could you give a more structured definition of 'gimmick'? Your current use seems to be "anything that makes SM look strong", which is not a very useful term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One of the big differences between DAVU and Gladius is that, in Gladius, the vehicles were added firepower/presence - the rest of the list did a lot of the work, too. In DAVU, the vehicles were the list. The DAs were there only so you could take Serpents - and would have been replaced with anything cheaper if possible.

So in your opinion - space marines were strong without super-friends or cent star in 7.0 edition?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
If only Marines had had access to Deathstars? Really?

I completely disregard deathstar 40k. It is best forgotten. It doesn't belong in a discussion about "army strength". If you were actually playing that way. I pitty you.

 Imateria wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Given that no books have great internal balance (Eldar ranks higher here than many other books as far as having viable their 2 units) or external balance, any argument using those metrics for army power/quality is somewhat irrelevant. As such for such a discussion you can look at 2 things. 1.) consistent above the board performance. 2.) ability to make a variety of powerful lists especially if those lists are thematic.

In both those categories Eldar often rank among the better armies. As to ease of painting. Marines are one of the easiest to make look decent with minimal effort/ability they are lower model count with easy details to pick out. Eldar are one of the more difficult, but not as difficult as some.

Actually for the last couple of editions now Craftworlds have had some of the worst internal balance out there, and saying no book has great internal balance is stupid, the current Dark Eldar book is great for internal balance with only a few units that no one would take, mostly from the Court and Beast Packs which weren't exactly most peoples first choices even if they were good.

So if the bad choices are ones no one takes the balance is OK? How balanced it is remains to be seen, historically though no book has had great internal balance. I would rank Craftworld Eldar far from the worst internal balance over the last few editions. Plenty of other books were far worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For what it is worth no top guard armies ran russes in 5th, they were bad.

Anyone who seriously believes 7th Marines were terrible has zero credibility in discussing anything related to balance and power discussions.

This has been explained to you a dozen times now in various threads, backed by a mountain of evidence, contested exclusively by you.

Your only counterpoint is to state that Eldar were better, which, of course, doesn't make Marines terrible.

I didn't play SuperFriends. But it's extremely disingenous to forget SuperFriends and not SeerStar. They're both abominations I've never played as, and wish weren't in the game. But they're both things the top two books have had at different times in the past.

In my opinion, with SM taking so many of the top 10 slots when looking at random tournaments early in 7th, and with CentStars and SuperFriends not featuring prominently in those lists (not in many of them at all, from what I saw), it is very fair to say the SM book was good even without them.

Breng77 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Given that no books have great internal balance (Eldar ranks higher here than many other books as far as having viable their 2 units) or external balance, any argument using those metrics for army power/quality is somewhat irrelevant. As such for such a discussion you can look at 2 things. 1.) consistent above the board performance. 2.) ability to make a variety of powerful lists especially if those lists are thematic.

In both those categories Eldar often rank among the better armies. As to ease of painting. Marines are one of the easiest to make look decent with minimal effort/ability they are lower model count with easy details to pick out. Eldar are one of the more difficult, but not as difficult as some.

Actually for the last couple of editions now Craftworlds have had some of the worst internal balance out there, and saying no book has great internal balance is stupid, the current Dark Eldar book is great for internal balance with only a few units that no one would take, mostly from the Court and Beast Packs which weren't exactly most peoples first choices even if they were good.

So if the bad choices are ones no one takes the balance is OK? How balanced it is remains to be seen, historically though no book has had great internal balance. I would rank Craftworld Eldar far from the worst internal balance over the last few editions. Plenty of other books were far worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For what it is worth no top guard armies ran russes in 5th, they were bad.

Space marines were good - and russes were bad.

Dakka is literally a joke.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Given that no books have great internal balance (Eldar ranks higher here than many other books as far as having viable their 2 units) or external balance, any argument using those metrics for army power/quality is somewhat irrelevant. As such for such a discussion you can look at 2 things. 1.) consistent above the board performance. 2.) ability to make a variety of powerful lists especially if those lists are thematic.

In both those categories Eldar often rank among the better armies. As to ease of painting. Marines are one of the easiest to make look decent with minimal effort/ability they are lower model count with easy details to pick out. Eldar are one of the more difficult, but not as difficult as some.

Actually for the last couple of editions now Craftworlds have had some of the worst internal balance out there, and saying no book has great internal balance is stupid, the current Dark Eldar book is great for internal balance with only a few units that no one would take, mostly from the Court and Beast Packs which weren't exactly most peoples first choices even if they were good.

So if the bad choices are ones no one takes the balance is OK? How balanced it is remains to be seen, historically though no book has had great internal balance. I would rank Craftworld Eldar far from the worst internal balance over the last few editions. Plenty of other books were far worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For what it is worth no top guard armies ran russes in 5th, they were bad.

Space marines were good - and russes were bad.

Dakka is literally a joke.

Yeah, feth "data" you bunch of jokes.

I have no counter to your reasoning so I'm going to just re-state my opinion and start calling you names.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Given that no books have great internal balance (Eldar ranks higher here than many other books as far as having viable their 2 units) or external balance, any argument using those metrics for army power/quality is somewhat irrelevant. As such for such a discussion you can look at 2 things. 1.) consistent above the board performance. 2.) ability to make a variety of powerful lists especially if those lists are thematic.

In both those categories Eldar often rank among the better armies. As to ease of painting. Marines are one of the easiest to make look decent with minimal effort/ability they are lower model count with easy details to pick out. Eldar are one of the more difficult, but not as difficult as some.

Actually for the last couple of editions now Craftworlds have had some of the worst internal balance out there, and saying no book has great internal balance is stupid, the current Dark Eldar book is great for internal balance with only a few units that no one would take, mostly from the Court and Beast Packs which weren't exactly most peoples first choices even if they were good.

So if the bad choices are ones no one takes the balance is OK? How balanced it is remains to be seen, historically though no book has had great internal balance. I would rank Craftworld Eldar far from the worst internal balance over the last few editions. Plenty of other books were far worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For what it is worth no top guard armies ran russes in 5th, they were bad.

Space marines were good - and russes were bad.

Dakka is literally a joke.

Yeah, feth "data" you bunch of jokes.

I have no counter to your reasoning so I'm going to just re-state my opinion and start calling you names.

Tournament data is not any more valid than my personal experience playing this game. Except - my group of players play by the actual rules (not house rules) and don't call games after 2 1/2 hours...really it is more valid.

There are actual statements that are just dumb. Like. "Lemon russes aren't good" "space marines are good" - people would just laugh at you if you said that around my group of players.

Tournament data is a biased dataset. It has it's limitations. An individual submeta - your group of players - is a significantly smaller dataset very likely subject to much stronger biases. It's also data that can help refine our understanding, but it has most of the weaknesses of massed tourney data, only worse.

Your experiences don't seem to mesh with the majority of experiences, either. If it were tournies that were biased and your experiences less so, it would be expected that your experiences would be more commonly experienced.

The OP even prefaced their clarifying remarks as "for what it's worth", as in a technical clarification and contrary evidence, not intended to prove authoritatively that Russes weren't the OP gak you think they were.

We're seeing a racheting up in unpleasantness because we're going in circles where points are being brought up and defended, and your response was "except that didn't happen" or to keep reasserting the same claim in the face of strong contrary evidence without supplying any rationale for why.

 Xenomancers wrote:
If you say plasma russ was not top tier in 5th - it doesn't make it true.

As a competitive guard player in 5th, the tricked out plasma russ was not a top tier unit, nor a particularly common one after new players ran them a couple of games.

2 inch coherency is not the norm. Units are normally bumped together in cover - or perfectly lined up after deep strikes - or coming out of transports. Plus models take up space - you run out of it. People just love to act like every model is 2 inches apart - they never were and they never will be.

When someone has a unit that would be vulnerable to a plasma russ and they wanted to keep it intact, they would absolutely make use of that 2" coherency, and in most cases even moderate spread of an inch or so would mean that, in most situatiobs, you're getting two guys on a dead on hit. More to the point, lets also remember, BS3 small blasts, these missed entirely...a lot.

And then, even if the target was bunched up in cover, in 5E that meant a 4+ that the AP2 would not break.

Hence why most people saved themselves 100pts and just took a Battlecannon russ instead, or, more usually, Vendettas and more AV12 hulls.

The Executioner had a high damage potential for sure, but an underwhelming practical output, and a very high price tag.

Basically 5 plasma cannons on a 14 armor tank was exceptionally busted. Oh it cost as much as a land raider? Makes sense. It was better than a land raider.

The exceptionally busted tank that was basically nonexistent in competitive guard lists...

I absolutely saw more Land Raiders in 5E than plasma Russ tanks, Guard had other, better ways of getting that AP2, the Land Raider (or at least the Crusader and Redeemer), was useful at least for delivering Hammernators.

People aren't arguing "Leman Russes aren't good" or "Space Marines are good". They're arguing "Leman Russes weren't more OP in 5th Ed than the Space Marine codex stuff" and "Space Marines were good, at times X, Y, and Z, for reasons A, B, and C".

Most players I know wouldn't laugh off those comments. They might disagree with one or two of the finer points, and either argue or not care. If your group of players would laugh it off, I'm glad it's not my meta for any game.

I love how people saying that Marines are terrible is only comparing them against top tier armies like Guard and Eldar, and no the bottom feeders like orks, DE/nids (depending on edition), GKs outside of 5th

 Xenomancers wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Imateria wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Given that no books have great internal balance (Eldar ranks higher here than many other books as far as having viable their 2 units) or external balance, any argument using those metrics for army power/quality is somewhat irrelevant. As such for such a discussion you can look at 2 things. 1.) consistent above the board performance. 2.) ability to make a variety of powerful lists especially if those lists are thematic.

In both those categories Eldar often rank among the better armies. As to ease of painting. Marines are one of the easiest to make look decent with minimal effort/ability they are lower model count with easy details to pick out. Eldar are one of the more difficult, but not as difficult as some.

Actually for the last couple of editions now Craftworlds have had some of the worst internal balance out there, and saying no book has great internal balance is stupid, the current Dark Eldar book is great for internal balance with only a few units that no one would take, mostly from the Court and Beast Packs which weren't exactly most peoples first choices even if they were good.

So if the bad choices are ones no one takes the balance is OK? How balanced it is remains to be seen, historically though no book has had great internal balance. I would rank Craftworld Eldar far from the worst internal balance over the last few editions. Plenty of other books were far worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For what it is worth no top guard armies ran russes in 5th, they were bad.

Space marines were good - and russes were bad.

Dakka is literally a joke.

Yeah, feth "data" you bunch of jokes.

I have no counter to your reasoning so I'm going to just re-state my opinion and start calling you names.

Tournament data is not any more valid than my personal experience playing this game. Except - my group of players play by the actual rules (not house rules) and don't call games after 2 1/2 hours...really it is more valid.

There are actual statements that are just dumb. Like. "Lemon russes aren't good" "space marines are good" - people would just laugh at you if you said that around my group of players.

So only your meta counts as real 40k? Seriously? I played a ton of tournaments in 5th frequently using book missions, and never had a game called due to time. So none of your strawmen about why Plasma russes were bad hold up. They were bad because for the price tag they were inefficient in the 5th was ed meta and guard had far better options. 5th was super Mech edition plasma russes were flat out bad against mechanized targets especially AV12. They were bad because easily obtainable 4+ cover made their advantages not so great, they were bad because most competitive infantry that wasn’t hugging cover had invul saves, they were bad because small blasts were bad, too easy to scatter off or defend by spacing out. Sorry just because some guy used them effectively in your meta doesn’t make them a good choice. Were they awful, no you could use them. Were they in any competitive guard armies? Not really, other units did their job better for less.

Always the same nonsensical arguments from you. You almost make it sound like ap2 is bad because invo saves and cover existed in 5th. Plasma Russes were great against vehicles - they practically auto hit them. Things that did their job better were very easy to kill where 14 armor russ is practically indestructible. For heavier stuff you had 3 twin las vendettas with melta vets.

Plus no - my meta doesn't count anymore than anyone elses meta. I never said that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Billagio wrote:
I love how people saying that Marines are terrible is only comparing them against top tier armies like Guard and Eldar, and no the bottom feeders like orks, DE/nids (depending on edition), GKs outside of 5th

Lets see - DE have been raping marines since they came out - they are practically designed to kill space marines. In 4th eddition there was almost no point in playing marines vs DE. In 5th I don't recall much DE really - I seem to remember vect being quite good though almost ensuring you go first (kind of a gimick.) In 7th DE could easily beat space marine armies until gladius came out (then again - they never got a 7.5 codex) (but DE are sure strong now).

ITT I have stated 5th ed orks were also terribly bad. Greyknights were amazing in 5th (currently the only other army worse than space marines in 40k).

You insinuated it with the “we played all the rules, no time limit.” Nonsense.

That said no they were bad against vehicles. They did not almost auto-hit, unless you mean 1/5 templates was likely to hit. They averaged a 3” scatter. Pretty easy to scatter off something depending on direction. So let’s go benefit of the doubt and say 4 shots hit every time. Against AV 12. That is 1 glance/pen (1.33, 50-50 glance or pen). If the vehicle had cover (pretty easy to do in 5th) you are looking at a pen or glance every other turn, for the cost of a land raider. Compare that to plasma/melts vets, or vendettas, or mantacores. You talk about durability, but all I need to do is glance your vehicle to render it near useless. When you cost nearly the price to 2 vendettas or the like you aren’t good. They were a middling option that was amazing against noobs, but had no presence in top lists.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Always the same nonsensical arguments from you. You almost make it sound like ap2 is bad because invo saves and cover existed in 5th. Plasma Russes were great against vehicles - they practically auto hit them. Things that did their job better were very easy to kill where 14 armor russ is practically indestructible. For heavier stuff you had 3 twin las vendettas with melta vets.

Plus no - my meta doesn't count anymore than anyone elses meta. I never said that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Billagio wrote:
I love how people saying that Marines are terrible is only comparing them against top tier armies like Guard and Eldar, and no the bottom feeders like orks, DE/nids (depending on edition), GKs outside of 5th

Lets see - DE have been raping marines since they came out - they are practically designed to kill space marines. In 4th eddition there was almost no point in playing marines vs DE. In 5th I don't recall much DE really - I seem to remember vect being quite good though almost ensuring you go first - kind of a gimick (but DE are sure strong now)

ITT I have stated 5th ed orks were also terribly bad. Greyknights were amazing in 5th (currently the only other army worse than space marines in 40k).

DE - the army that was historically hard-countered by cheap tough vehicles and relied on AP5 poison spam to kill infantry - was practically designed to counter space marines.

You remember that the starter kit for the game for 3rd edition, the grand introduction of Dark Eldar, was a Dark Eldar vs Space Marines box set in which the Marines had a model that the Dark Eldar could not actually hurt, right?

"My personal experience trumps your data" is a really solid, valuable argument that contributes a lot to a discussion.

Breng77 wrote:
You insinuated it with the “we played all the rules, no time limit.” Nonsense.

That said no they were bad against vehicles. They did not almost auto-hit, unless you mean 1/5 templates was likely to hit. They averaged a 3” scatter. Pretty easy to scatter off something depending on direction. So let’s go benefit of the doubt and say 4 shots hit every time. Against AV 12. That is 1 glance/pen (1.33, 50-50 glance or pen). If the vehicle had cover (pretty easy to do in 5th) you are looking at a pen or glance every other turn, for the cost of a land raider. Compare that to plasma/melts vets, or vendettas, or mantacores. You talk about durability, but all I need to do is glance your vehicle to render it near useless. When you cost nearly the price to 2 vendettas or the like you aren’t good. They were a middling option that was amazing against noobs, but had no presence in top lists.

You are a clown. This is vs a non prefered target. Lets run the math on las cannons killing gaurdsmen in cover while we are at this. It was very capable against vehicals if it had to be. It could crush a razorback easily or a whole terminator squad - that is it's job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Always the same nonsensical arguments from you. You almost make it sound like ap2 is bad because invo saves and cover existed in 5th. Plasma Russes were great against vehicles - they practically auto hit them. Things that did their job better were very easy to kill where 14 armor russ is practically indestructible. For heavier stuff you had 3 twin las vendettas with melta vets.

Plus no - my meta doesn't count anymore than anyone elses meta. I never said that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Billagio wrote:
I love how people saying that Marines are terrible is only comparing them against top tier armies like Guard and Eldar, and no the bottom feeders like orks, DE/nids (depending on edition), GKs outside of 5th

Lets see - DE have been raping marines since they came out - they are practically designed to kill space marines. In 4th eddition there was almost no point in playing marines vs DE. In 5th I don't recall much DE really - I seem to remember vect being quite good though almost ensuring you go first - kind of a gimick (but DE are sure strong now)

ITT I have stated 5th ed orks were also terribly bad. Greyknights were amazing in 5th (currently the only other army worse than space marines in 40k).

DE - the army that was historically hard-countered by cheap tough vehicles and relied on AP5 poison spam to kill infantry - was practically designed to counter space marines.

You remember that the starter kit for the game for 3rd edition, the grand introduction of Dark Eldar, was a Dark Eldar vs Space Marines box set in which the Marines had a model that the Dark Eldar could not actually hurt, right?

"My personal experience trumps your data" is a really solid, valuable argument that contributes a lot to a discussion.

how do cheap tough vehicals counter DE?

Cheap vehicals can be flanked and shot in the butt with str 8 blaster/blast pistols/dark lances. Even disentegrators hurt there.

Plus you have it backwards - DE are the ones spamming cheap vehcials. Space marines are probably running a LR with terminators in it. Ideal targets for darklances blasters and disintegration cannon.

Not saying DE were a good army - they didn't leave an impression with me - but they weren't any worse than marines.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Plus you have it backwards - DE are the ones spamming cheap vehcials. Space marines are probably running a LR with terminators in it. Ideal targets for darklances blasters and disintegration cannon.

Not saying DE were a good army - they didn't leave an impression with me - but they weren't any worse than marines.

1 - disintegrator cannons could not actually harm land raiders in 7th or earlier. Can't hurt AV14 with S5.

2 - A land raider full of terminators is a horrifically inefficient unit, in pretty much every version of the game. If someone claimed that tactical marines are points efficient because they get super great returns shooting up Flash Gitz, you'd rightfully call them an idiot.

3 - competitive marine lists in nearly every edition of the game have spammed razorbacks, rhinos, or drop pods. Not land raiders.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Always the same nonsensical arguments from you. You almost make it sound like ap2 is bad because invo saves and cover existed in 5th.

what did we see a the trend toward in 5E? Volume of fire, not AP. It was the great rise of the Autocannon. 4+ cover everywhere for everything drove that trend. Not saying AP2 was useless, but great gobs of AP2 blasts were not particularly amazing.

My 5E guard tournament list was 9 Chimeras, 5 command squads with 4 meltas each (3 platoon and 2 company), 6 AC/GL infantry squads, 3 Vendettas and 3 Hydras in 2k.

What Russ tanks I did run were Battlecannons, and, towards the end of the edition, autocannon equipped Exterminators.

Plasma Russes were great against vehicles - they practically auto hit them.

Hrm, they hit them at about a BS4 rate, not autohit. So your 250pt tank would get 5 Autocannon equivalent shots (AP2 didn't mean anything against tanks back then) at BS4 equivalent, and a single BS3 Lascannon against another tank. Not incapable, but not good, much less great, for 250pts, two Vendettas for the same points generated triple the average kill output against AV12, and even Hydras would be about twice as efficient point for point over the Executioner against AV12.

Things that did their job better were very easy to kill where 14 armor russ is practically indestructible.

*snort* wat?

They certainly weren't as indestructible as the "worse" Land Raider that had better side and especially rear armor (important against CC attacks).

There's a reason guard lists tended toward AV12 spam and not running AV14. Melta (especially deep striking melta) was spammed everywhere, and AV ignoring stuff like Haywire increasingly common, and CC didnt care if you were AV12 or 14 at the front, its all 10/11 in the rear.

Again.....look at competitive guard lists, Russ tanks are rare and the Executioner certainly wasnt a big popular netlist metaunit.

For heavier stuff you had 3 twin las vendettas with melta vets.

At which point you dont much need the plasma Russ either.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Plus you have it backwards - DE are the ones spamming cheap vehcials. Space marines are probably running a LR with terminators in it. Ideal targets for darklances blasters and disintegration cannon.

Not saying DE were a good army - they didn't leave an impression with me - but they weren't any worse than marines.

1 - disintegrator cannons could not actually harm land raiders in 7th or earlier. Can't hurt AV14 with S5.

2 - A land raider full of terminators is a horrifically inefficient unit, in pretty much every version of the game. If someone claimed that tactical marines are points efficient because they get super great returns shooting up Flash Gitz, you'd rightfully call them an idiot.

3 - competitive marine lists in nearly every edition of the game have spammed razorbacks, rhinos, or drop pods. Not land raiders.

I'm not sure you played 5th edition. LR with thunder hammer terms was basically the only unit space marines had that was scary.

 Xenomancers wrote:

how do cheap tough vehicals counter DE?

Compare a Chimera or Razorback to a Raider in 5E. You need about 3.4 TLHB Razorbacks to kil a Raider, or 2.2 ML/HB himeras, but needed 13.5 Raiders to kill a Chimera or 9 to kill a Razorback.

Lances and Blasters are great against AV14, against AV12/11/10, theyre worse than Lascannons.

Meanwhile, everyone elses long range anti infantry weapons work just as well per shot against a Raider or Ravager as the Dark Lance does back at them, and theyre getting wayyyyyyy more shots while still wounding DE infantry infantry on 2's usually with no save.

Not saying DE were a good army - they didn't leave an impression with me - but they weren't any worse than marines.

DE were, up until recently, exceedingly good against elite armies, stuff like Marines and Nidzilla, and *realllllllly* bad against stuff like Guard and Orks.

@ Xeno- the same generous 4 auto-hits result in about 1 glance and 1 pen against a Razorback. So cover knocks that down to 1 or the other....hardly great against razorbacks especially when those results often don’t kill the target. Sorry still not great. 250 points that might kill a Razorback every other turn if it gets to shoot isn’t good. A whole terminator squad (Terrible unit unless paladins, or THSS.)? Only if you roll really well and they are dumb enough to not run after deepstrike. So let’s look at paladins and TH/SS termies that sit in a blob. Let’s assume you hit with all your shots, so 25 hits kills 7 TH/SS termies or 3 paladins. But you won’t hit that many times. People will spread out and you will be lucky to get 10 hits. So 3 termies, or 1 paladin. Termies were hardly a top unit in 5th.

Paladins have a 5++ save no?

And often 4+ FNP, which amounts to the same 7 wounds.

Breng77 wrote:
And often 4+ FNP, which amounts to the same 7 wounds.

Wrong weapon for the job - sound like you need a demolisher cannon for this job. Which is pretty good on a russ - pretty bad on a vindicator.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Gladius? Wasn't the strongest? Wow...I actually agree with you. However - you are looking at it the wrong way. What if the sisters had gladius formation?

Then they would have have competed on more even terms with the top armies of 7th... like marines. Formations were integral to the power of books in the edition.

As I've said before, never has there been a Necron player who whined about how bad Necrons were in 7th because we relied on the Decurion to work.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paladins have a 5++ save no?

Yes they do T_T .

What army was the most best counter eldar through the ages, because if eldar were good or very good through the ages, an army that can beat them would have been really good.

Eldar!

(You should have seen that coming.)

 Xenomancers wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
And often 4+ FNP, which amounts to the same 7 wounds.

Wrong weapon for the job - sound like you need a demolisher cannon for this job. Which is pretty good on a russ - pretty bad on a vindicator.

So what is it the right weapon for exactly. Mediocre at killing vehicles, bad against units in cover, bad if units are spread out. You are right the demolished is better and the only Russ I ever saw get much play. But your argument about “bad target”. When I describe the meta of 5th, what was it good against exactly? The guy running regular terminators all bunched up? Or marines out in the open all bunched up? That is getting to be super situational for a 250 point unit.