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.

Eldar have traditionally been good-to-broken throughout the editions, and that is for 2 reasons.

1: Most of their units are specialized at something, which means the Eldar usually have a tool for any particular job.

2:The Eldar have always been the army that gets the most ways to break the core rules. They're GW's space elves, so they have to be a little extra special as a result.

Yet if I say Marines are GW's favourites so they get special treatment I get told how wrong that is.

pm713 wrote:
Yet if I say Marines are GW's favourites so they get special treatment I get told how wrong that is.

That's because there are a lot of SM fanboys here and they don't like being reminded that they consistently get special treatment.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Eldar have traditionally been good-to-broken throughout the editions, and that is for 2 reasons.

1: Most of their units are specialized at something, which means the Eldar usually have a tool for any particular job.

2:The Eldar have always been the army that gets the most ways to break the core rules. They're GW's space elves, so they have to be a little extra special as a result.

^this basically.

#1 was especially prevalent before 8E when units could not split fire and all models had to engage the same target.

We see #2 a lot with "elf" type or equivalent factions (such as the Shaltari in Dropzone/Dropfleet) quite frequently in gaming, and it never fails to result in balance issues, it is not unique to GW, though GW is particularly egregious about it (anyone remember Eldar in BFG?).

Generic codex space marines has been bad since I've played the game (starting in 4th). Typically it's always the first army in a new edition - so it get's a psuedo sense of short term success and as other armies come out - it gets cast into oblivion. The army has always had core problems that never get fixed.

-Power armor is not effective
-Terminator armor is not effective
-Firepower is good - but cost more than other armies for no reason.
-Pay for assault stats without any real ability to use them (mobility is low - survivability is low) and close combat weapons are too expensive on anything but a captain.
-Vehicles are bad (the best marine vehicle I've ever seen was the 7th ed land speeder storm - it was like something you'd see in a xeno codex - WTF - I can shoot out of this? It has multiple free special rules? It has a gun with a special rule? OMG.) Vindicators have always sucked (this is the first edition you can actually move and shoot the thing) Too bad it's not nearly as powerful as it could have been if it had the ability to do that in other edditions (ofc the IG tanks with the same weapon have always been able to move and shoot it with a special rule) Preditors have always been bad - light tank that gets punished for moving. Whirlwinds were decent in 7th with a formation that required you take 3 of them and a land speeder. IG wyvern was better as it got reroll wounds on it's weapon for free lol without being in a formation.

It's comical really how bad marines stuff has been. You will always have the forge world stuff that is OP that makes the army playable (honestly it's always been like that for marines). You'll also have the gimick stuff that makes the army more playable (sicarians/leviathans/firerapotrs) + ally shenanigans creating indestructible units with every ability in the game. Or like 7th edition gladius (the first super formation) which was really not any better than other formations that came later (in fact it was much worse). Please - just reference 7th edition Ynnari if you want to talk about an actually good army in 7th. I once beat 4k of deathwatch with 2k of ynnari in 7th eddition (I'm serious - it wasn't even close ether)

Seriously - when it comes to army power - you have to look at the edition as a whole. You can't examine a few month period where you had updated stuff vs non updated stuff when they both existed updated in the same version of the game. That is extremely poor reasoning.

People always seem to punish the grey-knights for being strong at the end of 5th. The eldar though who received the most busted rules to ever exist in the game in the form of soul burst - are still allowed to be the most powerful army in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Yet if I say Marines are GW's favourites so they get special treatment I get told how wrong that is.

That's because there are a lot of SM fanboys here and they don't like being reminded that they consistently get special treatment.

The only special treatment they get is coming out first in the edition - which is literally the worst thing that can happen for an army - it all but guarantees the army will suck at the end of the edition.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Generic codex space marines has been bad since I've played the game (starting in 4th).

This is not only completely false, its patently absurd, and its embarassing that it needs to be explained to you every time you claim this.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Generic codex space marines has been bad since I've played the game (starting in 4th).

This is not only completely false, its patently absurd, and its embarassing that it needs to be explained to you every time you claim this.

Argue with my points please. Don't just make blanket statements like. HAHA - look how dumb you are - that's just crazy talk. Very typical of an IG or Eldar fan boy. Next thing you are going to tell me about is Space marines winning a tournament with tactical marines or some other legit nonsense.

Are you trying to say that?
Gladius = Ynnari soulburst power level? Please make an argument.
Superfriends is actaully a space marine army? Because it's not - it's just a gimick abusing a poor ruleset taking from multiple codex and forge world.
Space marine (Codex) vehicals have ever been good? Please show me mathematically how space marine vehicles have ever been comparable to other armies good choices.
Power armor is actually worth it's cost? You don't even have to respond to this - It would be like arguing water isn't wet.
Terminator armor is actually worth the cost (baring a brief period in 5th where assault terms with Vulkan were actually good but ultimately made irrelevant by spacewolves and greyknight later in the edition). Yeah don't respond to this ether.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Yet if I say Marines are GW's favourites so they get special treatment I get told how wrong that is.

That's because there are a lot of SM fanboys here and they don't like being reminded that they consistently get special treatment.

And it's also got a lot of rational people who aren't SM fanboys like myself who understand they're not very good in this edition. While that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't GW's favorites - since that's a statement that is almost impossible to quantify - it certainly would suggest that there's a problem with marines not receiving enough from GW.

In either case, since the codex dropped, this is the first time i feel like i have an advantage playing people as Tyranids. I can't recall a time when Tyranids were generally good, prior to 8th.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Generic codex space marines has been bad since I've played the game (starting in 4th).

This is not only completely false, its patently absurd, and its embarassing that it needs to be explained to you every time you claim this.

Argue with my points please. Don't just make blanket statements like. HAHA - look how dumb you are - that's just crazy talk. Very typical of an IG or Eldar fan boy. Next thing you are going to tell me about is Space marines winning a tournament with tactical marines or some other legit nonsense.

Are you trying to say that?
Gladius = Ynnari soulburst power level? Please make an argument.
Superfriends is actaully a space marine army? Because it's not - it's just a gimick abusing a poor ruleset taking from multiple codex and forge world.
Space marine (Codex) vehicals have ever been good? Please show me mathematically how space marine vehicles have ever been comparable to other armies good choices.
Power armor is actually worth it's cost? You don't even have to respond to this - It would be like arguing water isn't wet.
Terminator armor is actually worth the cost (baring a brief period in 5th where assault terms with Vulkan were actually good but ultimately made irrelevant by spacewolves and greyknight later in the edition). Yeah don't respond to this ether.

It has been explained to you before that 7th Marines were a top tier book despite you claiming it was a weak codex. You stated that marines have been bad since 4th, which by almost any definition, is false.

Going by last edition alone, Marines were near the top. The incredibly simple fact you fail to understand is that the presence of a better codex doesn't make marines bad. Marines didn't have to be as good as Ynnari Soulburst to not be bad. The fact that they consistently won large tournaments with a variety of builds throughout the edition is all the evidence needed to state marines were not a bad codex.

The rest of your points don't matter because your initial claim is wrong, and there's no sense in getting into the weeds until you understand and admit that marines were never a bad codex. Ork players would love to be as 'bad' as you claim marines to have been treated.

Seriously, if you can't admit 7th edition codex marines was a top tier codex, then there's no sense in trying to engage with anything else you have to say.

SM book comes out first every edition?
8th: Sure
7th: Late
6th: Middle of the edition

Don't recall 4th and 5th, but that makes it fairly clearly not always the first. That's only 5 editions, so this isn't some technical counterpoint - the core of the argument is clearly incorrect in a broad sense.

Power armor is not effective? But yet you complain all the time about power armor-equivelents (3+)? You could say Marine PA overpay for that 3+, but clearly it's not the 3+ itself. If you go down the road of saying "I said power armor, not a 3+", but then the only crunch difference is that it's on Marines - so you're supporting your argument by assuming your argument is true.

Firepower costs more for no reason? Like how that quad-las Pred outshoots CWE tanks? Or how the Razorback outshoots the Devilfish? Or the Storm Raven.... Not all tanks are IG <insert your most hated>.

Superfriends are not an SM army? So they dont' take Tiggy (SM)? Sure, they use other Dexes too, so there is some argument there. But Superfriends is SM just as much as Ynnari is CWE.

Pay for assault stats they can't use?

SM + allies shouldn't be mentioned? Yet Ynnari shows up yet again? how are people fielding Ynnari without allies (hint: they're not)?

There are points that hurt SM, but you don't seem to be capable of seeing where they've done well, or the limitations to their weaknesses.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I had to look up this, because it didn't jive with my recollection:

"Or like 7th edition gladius (the first super formation)"

Except that Decurion came out in January. Gladius in June. Decurion was the first, and there were others before Gladius.

Both Necron and Eldar formations predate Gladius.

Can you expound on the reasons why a quad-las predator is better than an Eldar tank?

The storm raven is flatly overcosted at this point, too, surprised you'd mention it.

I was referring specifically to this:
"Firepower is good - but cost more than other armies for no reason."

The quad-las Pred has more firepower per point than CWE BL Serpent or Falcon, and is better vs the things you should be using lascannons for than a Fire Prism.

In this particular vein I'm not staking the claim that SM tanks are better than CWE tanks. I'm showing that SM don't necessarily pay more for their firepower than non-SM.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
You've missed a few units for eldar that have performed in tournaments.

-Guardians
-Wraithguard/Wraithblades
-Hemlocks
-Other Autarcha and Farseer builds.

Further your argument is disingenuous.

People argue books are low tier because they don't perform. SO saying "x" units are viable, when one book is placing 100th and the other first is not really a good comparison.

Beyond that there isn't really a competitive non-soup build for any army that can currently soup.

You're right about Guardians and Hemlocks (and the Autarch/Farseer statement is vague enough that it's basically both right and wrong), but what about a source on Wraithguard/Wraithblades in competitive lists? I could maybe maybe believe you on Wraithguard (though I haven't seen any lists with them), but I'll call BS on Wraithblades (but would love to be proved wrong)

Every top LVO list had foot Farseers. As well as some other special characters. Swooping Hawks also were in one of the top 8 lists. I also missed Crimson Hunters as a possibility. As for the Wraith units I recall listening to a podcast about some reasonably large event where they did well, but cannot remember which one. It might have been Adepticon and they finished just out of the top 16.

I still think the number of usable units in eldar trumps what you see in Codex marine lists.

Well if you factor in the stratagems available and the range / mobility of these tanks, the Prism is flat superior to the predator.

For instance you only need 2 prisms to take advantage of their stratagem, whereas you need 3 predators.

the_scotsman wrote:

A.T. wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The number of viable units around for CWE is almost comparable to the number of viable units that appear in factions that almost everyone agrees are extremely low-tier right now. Compare to...

The difference is that those seven eldar units shut out the top three spots of the las vegas open this year. SM Razorbacks and lieutenants... didn't.

Besides Eldar can easily add more to that list - the fliers, swooping hawks, the odd guardian blob, some of the named characters for instance.

The relevance of the performance of CWE before the deep strike nerf, Dark Reaper nerf, Farseer Nerf, Spiritseer Nerf, the latest Ynnari nerf and the rule of 3 is about as relevant as me bringing up the early stormraven dominance of marines before the flyer nerf....i.e., not.

I don't include Guardian blobs because post DS nerf they are irrelevant.

I didn't include Swooping Hawks for the same reason.

Fire dragons - ditto, people would deep strike them.

The flyers, sure, I'd definitely say I missed Crimson Hunters. I don't really recall seeing a Hemlock making an appearance in competitive play because it's so far outperformed by CH for the cost. Maybe someone's taking it for a Jinx replacement to the now nerfed Spiritseer?

Similarly, the number of non-bike Farseers or Autarchs I've seen have been vanishingly small. Maybe someone's run a jump autarch pre DS nerf? Maybe a foot farseer? If I'd listed "Primaris Lieutenant" and "Lieutenant" as TWO viable marine units you know someone (or like, three particular someones) would be jumping down my throat.

The overall point is: CWE is showing itself to be a brittle faction in the meta. When something like the chaff-clearing alpha strike of Guardians in webway gets nerfed, it's gone, with no real replacement. When Dark Reapers and Farseers got nerfed, they stayed in everyone's list, because Farseers are the only option for ROF casters and Dark Reapers are the only actually good heavy fire support unit out of the codex.

Compare this kind of response to nerfs with, say, Guard. Conscripts get nerfed? The other two Troops choices are also good. Tallarn gets nerfed? Everyones a Catachan, or a Cadian. Manticores get nerfed? Good thing we have 4 other good heavy fire support vehicle options. Flying low-T transports enter the meta? Good thing we've got these Hydras.

This is the difference between a really strong codex and a codex with a handful of strong options. CSM/Tsons codex vs Death Guard/Nurgle Daemons. Marine codex vs Guard codex. Depth means when one thing gets nerfed, you can take something else in the codex that does the same thing and see only a very slight impact on your performance. Lack of depth means you say "Welp, that's nerfed, guess I don't have an anti-infantry alpha strike unit anymore."

Those units are still good post DS nerf. Every LVO list (basically any reaper list) runs foot farseers because they are better than bike seers in that build (cheaper and can embark). Primaris LT basically has no reason to be fielded as he has basically no advantage, so that comparison is not very genuine. It would be more akin to Jump LT and regular. However those are the same data slate.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Generic codex space marines has been bad since I've played the game (starting in 4th). Typically it's always the first army in a new edition - so it get's a psuedo sense of short term success and as other armies come out - it gets cast into oblivion. The army has always had core problems that never get fixed.

-Power armor is not effective
-Terminator armor is not effective
-Firepower is good - but cost more than other armies for no reason.
-Pay for assault stats without any real ability to use them (mobility is low - survivability is low) and close combat weapons are too expensive on anything but a captain.
-Vehicles are bad (the best marine vehicle I've ever seen was the 7th ed land speeder storm - it was like something you'd see in a xeno codex - WTF - I can shoot out of this? It has multiple free special rules? It has a gun with a special rule? OMG.) Vindicators have always sucked (this is the first edition you can actually move and shoot the thing) Too bad it's not nearly as powerful as it could have been if it had the ability to do that in other edditions (ofc the IG tanks with the same weapon have always been able to move and shoot it with a special rule) Preditors have always been bad - light tank that gets punished for moving. Whirlwinds were decent in 7th with a formation that required you take 3 of them and a land speeder. IG wyvern was better as it got reroll wounds on it's weapon for free lol without being in a formation.

It's comical really how bad marines stuff has been. You will always have the forge world stuff that is OP that makes the army playable (honestly it's always been like that for marines). You'll also have the gimick stuff that makes the army more playable (sicarians/leviathans/firerapotrs) + ally shenanigans creating indestructible units with every ability in the game. Or like 7th edition gladius (the first super formation) which was really not any better than other formations that came later (in fact it was much worse). Please - just reference 7th edition Ynnari if you want to talk about an actually good army in 7th. I once beat 4k of deathwatch with 2k of ynnari in 7th eddition (I'm serious - it wasn't even close ether)

Seriously - when it comes to army power - you have to look at the edition as a whole. You can't examine a few month period where you had updated stuff vs non updated stuff when they both existed updated in the same version of the game. That is extremely poor reasoning.

People always seem to punish the grey-knights for being strong at the end of 5th. The eldar though who received the most busted rules to ever exist in the game in the form of soul burst - are still allowed to be the most powerful army in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

pm713 wrote:
Yet if I say Marines are GW's favourites so they get special treatment I get told how wrong that is.

That's because there are a lot of SM fanboys here and they don't like being reminded that they consistently get special treatment.

The only special treatment they get is coming out first in the edition - which is literally the worst thing that can happen for an army - it all but guarantees the army will suck at the end of the edition.

So, when it comes to marines, where they came out early in the edition, dominated because they were the only codex, then saw repeated nerfs until they're lower tier later in the edition, we should not judge their relative power on early success. Also, we should not look at outside gimmicks you can take WITH marine units (forgeworld, gladius) and judge power of marines as a whole.

But when it comes to Eldar, we should look at Ynnari, which came out early in the edition, dominated, then saw repeated nerfs (soulburst nerf to once per turn, nerf to WOTF, nerf to require Ynnari warlord, nerf to require a pure Asuryani/Drukhari/Harlequin detachment WITH ynnari warlord) until they got to the point they're at right now, where there were fewer Ynnari detachments taken to the London GT than there were pure no-allies Space Marine armies. We should also DEFINITELY judge Eldar as broken because of an outside gimmick (soulburst) which despite not technically being the same faction, and being added in by a book outside the codex as a sales tactic, you think is the most broken rule in the game.

But Skyhammer, for example, was just a sales tactic gimmick which should not bear any indication on the relative power judgement of space marines.

And you're not seeing any kind of double standard here.

I ain't saying Eldar aren't a good faction at the moment. And I ain't saying they should be ALLOWED to be super powerful or dominant - where they do actually dominate the meta, they should be, and have been, receiving nerfs.

I think another reason is that Eldar have tended to be reliable.

I mean assuming the same points, would you rather have 1 shot that hits on a 2+ or 5 shots that hit on a 6+? In terms of probability its the same - but the first has only a 16%~ chance to miss, while the second has a 40% chance to miss all 5 shots. On the plus side 20% of the time you will get 2 or more hits.

When tournaments come down to winning 5 games you need consistency, not red hot dice one game and then a complete failure the next.

I see people still don't get that an army can be powerful or over powered and still be a bad army. If all you want is to trash your opponent then he wait for GW to finally give you the lime light and just switch your army? If you want to cry about how bad your army is, then make a new thread.

Here, I'll give you some inspiration for that thread. The worst codex I have ever seen was the original Tau codex. Not only was it an all shooting army released in an addition when CC was heavily favored but its unit selection compared to other codexes was a joke. I remember a WD battle report were the players threw out points and just filled up a FOC chart with no limit to upgrades. I used this to compare my Tau with my 3.0 Chaos and then looked at what the point totals would be. The gap between the two was an absolute joke. It could have also been worse too, had I hamstrung myself by taking 3 squads of Kroot with Krootox and Hounds. That would have cost me all 3 of my FA and HS slots along with my Troop slots.

I was referring to the "pay more for the same firepower, but worse".

Let's look at weapons on troops then. An SM squad can take a heavy weapon. A Guardian squad can take a heavy weapon. Otherwise naked.

Overall, Guardians have twice the bodies, but die twice as fast. At 80 pts vs 65 pts. So they take up more space, but cost more per durability.

Lascannon vs Brightlance:
Lascannons are 5pts more, stock, but the platform is a bunch of points. Lascannons get +12" range (really useful to avoid moving to shoot), +1 S (wounding T8 on 3s). Brightlances have 1 better AP. The AT shooting clearly favors the Lascannon per unit. Surviviability about evens out per unit. And that Tac squad is quite a bit cheaper per unit than the Guardian squad.

AML vs IoM ML:
The AML frag-equivelent has AP-1. Which is good. But again, it's more points to get the platform to take one. So again, the Tac unit wins.

Melta Gun vs Fusion Gun:
Guardians need to trade out their sidearms for pistols + CC weapons. Without gaining CC stats or a way to get into CC. Just so they can pay for up to two Fusion Guns. Their min squad goes down in points. So they aren't more expensive than a MG/CombiMG Tac squad, but they're even worse off survivability/unit than the other comparisons. And their chumps have pistols - so worse dakka from chumps than Tacs.

Flamers:
Same as above

Plasma:
CWE doesn't get Plas. The only specail weapon people currently care about.

It's just not accurate to say SM pay more for the same dakka.

It think to some extent that is a poor comparison because in eldar you don't use your troops as firepower as you have specialists for that role. With Stock guns Guardians outshoot marines point for point. Generally speaking in this edition tactical squads with special weapons are not very good, so when you look at having no special weapons guardians outperform the marines.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Eldar have traditionally been good-to-broken throughout the editions, and that is for 2 reasons.

1: Most of their units are specialized at something, which means the Eldar usually have a tool for any particular job.

2:The Eldar have always been the army that gets the most ways to break the core rules. They're GW's space elves, so they have to be a little extra special as a result.

They're also generally given roles in all 3 offensive phases of the game, which means point cost is the only real limiter on their output.

Space Marines are often on the high end of mediocre because they're literally the baseline for everything in the game's combat engine. Everything else has slightly better min-maxed statlines. They're often good, even great; its just that since they serve as the baseline, they're rarely defining the meta. They are, kind of by definition; the first tier strategy that sets the stage for what kind of models DO get to define the meta.

@Breng,
I proably should have compared their weapons to Necrons or DE or anything aside from CWE, as it's just conflating topics.

I still don't believe SM have always paid more for the same firepower as other armies.

I think you're very right about the specialized role. I've always though of Guardians as militia, not soldiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Also, I consider Bladestorm to be Plas of CWE. For three editions, with the exception of the index, Tacs + Plas/Combi have had about the same punch as the same points of Dire Avengers.)

 Xenomancers wrote:
Generic codex space marines has been bad since I've played the game (starting in 4th).

Generic codex marines were one of the better armies of 4E, and certainly of 5E (overshadowed largely only by other Marines and possibly IG and Necrons in the last few months).

Typically it's always the first army in a new edition - so it get's a psuedo sense of short term success and as other armies come out - it gets cast into oblivion. The army has always had core problems that never get fixed.

-Power armor is not effective
-Terminator armor is not effective

Hrm, in 8E thats probably a fair statement to some degree, but not so much in earlier editions, having a 3+ save really meant a lot in editions like 4E, the volume of fire geneeally didnt exist to overwhelm the 3+ in most instances the way it ballooned to in say, 7E. Likewise, Terminators featured heavily in many older SM lists. In 3E/4E, double heavy weapon 5man squads were popular, and in 5E the 2+/3++ Hammernators were practically an autoinclude, the bigger issue with Terminators broadly was that the basic Terminator SB/Pfist concept was envisioned for a fluff concept (short tight passageways held by dramatically less well armored opponents) that isn't reflected on 40k tables generally and the SB/pfist loadout hasnt ever really worked quite right as a result.

-Firepower is good - but cost more than other armies for no reason.

Hrm, historically speaking this hasnt necessarily been true. Hell, up until 8E, in most cases Devastators were more cost effective in terms of average number of hits landed per point invested than IG heavy weapons squads most of the time, especially when it came to guns like Lascannons, while being dramatically more resilient to boot, especially back in the days of 4E.

-Pay for assault stats without any real ability to use them (mobility is low - survivability is low) and close combat weapons are too expensive on anything but a captain.

In more recent editions I would agree, but in earlier editiona, especially 5E and earlier, they were able to use that CC ability quite well, the bigger issue being that another marine codex could come along and just do it better

Thinking back to older editions like 4E, a sergeant with a powerfist was ubiquitous, they were a huge part of the killing power of the unit.

-Vehicles are bad (the best marine vehicle I've ever seen was the 7th ed land speeder storm - it was like something you'd see in a xeno codex - WTF - I can shoot out of this? It has multiple free special rules? It has a gun with a special rule? OMG.) Vindicators have always sucked (this is the first edition you can actually move and shoot the thing) Too bad it's not nearly as powerful as it could have been if it had the ability to do that in other edditions (ofc the IG tanks with the same weapon have always been able to move and shoot it with a special rule)

Huh? You could move and shoot the vindicator in every edition, are you thinking *Barrage* ordnance like the Basilisk?

The only restriction was on firing Ordnance in addition to other weapons, which for the Vindi would be...a storm bolter. The IG tanks got an exception because they paid for a lot of other guns that were much more expensive and otherwise couldnt be used, and their exception rule was broken after 7E since it didnt override Ordnance restrictions when they changed it to Heavy from Lumbering Behemoth.

Preditors have always been bad - light tank that gets punished for moving.

Predators, while perhaps not outstanding, have never been awful. Theyve found their way into competitive lists in every edition, though the loadout may vary (mine lost their heavy bolter sponsons after 4E). I'd certainly take a Predator over any Russ in a 3E or 4E game, and over many Russ variants in later editions.

Whirlwinds were decent in 7th with a formation that required you take 3 of them and a land speeder. IG wyvern was better as it got reroll wounds on it's weapon for free lol without being in a formation.

The whirlwind was never spectacular, thats a fair point, though the Wyvern was also something of an oddity as well, a hamfisted new unit at the cusp of 7E that shoved the 2E era Griffon out of the codex (for the 2nd time) as part of a new plastic Hydra kit...where they then subsequently nerfed the utter bejeesus out of the Hydra which wasn't exactly great before (and in fact it made the Stalker look fantastic).

Bharring wrote:
@Breng,
I proably should have compared their weapons to Necrons or DE or anything aside from CWE, as it's just conflating topics.

I still don't believe SM have always paid more for the same firepower as other armies.

I think you're very right about the specialized role. I've always though of Guardians as militia, not soldiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Also, I consider Bladestorm to be Plas of CWE. For three editions, with the exception of the index, Tacs + Plas/Combi have had about the same punch as the same points of Dire Avengers.)

They haven't always paid more for the same compared to every other army. However, their firepower has most often been the "bland" version. Necron Gauss has always been better bolters. DE when they went with poison were better against many targets, though that is more comparable.

Marines have, and likely will always have the generalist problem. All their units are designed around a generalist platform (Their stats are good across the board, upper tier for most standard infantry with the exception of attacks). This makes all their units costly for their output because they pay for things other than damage output. This is exacerbated by the fact that the MEQ statline is way too common (it appears in more "armies" than any other statline). I think it was a mistake for GW(from a game design standpoint, not a business one), to put out 10 different flavors of marines. It is hard to make marines special when they are the base for half the armies in the game. GW should have made the GEQ statline the baseline stats for the game (I think that is the intent, but Marine armies outnumber basically all other armies). Marines at most should have been a single faction (with possible CSM), but probably would have been even better as a part of an "imperium" faction where they were elite units in a larger "human" army.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Generic codex space marines has been bad since I've played the game (starting in 4th).

Huh. They've been pretty good since I started playing. (In 2nd.)

Git gud.

Bharring wrote:
I was referring specifically to this:
"Firepower is good - but cost more than other armies for no reason."

The quad-las Pred has more firepower per point than CWE BL Serpent or Falcon, and is better vs the things you should be using lascannons for than a Fire Prism.

In this particular vein I'm not staking the claim that SM tanks are better than CWE tanks. I'm showing that SM don't necessarily pay more for their firepower than non-SM.

The pred costs more - it's less durable - it suffers greatly for being assaulted - yet - costs more than a crimson hunter exarch - which has equal firepower / increased durability/ immensely higher mobility which makes it's firepower much more effective / is immune to assault. This is what paying more for the same firepower looks like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Same old crap from the same people living in lala land. I play every army. I can be objective - it is clear that you can't. Or you lack the ability really understand what makes units effective and what doesn't. I for one can't stand it when the clear worst armies in the game are somehow grouped into a "high tier" category because fanboys don't want their armies to get nerfed.

Bharring wrote:
I was referring specifically to this:
"Firepower is good - but cost more than other armies for no reason."

The quad-las Pred has more firepower per point than CWE BL Serpent or Falcon, and is better vs the things you should be using lascannons for than a Fire Prism.

In this particular vein I'm not staking the claim that SM tanks are better than CWE tanks. I'm showing that SM don't necessarily pay more for their firepower than non-SM.

This is no longer true b/c of all the invulns in the game. Lascannons are now basically overpriced crap.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I was referring specifically to this:
"Firepower is good - but cost more than other armies for no reason."

The quad-las Pred has more firepower per point than CWE BL Serpent or Falcon, and is better vs the things you should be using lascannons for than a Fire Prism.

In this particular vein I'm not staking the claim that SM tanks are better than CWE tanks. I'm showing that SM don't necessarily pay more for their firepower than non-SM.

This is no longer true b/c of all the invulns in the game. Lascannons are now basically overpriced crap.

When a blaster is 17-18 - hell yeah it is.

pm713 wrote:
Yet if I say Marines are GW's favourites so they get special treatment I get told how wrong that is.

Being the favorites of an entity that can't do math has proven to be less than useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I was referring specifically to this:
"Firepower is good - but cost more than other armies for no reason."

The quad-las Pred has more firepower per point than CWE BL Serpent or Falcon, and is better vs the things you should be using lascannons for than a Fire Prism.

In this particular vein I'm not staking the claim that SM tanks are better than CWE tanks. I'm showing that SM don't necessarily pay more for their firepower than non-SM.

This is no longer true b/c of all the invulns in the game. Lascannons are now basically overpriced crap.

When a blaster is 17-18 - hell yeah it is.

Even blasters are blunted against other Xenos. Blasters kick the gak out of Imperials, but that's about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
@Breng,
I proably should have compared their weapons to Necrons or DE or anything aside from CWE, as it's just conflating topics.

I still don't believe SM have always paid more for the same firepower as other armies.

I think you're very right about the specialized role. I've always though of Guardians as militia, not soldiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Also, I consider Bladestorm to be Plas of CWE. For three editions, with the exception of the index, Tacs + Plas/Combi have had about the same punch as the same points of Dire Avengers.)

They haven't always paid more for the same compared to every other army. However, their firepower has most often been the "bland" version. Necron Gauss has always been better bolters. DE when they went with poison were better against many targets, though that is more comparable.

Marines have, and likely will always have the generalist problem. All their units are designed around a generalist platform (Their stats are good across the board, upper tier for most standard infantry with the exception of attacks). This makes all their units costly for their output because they pay for things other than damage output. This is exacerbated by the fact that the MEQ statline is way too common (it appears in more "armies" than any other statline). I think it was a mistake for GW(from a game design standpoint, not a business one), to put out 10 different flavors of marines. It is hard to make marines special when they are the base for half the armies in the game. GW should have made the GEQ statline the baseline stats for the game (I think that is the intent, but Marine armies outnumber basically all other armies). Marines at most should have been a single faction (with possible CSM), but probably would have been even better as a part of an "imperium" faction where they were elite units in a larger "human" army.

This ^^^^^^



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Generic codex space marines has been bad since I've played the game (starting in 4th).

Huh. They've been pretty good since I started playing. (In 2nd.)

Git gud.

You must have had the weakest possible player pool to think 2nd ed loyalists were "pretty good". There were plenty of games where loyalist marines didn't get a single turn in 2nd. Tabled on the top of 1. This assessment makes me question every single thing you claim about marines.

pm713 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 greyknight12 wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
What is good? Most people will say that Eldar are because they usually have some very powerful units each edition. Many of their units are considered worthless to take though. Does a few really powerful units make them a good army? In my opinion, no. A good army would be one where each unit is worth considering for use.

Not sure about 8th, but in 6th/7th every unit was worth taking.

Rangers, Shining Spears, Storm Guardians, Illic Nightspear, Wraithlords, Wraithblades. All of those weren't worthwhile in either 6th, 7th or both. Eldar in 6th was based hugely on Wave Serpents and 7th was largely WK, Scatbikes and Warp Spiders with another two units being swapped around.

Seems like you don't get what a bad unit is. For Bad consult 6-7 ed possessed and flash gitz.
Out of what you've listed as bad only Illic was remotely like this.

Perhaps you could tell me how something that has S3 AP- attacks, armour ignored by almost everything in the game and no assault transport isn't bad? Or how Rangers aren't bad when you're lucky to deal three wounds with them before saves?

Rangers: infiltrate and easy 3+ or even 2+ cover. You've got plenty of other ranged damage options. Now scoring can be handy.
Storm guardians can have multiple special weapon. Not the worst option out there. Still having shuriken pistols. Guardians with a couple flamers were pretty decent as chaff cleaners in casual games. Or you could get a couple meltas and they'd be supplementing the front better.

Both units were often used in highlander tourneys with great results. Everything other than Illic in fact. He's just too overpriced even for highlander.

Don't get me wrong, top tourneys (almost) never saw this units but in more regular games they were ok. Unlike a bunch of other units that did piss poor no matter where you use them.
Outclassed OK units =/= Crap units.
That's why i'm saying you're spoiled by good stuff.