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.

Scouts are too expensive at 11 ppm. They should cost the same as sisters.

Martel732 wrote:
"The most prevalent source of 2 damage weaponry is plasma"

No, it's not. It's a menagerie of weapons. Most notably, the insane disintegrator cannon. Also, look at a single riptide plus missilesides. It's insane.

I'd rather give up fewer points to these weapons than try to defend against them. Because you really can't.

Yeah really - d2 or higher is pretty standard on more than half the weapons in most lists. Or the weapon has huge rate of fire or even worse it has both. Heck for 174 points I can take an IK Helverine with 4d3 str 7 ap-1 flat 3 damage. FFS that is less than a 10 man primaris marine unit. Flat multi damage is not rare in the least. Flat multi damage is the best stat a weapon can have too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Scouts are too expensive at 11 ppm. They should cost the same as sisters.

I really don't care about scouts but I agree - they are lackluster at their point cost. I just don't want to get in an arguement over scouts actaully being "good" units because they show up in tournament lists with BA. I'll just come out and end that right now. Scouts show up in tournament lists because 120 point smash captain that can 1 shot 600 point units is good - the scouts are a worthwhile tax to get that plus some CP - they aren't worth in in basically any other situation.

Why do Terminators just flat-out ignore hit-mods?

Ignoring the Power Fist penalty is fine, and makes sense. Ignoring the Heavy penalty for moving is fine as well. But why anything else?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why do Terminators just flat-out ignore hit-mods?

Ignoring the Power Fist penalty is fine, and makes sense. Ignoring the Heavy penalty for moving is fine as well. But why anything else?

They have always ignored the heavy weapon penalty. In every edition.

It would just be a cool rule for them to have. They have all kinds of optical equipment on their giant elephant mask.

And Crisis Suits don't? Ordinary Marines don't? Scions don't? Custodes don't?

Yeah this is the problem I have with Xenomancers suggestions. It's not that I don't think they are reasonable in a vaccuum; I do. It's the problem with the trickle down/adjustment of every other codex that would be required. Adjusting PPM is the only way to handle the balance intra-codex. If you buff them the way Xeno suggests, you have to go back and redo Crisis Suits, GK Terms, Chaos Terms, Custodes, etc. That's not an errata, that's a new edition.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And Crisis Suits don't? Ordinary Marines don't? Scions don't? Custodes don't?

Well it would be pretty redundant for them to have that - marker lights already give them all kinds of buffs. I agree though - crisis suits need a lot of help. If their points are to remain the same - I'd probably say. 3+BS standard - and possibly some sort of mobility rule like they had before. Can move d6 inches after they shoot. That would be justified at their points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rocmistro wrote:
Yeah this is the problem I have with Xenomancers suggestions. It's not that I don't think they are reasonable in a vaccuum; I do. It's the problem with the trickle down/adjustment of every other codex that would be required. Adjusting PPM is the only way to handle the balance intra-codex. If you buff them the way Xeno suggests, you have to go back and redo Crisis Suits, GK Terms, Chaos Terms, Custodes, etc. That's not an errata, that's a new edition.

Oh I am totally in support of anything including a redesign of a unit that see's no play. It is really not a difficult as anyone suggests. It's as simple as this. Take the vanilla tac/assaul/and terminator platforms given the base cost i posted above. Figure the % difference in price change and put it flat across every similar unit in CSM and BA/ DA/ ect. fix the stats/ fix the points. Examine special rules and affects on the new stat line and price accordingly.

Terms that already have 3W get 4 and go up in points slightly more.
Units that already have + base attacks get +2 instead of +1 and cost slightly more.
Units that have a base defensive stat like 5+++ cost slightly more.

I could literally figure these changes in a day. Get a group of 10 people together to test them and look for game breaking interactions in a week. Fix every trash marine unit in the process.

We could do this for every army. Not saying marines are the only ones in a bad spot right now. It's just they are first on my priority list because the tactical in power armor being the base unit for 75% of the entries in these armies - it basically means 75% of these books are trash.

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.

Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.

LOL.

We literally had this discussion earlier in the thread. We came up with the idea that you can kill 25-33 guardsmen with marines, and 35-45 guardsmen with Sisters, discounting the units that are assaulting, at 2k. If you're opponent is bringing 120 guardsmen (seems to be like the typical number, coming in at 480 points), they can put 20 guardsmen per two feet of their deployment zone. Given that they can concentrate in one-half their deployment zone, we'll say 40 guardsmen per two feet, lined up - that makes two ranks. They'll be in squads of ten, so identify what two squads are in the back against the front of the Russ you want to charge, blast those 20 guardsmen to smithereens, and then charge, making contact with both the front line and the russ at the same time.

This is the last post I'll put on the topic, though, as I don't have time to teach players rudimentary tactics with units with FLY over the internet.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.

Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.

LOL.

We literally had this discussion earlier in the thread. We came up with the idea that you can kill 25-33 guardsmen with marines, and 35-45 guardsmen with Sisters, discounting the units that are assaulting, at 2k. If you're opponent is bringing 120 guardsmen (seems to be like the typical number, coming in at 480 points), they can put 20 guardsmen per two feet of their deployment zone. Given that they can concentrate in one-half their deployment zone, we'll say 40 guardsmen per two feet, lined up - that makes two ranks. They'll be in squads of ten, so identify what two squads are in the back against the front of the Russ you want to charge, blast those 20 guardsmen to smithereens, and then charge, making contact with both the front line and the russ at the same time.

This is the last post I'll put on the topic, though, as I don't have time to teach players rudimentary tactics with units with FLY over the internet.

Patently absurd. First of all - we are talking about turn 2 here. The majority of units in range to shoot gaurdsmen just got blown up by manticores and russes and basalisks. Yeah - the VV/DC/ or whatever can deepstrike and charge over a gap in the line now...but they can't charge the tanks till turn 3.

Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN. We are talking about super efficient units vs super not efficient units.

It's like saying an f-15 can take on an f-22. Or saying you can beat an average dice with a dice that is programmed to roll 2's. NO. It wont - you cant.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.

Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.

LOL.

We literally had this discussion earlier in the thread. We came up with the idea that you can kill 25-33 guardsmen with marines, and 35-45 guardsmen with Sisters, discounting the units that are assaulting, at 2k. If you're opponent is bringing 120 guardsmen (seems to be like the typical number, coming in at 480 points), they can put 20 guardsmen per two feet of their deployment zone. Given that they can concentrate in one-half their deployment zone, we'll say 40 guardsmen per two feet, lined up - that makes two ranks. They'll be in squads of ten, so identify what two squads are in the back against the front of the Russ you want to charge, blast those 20 guardsmen to smithereens, and then charge, making contact with both the front line and the russ at the same time.

This is the last post I'll put on the topic, though, as I don't have time to teach players rudimentary tactics with units with FLY over the internet.

Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN.

And now we've reached the height of absurdity, where people are claiming things that can be proven as demonstrably untrue with only a single counter-example as ground truth.

Glad to see you're up to have a reasoned, fact-informed, sensible discussion, instead of assuming the conclusion and then twisting the entire discussion to match your conclusion. Assuming the conclusion before making the argument is a fallacy called 'question begging', not that you actually care since facts and truth have little purchase on your mind, apparently.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.

Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.

LOL.

We literally had this discussion earlier in the thread. We came up with the idea that you can kill 25-33 guardsmen with marines, and 35-45 guardsmen with Sisters, discounting the units that are assaulting, at 2k. If you're opponent is bringing 120 guardsmen (seems to be like the typical number, coming in at 480 points), they can put 20 guardsmen per two feet of their deployment zone. Given that they can concentrate in one-half their deployment zone, we'll say 40 guardsmen per two feet, lined up - that makes two ranks. They'll be in squads of ten, so identify what two squads are in the back against the front of the Russ you want to charge, blast those 20 guardsmen to smithereens, and then charge, making contact with both the front line and the russ at the same time.

This is the last post I'll put on the topic, though, as I don't have time to teach players rudimentary tactics with units with FLY over the internet.

Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN.

And now we've reached the height of absurdity, where people are claiming things that can be proven as demonstrably untrue with only a single counter-example as ground truth.

Glad to see you're up to have a reasoned, fact-informed, sensible discussion, instead of assuming the conclusion and then twisting the entire discussion to match your conclusion. Assuming the conclusion before making the argument is a fallacy called 'question begging', not that you actually care since facts and truth have little purchase on your mind, apparently.

You are suffering from denial I think. You are talking about scenerios that don't take place. Somehow 1500 points of BA with 500 points of jump packs in reserve is going to outshout IG turn 1. Then turn 2 you are going to charge over 60 remaining gaurdsmen to attack tanks. I suppect you play against some really bad players that don't know how to stagger units or how to position. Plus since we are basically list countering - I am assuming this IG player has a few sentinels and hellhounds on his front line pushing back your deepstrikers even farther. This is an absolutely joke to even talk about a space marine army beating guard.

Or they just have hellhounds and bullgryns.

Drop the price of rhinos and give them firing ports.
Drop the price of drop pods or let them carry more things.

Marines are only as good as their vehicles. They don't have the mobility to have strategic options.

Also, AP-2 and AP-3 weapons are just way too common. Dark Eldar codex exemplifies this.

"Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN."

Seeing as it literally happens on a daily basis, this is just crazy talk.

IG seem to win more often than Marines, currently, sure. But to say SM can't win is just stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"We could do this for every army. Not saying marines are the only ones in a bad spot right now. It's just they are first on my priority list because the tactical in power armor being the base unit for 75% of the entries in these armies - it basically means 75% of these books are trash."

The definition of Codex Creep. You "fix" a book, making it better than everything else. Then you "fix" the next one. Repeat ad nausium. At least everyone gets a turn on top, but most players get boned 90% of the time this way.

You can effortlessly tailor a marines list to beat Imperial Guard. It will get crushed - absolutely crushed - in a take-all-comers scenario.

However, to beat them, you won't be bringing assault elements. That isn't how you beat guard. Which is kind of what the discussion is really about. People want to use their assault marines and assault units, and are frustrated those units are essentially turned off by Guard - and other armies - in 8th edition. To that end, complaining solely about Guard is probably what you guys don't like, because Tau turn off assault even harder than Guard do.

Yes, you can load a list up with Raven Guard lascannons and probably beat Guard. Bring a couple Xiphons to deal with artillery that is out of LOS. It can be done. There are solid elements to a marines list, and they begin and end with Forgeworld, for the most part.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, that's not a thing against players who space their guardsmen properly. Bottom line is that guardsmen beat ASM and VV in the marine movement phase by dictating where they can legally land. Against savvy opponents, that's outside charge range of anything meaningful.

Seraphim are better at shooting geqs because they are cheaper. That's all. There's no movement magic.

LOL.

We literally had this discussion earlier in the thread. We came up with the idea that you can kill 25-33 guardsmen with marines, and 35-45 guardsmen with Sisters, discounting the units that are assaulting, at 2k. If you're opponent is bringing 120 guardsmen (seems to be like the typical number, coming in at 480 points), they can put 20 guardsmen per two feet of their deployment zone. Given that they can concentrate in one-half their deployment zone, we'll say 40 guardsmen per two feet, lined up - that makes two ranks. They'll be in squads of ten, so identify what two squads are in the back against the front of the Russ you want to charge, blast those 20 guardsmen to smithereens, and then charge, making contact with both the front line and the russ at the same time.

This is the last post I'll put on the topic, though, as I don't have time to teach players rudimentary tactics with units with FLY over the internet.

It's not rudimentary. The Russ is physically out of charge range against people who know what they are doing. Maybe if the battle cannon had a range of say 36" instead of 72", what you say might be possible. And, yes, please don't post again. By all means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN."

Seeing as it literally happens on a daily basis, this is just crazy talk.

IG seem to win more often than Marines, currently, sure. But to say SM can't win is just stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"We could do this for every army. Not saying marines are the only ones in a bad spot right now. It's just they are first on my priority list because the tactical in power armor being the base unit for 75% of the entries in these armies - it basically means 75% of these books are trash."

The definition of Codex Creep. You "fix" a book, making it better than everything else. Then you "fix" the next one. Repeat ad nausium. At least everyone gets a turn on top, but most players get boned 90% of the time this way.

Marines can beat them, but not using the outlined method.

Bharring wrote:
"Get it through your head. SPACE MARINES CAN NOT BEAT IMPERIAL GUARD. THEY CAN'T DO IT MAN."

Seeing as it literally happens on a daily basis, this is just crazy talk.

IG seem to win more often than Marines, currently, sure. But to say SM can't win is just stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"We could do this for every army. Not saying marines are the only ones in a bad spot right now. It's just they are first on my priority list because the tactical in power armor being the base unit for 75% of the entries in these armies - it basically means 75% of these books are trash."

The definition of Codex Creep. You "fix" a book, making it better than everything else. Then you "fix" the next one. Repeat ad nausium. At least everyone gets a turn on top, but most players get boned 90% of the time this way.

I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level.

No - space marines don't beat guard. If one army is taking power armor units - and the other 4 point guardsmen. The game is already decided. They both outshoot and out assault space marines.

You realize with a priest and straken a 4 point catachan has 3 str 4 attacks for 4 gakking points. Please - tell me how a marine player can beat that. He's spending 16 points for 2 str 4 attacks from an assault marine. In case you can't count. That is 600% more damage and each squad can fight TWICE - 1200% damage! On top of shooting better. IG players just make me laugh.

"I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
That's how it usually goes. The result, when groups aim at that using the one-book-at-a-time approach combined with a shortsightedness when balancing that "one book" is almost always power creep.

"No - space marines don't beat guard. If one army is taking power armor units - and the other 4 point guardsmen. The game is already decided."
Funny. Then I guess everyone who's ever claimed to see SM win is a liar. You aren't claiming SM usually lose to IG, or odds are will lose a game - you're claming them winning never happens. Very different claim.

More to the point, I prevent the other local BA guy from ever assaulting my souped IG tanks by careful positioning of disposable gaks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
That's how it usually goes. The result, when groups aim at that using the one-book-at-a-time approach combined with a shortsightedness when balancing that "one book" is almost always power creep.

"No - space marines don't beat guard. If one army is taking power armor units - and the other 4 point guardsmen. The game is already decided."
Funny. Then I guess everyone who's ever claimed to see SM win is a liar. You aren't claiming SM usually lose to IG, or odds are will lose a game - you're claming them winning never happens. Very different claim.

Yes, it's obvious. Take a Bobby G party, and then have the IG player roll cold on his turn 1. GG, imperial guard. IG can afford multiple turns of cold rolling vs assault; they can delay them for a long time. They only need one hot turn, and the game is over for melee power armor.

Bharring wrote:
"I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
That's how it usually goes. The result, when groups aim at that using the one-book-at-a-time approach combined with a shortsightedness when balancing that "one book" is almost always power creep.

"No - space marines don't beat guard. If one army is taking power armor units - and the other 4 point guardsmen. The game is already decided."
Funny. Then I guess everyone who's ever claimed to see SM win is a liar. You aren't claiming SM usually lose to IG, or odds are will lose a game - you're claming them winning never happens. Very different claim.

I win a lot with space marines and I am not a liar. Wins vs IG are impossible if not for abnormally bad dice for the IG player. Ofc anything can win - What I am saying that the odds are very much against it and fundamentally the marine has 0 advantage in the game. There is nothing to suggest that they should win. It's kind of like suggesting that soldiers have a good chance at charging and destroying a machine gun nest or bunker with a grenade running enfilade up a beach. No - they don't. If your only hope is that the IG player doesn't roll average for you to lose half your amry turn 1 (because marines do not have defense against powerful shooting and overpay for EVERYTHING). There is no point in even playing that game.

I can't imagine a worse matchup for marines. Maybe harlequins is actually worse.

Also - how exactly are we to discuss changes to any unit if you have to also include the 40-50 other changes that have to happen as a result? Just assume that what I say is genuine - every unit that needs help will get help. Lets focus on the topic at hand.

Also - for the purposes of this discussion I exclude forge world options because - that is not the space marine codex. It is quite possible that some marine forge world option actaully need nerfs. IDGAF about them because #1 I am not paying 3x the cost for a crappy resin model that comes delivered warped AF. #2 Forge world has a bad stigma for P2W and I like to avoid that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
More to the point, I prevent the other local BA guy from ever assaulting my souped IG tanks by careful positioning of disposable gaks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
That's how it usually goes. The result, when groups aim at that using the one-book-at-a-time approach combined with a shortsightedness when balancing that "one book" is almost always power creep.

"No - space marines don't beat guard. If one army is taking power armor units - and the other 4 point guardsmen. The game is already decided."
Funny. Then I guess everyone who's ever claimed to see SM win is a liar. You aren't claiming SM usually lose to IG, or odds are will lose a game - you're claming them winning never happens. Very different claim.

Yes, it's obvious. Take a Bobby G party, and then have the IG player roll cold on his turn 1. GG, imperial guard. IG can afford multiple turns of cold rolling vs assault; they can delay them for a long time. They only need one hot turn, and the game is over for melee power armor.

The game is over in 1 turn for shooty power armor too if IG have 1 hot turn. Space marines get a hot turn and wow...they still have enough firepower to table me next turn still...not very impressive.

That's why IG has to roll cold.

"I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
You're arguing that a specific army be brought up to what you believe to be the overall power level. And that you'll, then, do the other armies.

The problem is, a lot of your claims either strongly suggest you'd make whichever book you're looking at OP, or that you don't have the depth of understanding needed to accomplish such a feat. It requires a great deal of finesse and understanding of the finer points and intricacies.

"Just assume that what I say is genuine - every unit that needs help will get help. Lets focus on the topic at hand."
If every unit that needs help gets help, then you either do a perfect job in a single pass (incredibly unlikely), or is textbook power creep. It requires more discretion than "Buff units until they're good".

"how exactly are we to discuss changes to any unit if you have to also include the 40-50 other changes that have to happen as a result?"
Interpolation.

First, the range. You don't bring everything up to the top. You try to trim everything to the middle. You don't hit everything that isn't #1. You hit the top 10%-ish and buff the bottom 10%-ish. This maximizes your return on balance for the effort expended, and lends itself to more of a lightest-touch fix.

Second, scope of the change. Don't invent new rules where you don't have to. Points should be the primary balancer. Common stats that make sense should be used over more complex rules. And soforth. The more creative you get, the more likely you'll screw up.

This is why I have embraced by power armor horde overlords!

Bharring wrote:
"I'm arguing that every army have the exact same power level. "
You're arguing that a specific army be brought up to what you believe to be the overall power level. And that you'll, then, do the other armies.

The problem is, a lot of your claims either strongly suggest you'd make whichever book you're looking at OP, or that you don't have the depth of understanding needed to accomplish such a feat. It requires a great deal of finesse and understanding of the finer points and intricacies.

"Just assume that what I say is genuine - every unit that needs help will get help. Lets focus on the topic at hand."
If every unit that needs help gets help, then you either do a perfect job in a single pass (incredibly unlikely), or is textbook power creep. It requires more discretion than "Buff units until they're good".

"how exactly are we to discuss changes to any unit if you have to also include the 40-50 other changes that have to happen as a result?"
Interpolation.

First, the range. You don't bring everything up to the top. You try to trim everything to the middle. You don't hit everything that isn't #1. You hit the top 10%-ish and buff the bottom 10%-ish. This maximizes your return on balance for the effort expended, and lends itself to more of a lightest-touch fix.

Second, scope of the change. Don't invent new rules where you don't have to. Points should be the primary balancer. Common stats that make sense should be used over more complex rules. And soforth. The more creative you get, the more likely you'll screw up.

Well this is where we disagree. My idea is to balance to the top. Because that is what happens in every other game I play and it will piss off the fewest people. If this is the only place we disagree - then great! We should have no trouble identifying the problem units (the good and the bad) that need to be adjusted. The thing is I don't think there is any benefit to adjusting to the middle because #1 we already have lots of playtest data in tournaments using the best rules (we have none for the middle). #2 Nerfing units has a much worse affect on customer satisfaction than buffs. Everyone. Loves. Buffs.

I find it funny how the 5 point guard thread is full of people saying they don't need a nerf, and this one has people saying SM don't need a buff...

The problem with buffing to the top is that you're not perfect. Nobody is. Your fixes are going to have variance.

If the best thing is model A, and we consdier that to be at 100 right now, after you redesign the first book, most might be right around there, but some will be at 95, others will be at 105.

Now you fix the second book. You're aiming for 105 - because that's top. Some things will be 100, but just as many will be 110.

And now model A is trash. The meta is now clearly better than it. So you have to rebalance it.

Round and round it goes. Each round gets stronger.


Side note - if you're only interested in buffing the bad stuff, not the middle stuff, why focus so much on a mid-tier codex?

Bharring wrote:
The problem with buffing to the top is that you're not perfect. Nobody is. Your fixes are going to have variance.

If the best thing is model A, and we consdier that to be at 100 right now, after you redesign the first book, most might be right around there, but some will be at 95, others will be at 105.

Now you fix the second book. You're aiming for 105 - because that's top. Some things will be 100, but just as many will be 110.

And now model A is trash. The meta is now clearly better than it. So you have to rebalance it.

Round and round it goes. Each round gets stronger.


Side note - if you're only interested in buffing the bad stuff, not the middle stuff, why focus so much on a mid-tier codex?

Is the alternative to do nothing?

I think you have to:

1. Buff the bad stuff / nerf the not fun stuff, as conservatively as possible.
2. See what those changes did to the game
3. Fix any unforeseen issues
4. Repeat until the game is "perfect"

I don't see how moving towards a better game isn't always going to be better, and you can't only get there with nerfs 100% of the time.

GW have always been terrible at pricing Marines and Orks.

If marines are mid-tier, who is worse?

Martel732 wrote:
If marines are mid-tier, who is worse?

Yeah...that is a tough one.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If marines are mid-tier, who is worse?

Yeah...that is a tough one.

Necrons seem pretty bad. Tau are pretty bad. And that's about it for real factions. with out getting into the different colors of power armor.