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.

BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Smash capt is a crutch that fails vs targets with an invuln save. Hardly good enough to prop up an entire codex.

that i agree with, a codex should not have one combo circling around one unit and be called good.

It's obviously not with a 34% win rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Actually, BA AREN'T good in CC. That's kind of the problem. Smash capt is good in CC.

Lemondish wrote:


False, Canadian Tabletop Championship in Ottawa ran it the weekend of the 4th. Big names attended that Major, too.

Sooo what did they do with people who suddenly had models that cost 100 points more?

Did they use WD Ynnari?

There is no way it is reflective of any thoughtful consideration of the FAQ changes.

Martel732 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Smash capt is a crutch that fails vs targets with an invuln save. Hardly good enough to prop up an entire codex.

that i agree with, a codex should not have one combo circling around one unit and be called good.

It's obviously not with a 34% win rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Actually, BA AREN'T good in CC. That's kind of the problem. Smash capt is good in CC.

Nah, I think you're playing them wrong.

Are they the best cc army? Nah.
Are they good in cc? Yeah

Not Online!!! wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Smash capt is a crutch that fails vs targets with an invuln save. Hardly good enough to prop up an entire codex.

that i agree with, a codex should not have one combo circling around one unit and be called good.

Nobody called it good.

I pointed out that Smash Caps bring to BA a super combo that these data suggest is more valuable outside of a BA force than it is inside one. So, one of the ways to address this variance is to either reduce power of that super combo, which would drop the faction win % much closer to its primary win %, or include ways to support that combo (and the playstyle it epitomizes) across the entirety of the faction by providing mono-Codex access to similar tools they rely on when they're mixed into something else.

And Martel - whining about invuln saves? Not every unit is supposed to be effective against everything. That's why the Smash Captain is never the primary source of threat in these soup lists - it is ONE good piece used to solve a problem. Right now, BA don't have the ability to support the delivery, manage the loss, or capitalize on the success of that big piece. I thought you played this faction, man!

But outright removing them from the game? Seems a tad overkill. We see how pieces of the faction can be successful - far more than any other marine force. With proper attention, the whole faction can find success.

 Ishagu wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Smash capt is a crutch that fails vs targets with an invuln save. Hardly good enough to prop up an entire codex.

that i agree with, a codex should not have one combo circling around one unit and be called good.

It's obviously not with a 34% win rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Actually, BA AREN'T good in CC. That's kind of the problem. Smash capt is good in CC.

Nah, I think you're playing them wrong.

Are they the best cc army? Nah.
Are they good in cc? Yeah

I think you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to BA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lemondish wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Smash capt is a crutch that fails vs targets with an invuln save. Hardly good enough to prop up an entire codex.

that i agree with, a codex should not have one combo circling around one unit and be called good.

Nobody called it good.

I pointed out that Smash Caps bring to BA a super combo that these data suggest is more valuable outside of a BA force than it is inside one. So, one of the ways to address this variance is to either reduce power of that super combo, which would drop the faction win % much closer to its primary win %, or include ways to support that combo (and the playstyle it epitomizes) across the entirety of the faction by providing mono-Codex access to similar tools they rely on when they're mixed into something else.

And Martel - whining about invuln saves? Not every unit is supposed to be effective against everything. That's why the Smash Captain is never the primary source of threat in these soup lists - it is ONE good piece used to solve a problem. Right now, BA don't have the ability to support the delivery, manage the loss, or capitalize on the success of that big piece. I thought you played this faction, man!

But outright removing them from the game? Seems a tad overkill. We see how pieces of the faction can be successful - far more than any other marine force. With proper attention, the whole faction can find success.

I'm not whining about it. I don't even like smash capts. I hate them as concept. But everyone acts like they are a delete button. They are not in many cases.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:


False, Canadian Tabletop Championship in Ottawa ran it the weekend of the 4th. Big names attended that Major, too.

Sooo what did they do with people who suddenly had models that cost 100 points more?

You had to resubmit your lists, duh. Not that hard here, bub.

Did they use WD Ynnari?

No.

There is no way it is reflective of any thoughtful consideration of the FAQ changes.

How could this be said with a straight face?

Top 4 winners were TJ Lanigan, Nick Nanavati, Jason Sparks, and Jim Vesal. The literal who's who of 40k ITC right now, and you don't think they considered the impact of the FAQ...

Absolute nonsense.

Great. There had to be first tournament to use the FAQ. This was it.

Lemondish wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:


False, Canadian Tabletop Championship in Ottawa ran it the weekend of the 4th. Big names attended that Major, too.

Sooo what did they do with people who suddenly had models that cost 100 points more?

You had to resubmit your lists, duh. Not that hard here, bub.

Did they use WD Ynnari?

No.

There is no way it is reflective of any thoughtful consideration of the FAQ changes.

How could this be said with a straight face?

Top 4 winners were TJ Lanigan, Nick Nanavati, Jason Sparks, and Jim Vesal. The literal who's who of 40k ITC right now, and you don't think they considered the impact of the FAQ...

Absolute nonsense.

Usually people don't have models ready to go when a tournament is 5 days away. Players like the top can capitalize on the changes pretty easily, but it's quite likely very few people got any reasonable amount of test plays with the updates before this tournament ran. Most importantly - those people you mentioned have the *time* to deal with that. The rest of the community does not.

Ultimately it's STILL not a good view of the result of the FAQs.

Nick didn't run Orks who got nerfed, so there's a big indicator right there that he dropped them instead of figuring out how to make them work.

Martel732 wrote:


I'm not whining about it. I don't even like smash capts. I hate them as concept. But everyone acts like they are a delete button. They are not in many cases.

A highly aggressive, mobile, blood thirsty unit that rushes head first into hard targets and punches a hole into them as fast as possible. There's nothing more BA than that.

It sounds like the problem you have with the smash captain is its reputation in soup lists rather than how it literally screams Blood Angels in theme and design.

And as such, if that design does not appeal to you, then perhaps the entire army is not your style. Might be worth considering that before suggesting the whole thing be squatted in a fit of impotent rage. I totally get the frustration you feel when your chosen faction isn't being represented on the top tables the way you want it to be. But we've seen a variety of factions rise and fall in just the short time 8th edition has been active. There is truly no reason to think squatting these factions would solve anything - it would be highly unpopular and achieve none of the goals we all want - a faction that can compete at all levels of the game.

Martel732 wrote:
Great. There had to be first tournament to use the FAQ. This was it.

And it still had old school Ynnari lists. Totally representative.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Ultimately it's STILL not a good view of the result of the FAQs.

Nick didn't run Orks who got nerfed, so there's a big indicator right there that he dropped them instead of figuring out how to make them work.

So you at once argue that it was too soon for decisions made in light of the FAQ, and at the same time come up with an example of a decision you think was made in light of the FAQ. Make up your mind, buddy. Finding it hard to understand your position here. But the point I'm making here is that you're wrong.

Look, I get it - you aren't comfortable admitting you were wrong. That's fine. Hey, a Major ITC tournament did use the FAQ, despite you definitively claiming it didn't happen, and hey, there actually is some value in analyzing that instead of dismissing it entirely, like you claim we should.

I fear your back will start to hurt if you keep having to move those goalposts, though - so I'll give you an out. I think it's woefully shortsighted and misguided to avoid useful information that gives us the literal starting point of whatever this new meta shift will be. But if you want to, feel free to ignore it - just make sure you point out you're intentionally ignoring live data when you make your next wild, factually inaccurate claim in the very near future.

I'm sure it's been said before but what about putting an actual limit on SM Scouts?

Perspective:
'Codex' Space Marine Chapter 'Blarg' in a perfectly ideal condition:
+/- 900 full-fledged Space Marines in nine 100-marine companies.
+/- 100 Acolytes (aka Scouts) in one training company.

So why not make it so that if you want a squad of Scouts in your force make them 1 per SM Tac squad?

Yes, for the few people that would scream "aN aLL ScOUt FoRCE is TaCTicaLLy AcCePTablE!", provide a 'Vigilus' detachment specifically for "Scout" forces. Just give them special taxes/restrictions, like: "6+ Scout squads" or 'May not be taken in the same army as a Super Heavy Auxiliary and/or Supreme Command".

Lemondish wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Ultimately it's STILL not a good view of the result of the FAQs.

Nick didn't run Orks who got nerfed, so there's a big indicator right there that he dropped them instead of figuring out how to make them work.

So you at once argue that the it was too soon for decisions made in light of the FAQ, and at the same time come up with an example of a decision made in light of the FAQ. Make up your mind, buddy. Finding it hard to understand your position here. But the point I'm making here is that you're wrong. And you refuse to accept it.

Look, I get it - you aren't comfortable admitting you were wrong. That's fine. Hey, a Major ITC tournament did use the FAQ, despite you definitively claiming it was impossible, and hey, there actually is some value in analyzing that instead of dismissing it entirely, like you claim we should.

I fear your back will start to hurt if you keep having to move those goalposts. I think it's woefully shortsighted and misguided to avoid useful information that gives us the literal starting point of whatever this new meta shift will be. You can feel free to ignore it - just make sure you point out you're intentionally ignoring actual data when you make your next wild, factually inaccurate claim in the very near future.

Tell me what value there is over analyzing a tournament where people dumped their usual armies and Ynnari took 3rd place?

I know you want to be Dwight from The Office and win on a technicality, but it's kind of gak. Five days is in no way a meaningful lead up for most armies to address the changes especially when not all the changes were put in place.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Still can't beat the 4 ppm elephant in the corner. There is no equipment that lets marines deal with 90-120 bodies that prevent movement. Sorry, 120 bodies that are only 1/4 of the enemy list.

A marine with a meltagun is 27 pts. That's insane for one shot.

Losing 100 models and shrugging is the ultimate counter in 8th ed. They were facilitating the Castellan not just with CP. I'm morbidly curious how long GW will let this go on.

Here's something I'm a little curious about.

Genestealer Cultists can bring, quite frankly, just a more efficient guard list to the table. Take a GSC detachment with 20-man 4ppm Brood Brothers squads as troops, Patriarch who grants a fearless aura to all those 20-man guard squads and pair it with a supreme command with a Shadowsword, Company Commanders (to FRFSRF the 20-man blob units), Tank Commanders, and a primaris psyker to cast Nightshroud. Take Aberrant bombs, kelermorph, and whatever other GSC stuff to taste.

To me, that just seems to be a better pure guard list than guard can bring. So, why has that style of list not shown up in any of the competitive GSC lists we've seen? Why have no brood brothers at all shown up - GSC is literally a faction where your choices for troops are a glass cannon deep striking melee unit, and "the most OP troop choice in the game, but with twice the unit size cap". Surely if melee is unmitigated garbage and guardsmen are the most OP thing since sliced bread we should see at least SOME brood brothers.

There is the Dallas open where GSC did it with 5 point troops, not even 4.

https://imgur.com/a/Ea1gINj

Plus you will be happy to note that since the last Faq you can no longer order GSC Brood Brothers so you know, GW actually nerfed the thing your afraid of.

...Yes you can?

Q: Are units in Brood Brothers Detachments restricted from
using Regimental Orders, or all orders?
A: They cannot use Regimental Orders, but can use other
orders. Note the errata above that further clarified which
units these orders can and cannot be issued to.

Also, that list is a whole lot closer to what I thought GSC lists would be post-codex, admittedly not with the neophytes but pretty close. Those are some super cool lists though! A Tau list with Breachers and Aunshi?

From the 29/4 faq update

Add the following paragraphs to the end of the Brood
Brothers rules:
‘Orders
Brood Brothers units that have the Voice of
Command or Tank Orders abilities (see Codex: Astra
Militarum) cannot issue orders to any unit that has the
Genestealer Cults Faction keyword, nor can they
issue orders to units that they would not have been
able to issue orders to before they gained the Brood
Brothers keyword (e.g. a Brood Brothers Company
Commander cannot issue orders to a Brood Brothers
Ogryn unit or to a Brood Brothers Tempestus
Scions unit).

And Brood Brother units from the GSC codex have the GSC faction keyword. So cannot be ordered.
So nope, you can't anymore.

 Lord Clinto wrote:
I'm sure it's been said before but what about putting an actual limit on SM Scouts?

Perspective:
'Codex' Space Marine Chapter 'Blarg' in a perfectly ideal condition:
+/- 900 full-fledged Space Marines in nine 100-marine companies.
+/- 100 Acolytes (aka Scouts) in one training company.

So why not make it so that if you want a squad of Scouts in your force make them 1 per SM Tac squad?

Yes, for the few people that would scream "aN aLL ScOUt FoRCE is TaCTicaLLy AcCePTablE!", provide a 'Vigilus' detachment specifically for "Scout" forces. Just give them special taxes/restrictions, like: "6+ Scout squads" or 'May not be taken in the same army as a Super Heavy Auxiliary and/or Supreme Command".

Why do you feel the need to tax scouts with having to take a unit of dead weight that is tac marines just to unlock them?
You'd get more support being honest about your motivation and just suggesting that GW squats marine's.

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.

Did some cleaning, warnings have been issued, kindly remind yourselves that Rule #1, to be polite to one another, is not optional.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.

The old "Generalists are trash argument".

Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.

The old "Generalists are trash argument".

Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.

The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.

For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.

Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2

Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons

Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5

I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.

In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.

This is not a very accurate statement.

Basic marines lose to Catachan IS supported by Harken and a priest. Basic marines otherwise greatly outshine IS in cc.

At DC marine with CS that gets 4 attacks that wound on 2s does not lose to IS.

Lemondish wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All types of tournaments. I think ba do better in itc but not by much. Id have to filter the data.

Ok, well, I think it's pretty important to keep in mind that the FAQ is 9 days old and literally no major would have adopted it for the weekend of the 4th. Working with stale data won't help us.

False, Canadian Tabletop Championship in Ottawa ran it the weekend of the 4th. Big names attended that Major, too.

That's a weird move - isn't there normally a grace period for new FAQs, Codexes (or whatever the plural is), etc? It used to be that there would be a cut-off date before the event - often 30 days - and anything released within that window wasn't used.

 Dysartes wrote:

That's a weird move - isn't there normally a grace period for new FAQs, Codexes (or whatever the plural is), etc? It used to be that there would be a cut-off date before the event - often 30 days - and anything released within that window wasn't used.

Which is exactly the basis for my earlier statement. It's really completely unfair to many players who submitted their list 30 days ago and a TO allowing it really baffles the mind.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.

The old "Generalists are trash argument".

Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.

The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.

For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.

Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2

Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons

Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5

I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.

In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.

If an S3 T3 A1 Sv5+ Kabalite gets a 3 in CC, then surely a S4 T4 A1 Sv3+ Marine gets at least a 4.
And, likewise with defense, a Marine is clearly more durable than a Kabalite. Even later in the game with PfP buffs.

In CC, a Marine beats a:
-Scout
-Guardsman
-Vet
-Scion
-Storm Guardian
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Ranger (AdMech)
-Vanguard (AdMech)
-Fire Warrior
-Kroot
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Kabalite
-Shoota Boy
-Slugga Boy
-Grot
-Hormagaunt
-Termigaunt

In CC, a Marine loses to:
-Custode
-Tyranid Warrior
And not much else.

Roughly the same could be said about all the other stats - Marines are better than most other troops at CC, dakka, movement, and durability. They aren't the best at any one of those.

A Marine is certainly better than almost all other troops in CC. They're just not better per point.

The Marine is a generalist. And being a generalist isn't why they're bad. They're simply overcosted for what they get.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.

The old "Generalists are trash argument".

Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.

The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.

For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.

Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2

Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons

Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5

I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.

In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.

If an S3 T3 A1 Sv5+ Kabalite gets a 3 in CC, then surely a S4 T4 A1 Sv3+ Marine gets at least a 4.
And, likewise with defense, a Marine is clearly more durable than a Kabalite. Even later in the game with PfP buffs.

In CC, a Marine beats a:
-Scout
-Guardsman
-Vet
-Scion
-Storm Guardian
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Ranger (AdMech)
-Vanguard (AdMech)
-Fire Warrior
-Kroot
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Kabalite
-Shoota Boy
-Slugga Boy
-Grot
-Hormagaunt
-Termigaunt

In CC, a Marine loses to:
-Custode
-Tyranid Warrior
And not much else.

Roughly the same could be said about all the other stats - Marines are better than most other troops at CC, dakka, movement, and durability. They aren't the best at any one of those.

A Marine is certainly better than almost all other troops in CC. They're just not better per point.

The Marine is a generalist. And being a generalist isn't why they're bad. They're simply overcosted for what they get.

Which of those do they actually beat on a point for point even fight?
You can argue that they are just overcosted but at a certain point overcosted models cost you game's.

Overcosted is the same as underpowered. You are just arguing two sides of the same coin. There's just the faction that wants cheaper marines vs those who want them to remain and just be worth their points. Problem I see is how to do the second one.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.

The old "Generalists are trash argument".

Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.

The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.

For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.

Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2

Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons

Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5

I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.

In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.

If an S3 T3 A1 Sv5+ Kabalite gets a 3 in CC, then surely a S4 T4 A1 Sv3+ Marine gets at least a 4.
And, likewise with defense, a Marine is clearly more durable than a Kabalite. Even later in the game with PfP buffs.

In CC, a Marine beats a:
-Scout
-Guardsman
-Vet
-Scion
-Storm Guardian
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Ranger (AdMech)
-Vanguard (AdMech)
-Fire Warrior
-Kroot
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Kabalite
-Shoota Boy
-Slugga Boy
-Grot
-Hormagaunt
-Termigaunt

In CC, a Marine loses to:
-Custode
-Tyranid Warrior
And not much else.

Roughly the same could be said about all the other stats - Marines are better than most other troops at CC, dakka, movement, and durability. They aren't the best at any one of those.

A Marine is certainly better than almost all other troops in CC. They're just not better per point.

The Marine is a generalist. And being a generalist isn't why they're bad. They're simply overcosted for what they get.

Which of those do they actually beat on a point for point even fight?

At least
-Scout
-Scion
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Fire Warrior
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Grot

Not that short a list.

You can argue that they are just overcosted but at a certain point overcosted models cost you game's.

They certainly are overcosted. Never said they were competitive. Only that they're better at CC than most troops.

Bharring wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.

The old "Generalists are trash argument".

Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.

The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.

For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.

Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2

Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons

Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5

I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.

In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.

If an S3 T3 A1 Sv5+ Kabalite gets a 3 in CC, then surely a S4 T4 A1 Sv3+ Marine gets at least a 4.
And, likewise with defense, a Marine is clearly more durable than a Kabalite. Even later in the game with PfP buffs.

In CC, a Marine beats a:
-Scout
-Guardsman
-Vet
-Scion
-Storm Guardian
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Ranger (AdMech)
-Vanguard (AdMech)
-Fire Warrior
-Kroot
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Kabalite
-Shoota Boy
-Slugga Boy
-Grot
-Hormagaunt
-Termigaunt

In CC, a Marine loses to:
-Custode
-Tyranid Warrior
And not much else.

Roughly the same could be said about all the other stats - Marines are better than most other troops at CC, dakka, movement, and durability. They aren't the best at any one of those.

A Marine is certainly better than almost all other troops in CC. They're just not better per point.

The Marine is a generalist. And being a generalist isn't why they're bad. They're simply overcosted for what they get.

Which of those do they actually beat on a point for point even fight?

At least
-Scout
-Scion
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Fire Warrior
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Grot

Not that short a list.

You can argue that they are just overcosted but at a certain point overcosted models cost you game's.

They certainly are overcosted. Never said they were competitive. Only that they're better at CC than most troops.

It's certainly a lot shorter list though and loops back to why take them when you can go full cheese with the 32? Marines have nothing competitive in the troop slot, along with a few other slots.

Saying "they are better but not better point per point" is just useless.

A Warlord titan is better than literally EVERYTHING ELSE in the game.

Lemondish wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Lemondish wrote:


False, Canadian Tabletop Championship in Ottawa ran it the weekend of the 4th. Big names attended that Major, too.

Sooo what did they do with people who suddenly had models that cost 100 points more?

You had to resubmit your lists, duh. Not that hard here, bub.

Did they use WD Ynnari?

No.

There is no way it is reflective of any thoughtful consideration of the FAQ changes.

How could this be said with a straight face?

Top 4 winners were TJ Lanigan, Nick Nanavati, Jason Sparks, and Jim Vesal. The literal who's who of 40k ITC right now, and you don't think they considered the impact of the FAQ...

Absolute nonsense.

Which is utterly irrelevant if not EVERYONE ELSE did. The true effects of FAQs like this take a while to shake out. Taking the first major after it drops as gospel is very shortsighted.

The meta will shift over time and may end up in a place where Castellan lists are still really strong, or may be pushed out by more people bringing things like shadowswords that used to be crowded out, but now have a legitimate shot at one-shotting a Castellan.

We won't know the full affect of the changes for probably 3 months.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
BA are good in melee for sure, as are Custodes and Chaos Astartes.

Tau are bad in cc. Why should all power armour armies be effective in CC? I don't subscribe to the idea that any faction should be viable in any tactic.

I think people need to decide what they want from an army and chose the appropriate one. I don't expect Ultramarines to ever be as good in cc as Blood Angels. I wouldn't ever complain about it either.

Wouldn't you suspect the "generalist army" to not be one of the worst armies in CC? Marines lose to guardsmen in CC for crying out loud.

The old "Generalists are trash argument".

Marines are bad because they're designed to be good at everything, best at nothing.
Serpents are OP because while they're not the best at anything, they're good at everything.

The problem is they aren't gernalist. They aren't good enough at anything to do anything well enough to make a difference.

For example. LEts just say armies were rated on a 5 star system with 5's being the best.
Marines would look like this.

Range Offense 4
CC 2
Mobility 2
Defense 2

Those aren't at all generalist. Straight 3's or 4's would be generalist.
Where as DE look like this - supposed to be fast glass cannons

Ranged offense 4
CC 3
Mobility 5
Defense 3.5

I see where you are coming from but the answer is they just aren't generalist enough. They are really only decent at shooting and suck at everything else. Basically Tau - but worse.

In the real world - generalist dominate. Because they do the job good enough.

If an S3 T3 A1 Sv5+ Kabalite gets a 3 in CC, then surely a S4 T4 A1 Sv3+ Marine gets at least a 4.
And, likewise with defense, a Marine is clearly more durable than a Kabalite. Even later in the game with PfP buffs.

In CC, a Marine beats a:
-Scout
-Guardsman
-Vet
-Scion
-Storm Guardian
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Ranger (AdMech)
-Vanguard (AdMech)
-Fire Warrior
-Kroot
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Kabalite
-Shoota Boy
-Slugga Boy
-Grot
-Hormagaunt
-Termigaunt

In CC, a Marine loses to:
-Custode
-Tyranid Warrior
And not much else.

Roughly the same could be said about all the other stats - Marines are better than most other troops at CC, dakka, movement, and durability. They aren't the best at any one of those.

A Marine is certainly better than almost all other troops in CC. They're just not better per point.

The Marine is a generalist. And being a generalist isn't why they're bad. They're simply overcosted for what they get.

Which of those do they actually beat on a point for point even fight?

At least
-Scout
-Scion
-Guardian Defender
-Dire Avenger
-Ranger (CWE)
-Fire Warrior
-Necron Warrior
-Immortal
-Grot

Not that short a list.

You can argue that they are just overcosted but at a certain point overcosted models cost you game's.

They certainly are overcosted. Never said they were competitive. Only that they're better at CC than most troops.

It's certainly a lot shorter list though and loops back to why take them when you can go full cheese with the 32? Marines have nothing competitive in the troop slot, along with a few other slots.

Scouts are still great. 55pts for infiltrate is fantastic.