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.

Can we just say "most marine units are bad compared to the field" and leave it at that? That position is strongly supported by available data as well as anecdotal experiences.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point. Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective. We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I don't disagree that Eldar are more powerful than Marines. Some posters just read my posts as saying that and paint me in that light.

What I disagree with is basing discussions on things like Forewarned meaning any 15-man squad gets immediately deleted. Or if unit A is bad, it's the worst thing ever. And, if unit B is worse, it's the worst thing ever. But unit A is the worst thing ever, too...

You only need to kill like 6-7 of the unit to make using the stratagems a waste of CP. Plus - you should easily kill the entire unit. They are t4 with 6+ saves. Now IDK what pure CWE armies are running these days. It's pretty variable it seems. However, I know what my friends use. A 3 man warwalker with scatter lasters is usually in there. or a wraithknight with suncannon and scatter lasers or starcannons.

3 WW with SLs: 3x4x2 shots, 2/3 hit, 2/3 wound = 10-11 dead Orkz.
WK won't get close either.
It takes a lot more Eldar firepower than you seem to realize to kill Orkz.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Doesn't work outside 12". If forewarned were as limited as auspex scan, no one would complain about it.

This also cuts both ways.

A unit can drop in within 12" and LOS of it's target (meltacide!) while being out of LOS of some seperate backfield unit hugging a Farseer. It cannot drop within 12" and LOS of it's target and be outside 12" and LOS of something that can Auspex.

Now, the Marine version also has a -1-to-hit feature as well. I certainly agree that Auspex is weaker than Forewarned. But fixating on Auspex's downsides but not it's upsides isn't doing you any favors.

Controlling your own fate is always better than relying on your opponent to drop into range of a unit. Plus the -1 makes the strat almost useless.

So depending on an opponent to drop within range and LOS of a unit he's not shooting is more "controlling your own fate" than depending on an opponent to drop within range and LOS of what he wants to shoot? How so?

4 ork rockets aren't going to do anything - then they gonna die to morale most likely because they are overextended. That is the point.

"Plus - you should easily kill the entire unit."
The point is that, no, you don't. As shown, even your suggested cases don't even come close. That is the point you were making, and it's simply not true.

Plus you should have an autarch there. It's the entire purpose for taking the WW to begin with. The WK is for forwarding against a unit with armor saves.

Correct me if I am wrong but you do control where your autarch and farseer all your units are placed don't you?

No more than the Marine list controls where their units are. In fact, even less in this specific point - Auspex Scan (while worse for other reasons) doesn't depend on a particular HQ being in a particular range of the firing unit.
The point isn't that Auspex Scan is better. It's that the specific claim that Eldar one is better specifically because it is more "controlling your own fate" than the Marine one. That's not why it's better. That's not even true.

Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

As posted upthread, the Drop Pod.

We've now wasted *pages* debating one single line from your hyperbole-laden rant, and we still need to repeat ourselves. We should move on. If you want to discuss the 10 other points, sure, but we should just drop the 11th.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

Squats, Ratlings, Rein & Raus, Drop pods, Black Stars, Wyrdvane Psykers, Vanquishers, Stompas, Supa Stompas, KillaCans, Mutilators, Gorkanaut, Servitors....want me to keep going?

Mine all came from one codex. Just sayin

Martel732 wrote:
Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

Other than the ballpred....None of these units even come close IMO. Some are actually top tier options out of their codex. Like Stormravens and interceptors.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

Other than the ballpred....None of these units even come close IMO. Some are actually top tier options out of their codex. Like Stormravens and interceptors.

Servitors?

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

As posted upthread, the Drop Pod.

We've now wasted *pages* debating one single line from your hyperbole-laden rant, and we still need to repeat ourselves. We should move on. If you want to discuss the 10 other points, sure, but we should just drop the 11th.

Someone said a drop pod is worse than a LR doesn't make it a true statement. Think I've seen you defending drop pods in other threads. More in bad faith argument from you again. Insectum does pretty well with them from what I hear.

Martel732 wrote:
It was a Gman tank party. No front lines to speak of. I'm sure against you, he'd jump da boyz. It was the right call and that repulsor disintegrated. He actually cleared 21W against it.

"Neither do Boyz mob charges."

Good thing he was using tankbustas in this particular instance.

That is why you bring scouts/infiltrators - to screen against this sort of T1 nonsense happening. To be fair even Intercessors do a pretty good job of it on most deployment maps. You just need to have a few such units and know how to deploy.

Screening against lootas is pretty much impossible, screening against tankbustas is tricky but a good player should be able to do it. I suspect that the marine player just did not anticipate what was coming and therefore failed to defend against it - i.e. they got outplayed by a better player. Hard to know without seeing the game in person.

None of that invalidates taking tanks - and none of it has anything to do with the supposed terrible nature of this tank for not having an invulnerable save which is of course useless against tankbustas. It just means that any unit is vulnerable to its direct counter if your opponent brought that counter and outplays you. Which applies to every unit in the game one way or another.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

Other than the ballpred....None of these units even come close IMO. Some are actually top tier options out of their codex. Like Stormravens and interceptors.

Servitors?

On paper they look bad but they are in fact one of the most competitive space marine units as the cheaply unlock stratagems from other chapters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

happy_inquisitor wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It was a Gman tank party. No front lines to speak of. I'm sure against you, he'd jump da boyz. It was the right call and that repulsor disintegrated. He actually cleared 21W against it.

"Neither do Boyz mob charges."

Good thing he was using tankbustas in this particular instance.

That is why you bring scouts/infiltrators - to screen against this sort of T1 nonsense happening. To be fair even Intercessors do a pretty good job of it on most deployment maps. You just need to have a few such units and know how to deploy.

Screening against lootas is pretty much impossible, screening against tankbustas is tricky but a good player should be able to do it. I suspect that the marine player just did not anticipate what was coming and therefore failed to defend against it - i.e. they got outplayed by a better player. Hard to know without seeing the game in person.

None of that invalidates taking tanks - and none of it has anything to do with the supposed terrible nature of this tank for not having an invulnerable save which is of course useless against tankbustas. It just means that any unit is vulnerable to its direct counter if your opponent brought that counter and outplays you. Which applies to every unit in the game one way or another.

Pretty sure ork rockets shoot 24" so...unable to screen them. Plus. They just ensure you get charged turn 1 with stuff starting in their deployment zone. This is fail city.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

Other than the ballpred....None of these units even come close IMO. Some are actually top tier options out of their codex. Like Stormravens and interceptors.

I'm going with my view on my own codex over yours. A 300 pt tanks with T8 2+ and 4 lascannons with no movement penalty seems pretty good compared to rest of that crap. Stormravens lost any vestige of usefulness when they lost prepared positions and inceptors are just soap bubbles with guns. They never work. Well, they work for one turn, then die. Way too expensive for that.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Baal predators. Land speeders. Furioso dreadnoughts. Death company. Assault marines. Regular dreadnoughts. Hunters. Chaplains. Stormravens. Tactical marines. Hellblasters. Inceptors. Reivers.

Other than the ballpred....None of these units even come close IMO. Some are actually top tier options out of their codex. Like Stormravens and interceptors.

I'm going with my view on my own codex over yours. A 300 pt tanks with T8 2+ and 4 lascannons with no movement penalty seems pretty good compared to rest of that crap. Stormravens lost any vestige of usefulness when they lost prepared positions and inceptors are just soap bubbles with guns. They never work. Well, they work for one turn, then die. Way too expensive for that.

My blood angels buddy uses phobo libby with 6 plasma interceptors using the +1 to hit WL trait. It kills just about any 2 units. With 2 smash captains hitting around the same time + Mephiston is is threat overload.

I can make a SR -2 to hit turn 1 with tiggy and protect a levi dread with the same buff turn 1. Not to mention the best way to take HB cents which are basically the best unit to buff with Gman. They are basically the best options in the codex IMO.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

As posted upthread, the Drop Pod.

We've now wasted *pages* debating one single line from your hyperbole-laden rant, and we still need to repeat ourselves. We should move on. If you want to discuss the 10 other points, sure, but we should just drop the 11th.

Someone said a drop pod is worse than a LR doesn't make it a true statement. Think I've seen you defending drop pods in other threads. More in bad faith argument from you again. Insectum does pretty well with them from what I hear.

You've also "seen" me argue that Marines are OP and Eldar are trash this edition. That doesn't mean I've argued either.

Drop Pods have some value. I wouldn't call them the epitome of bad. I think I'd rank them below Land Raiders, though. I'm sure I've said that I see some value or upside in Pods before, but having upsides doesn't mean it's necessarily better than a unit that's "bad". I can't think of a single unit in this game that doesn't have some "upside".

Someone saying a Drop Pod is worse than a Land Raider doesn't make it worse, true; Are you saying the Land Raider is, in fact, the worst choice in the game? Worse than Corsair squads? Worse than Stompas? Worse then Rein & Raus?

And, not just worse, but worse in every single way?

No it's not. There is only one smash capt first of all. And mephy is greatly overrated offensively. Both capts can be killed easily with S4 AP 0. The inceptors die to damage 2. Mephy is ignorable.

Good luck when those two units are freaking guardsmen. Or some other stupid screen. Inceptors are bad because they cost too much and there's too many screens.

I stand by my statement. I'd much rather field a land raider than inceptors.

Also, on calling another person out for bad faith; it's extremely bad form to do so just because you don't like their viewpoint. It's potentially a rule#1 violation.

Martel732 wrote:
No it's not. There is only one smash capt first of all. And mephy is greatly overrated offensively. Both capts can be killed easily with S4 AP 0. The inceptors die to damage 2. Mephy is ignorable.

Good luck when those two units are freaking guardsmen. Or some other stupid screen. Inceptors are bad because they cost too much and there's too many screens.

I stand by my statement. I'd much rather field a land raider than inceptors.

I feel like you aren't playing this game properly if you're letting opponents take out your characters with S4 AP 0.

I'm also surprised to see you have a belief that Land Raiders are acceptable, but a single S4 AP0 attack in melee, whether it hits or not, silences the bloody thing. And at over 18 points a wound for barely any offensive output, this should be the exact unit you hate the most! How inconsistent, Marty

It could just be punches from dum dums after they charge whatever.

BA characters are usually in hazardous situations, so all kinds of gak befalls them.

I said I'd choose it over the other gak I listed. I didn't say it was GOOD. Also if someone wants to come play tag with a BA LR, have fun getting past my menagerie of things that want to be in CQC.

Other than smash capt, I'm not sure there's a GOOD unit in the whole BA codex atm.

Martel732 wrote:
No it's not. There is only one smash capt first of all. And mephy is greatly overrated offensively. Both capts can be killed easily with S4 AP 0. The inceptors die to damage 2. Mephy is ignorable.

Good luck when those two units are freaking guardsmen. Or some other stupid screen. Inceptors are bad because they cost too much and there's too many screens.

I stand by my statement. I'd much rather field a land raider than inceptors.

Wow. I'm starting to get a strong feeling that either you don't actually play, or your local meta is just hyper competitive, and not representative of most people's games. Does every Imperium list you face run the loyal 32!?

Inceptors are decent. Plasma ones can be really good.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

As posted upthread, the Drop Pod.

We've now wasted *pages* debating one single line from your hyperbole-laden rant, and we still need to repeat ourselves. We should move on. If you want to discuss the 10 other points, sure, but we should just drop the 11th.

Someone said a drop pod is worse than a LR doesn't make it a true statement. Think I've seen you defending drop pods in other threads. More in bad faith argument from you again. Insectum does pretty well with them from what I hear.

You've also "seen" me argue that Marines are OP and Eldar are trash this edition. That doesn't mean I've argued either.

Drop Pods have some value. I wouldn't call them the epitome of bad. I think I'd rank them below Land Raiders, though. I'm sure I've said that I see some value or upside in Pods before, but having upsides doesn't mean it's necessarily better than a unit that's "bad". I can't think of a single unit in this game that doesn't have some "upside".

Someone saying a Drop Pod is worse than a Land Raider doesn't make it worse, true; Are you saying the Land Raider is, in fact, the worst choice in the game? Worse than Corsair squads? Worse than Stompas? Worse then Rein & Raus?

And, not just worse, but worse in every single way?

It doesn't have the be worse in every way. It only needs to be worse in the 1 way that matters. Cost prohibitive to the point is loses you the game. Also to be fair. A few of these options don't count. Corsairs have not received a first update - they are basically 7th edition units. Plus Many of the large forge world superheavies were up to doubled in points intentionally so they could not be played in tournaments. This is across the board these units do not count because they aren't ment to be considered. Rein & Raus WTF? what is that some exclusive white dwarf fluff ball unit no one cares about? It's still not worse than a LR? What do they cost you? 40 points and you get an untargetable sniper?

Why wouldn't they? Even I do it most of the time.

There's also the ork hordes and plague bearer hordes.

Inceptors are decent on YOUR turn. Then your opponent gets a turn, and you don't have any more inceptors. At their price point, this doesn't work out.

 Stux wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No it's not. There is only one smash capt first of all. And mephy is greatly overrated offensively. Both capts can be killed easily with S4 AP 0. The inceptors die to damage 2. Mephy is ignorable.

Good luck when those two units are freaking guardsmen. Or some other stupid screen. Inceptors are bad because they cost too much and there's too many screens.

I stand by my statement. I'd much rather field a land raider than inceptors.

Wow. I'm starting to get a strong feeling that either you don't actually play, or your local meta is just hyper competitive, and not representative of most people's games. Does every Imperium list you face run the loyal 32!?

Inceptors are decent. Plasma ones can be really good.

Martel is the kind of person that wallows. You show him a winning list with, say, BA Repulsors and Redemptors, and instead of jumping on the idea or seeing the actual use in the units, he continues to wallow and not let anyone else convince him otherwise. The Executioner looks good for SM. Interceptors are already good for SM, especially BA.

But they aren't. Why do you think that they are?

That list won once, and will probably never be seen again. For a reason.

Bharring wrote:
Also, on calling another person out for bad faith; it's extremely bad form to do so just because you don't like their viewpoint. It's potentially a rule#1 violation.

Now you are claiming not to argue with me that drop pods aren't hugely overcosted? You've argued with me about transport capacity. All kinds of stuff. Every single time you are favoring the eldar side. EVERY SINGLE TIME. It's no surprise to anyone. Me on the other hand. I play all the armies. Including armies I play in which I called for nerfs to my own units. Like the Castellan.

Martel732 wrote:
To be completely, fair, the drop pod would a lot more reasonable if there were something worthwhile to load into it.

You're not wrong.

The only thing I can think of that makes sense to Drop Pod is tooled up Company Veterans, and putting them in a drop pod is kind of a hard sell when most of the other available transports have enough shooting to justify taking before you put Marines in them.

Martel732 wrote:
But they aren't. Why do you think that they are?

That list won once, and will probably never be seen again. For a reason.

They are your best option is all I am saying. Now that you can get a +1 to hit on demand on them. It is pretty fething gross what kind of targeted damage they can do. 24 plasma shots on average destroys almost anything. If you hit and tie up a much of units the turn you drop them. They might even get to shoot again. Plus you can drop them next to your banner and they can even shoot again when they die. All marines can do this OFC. BA just do it best because they have a lot of units that get in front of the interceptors and run interference / plus can drop the biggest hammer.

Not saying it's OP. Just saying its your best option.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry but human communication doesn't require tons of brackets and analogies to make a point.

Yes, most of the time these parts of human communication don't require tons of brackets or analogies to get across. Most people learn them naturally.

Your point is the LR could possibly be worse so it can't be the epitome of bad. That is an okay argument is suppose. It is unreasonable though because as pointed out the term "bad" is subjective.

Something being "good" or "bad" is subjective. Something being "worse" in a particular way is not, unless that particular way is subjective. For instance, Land Raiders being "good" or "bad" is subjective (although most people agree). Paying 300 points for a Land Raider being worse than paying 250 points is not subjective.

We are quibbling here. You agree the LR is bad - just not "that bad" okay...come on dude. What metric are you using to make that statement? Hyperbole is a big stretch.

The metric - which you provided - is "The epitome of bad" or "perfectly bad". Either of those are very clearly hyperbole, as it's very clearly not.

Man...you are really going to have to convince me I am exaggerating here. What is a worse choice than a LR for competitive play?

As posted upthread, the Drop Pod.

We've now wasted *pages* debating one single line from your hyperbole-laden rant, and we still need to repeat ourselves. We should move on. If you want to discuss the 10 other points, sure, but we should just drop the 11th.

Someone said a drop pod is worse than a LR doesn't make it a true statement. Think I've seen you defending drop pods in other threads. More in bad faith argument from you again. Insectum does pretty well with them from what I hear.

You've also "seen" me argue that Marines are OP and Eldar are trash this edition. That doesn't mean I've argued either.

Drop Pods have some value. I wouldn't call them the epitome of bad. I think I'd rank them below Land Raiders, though. I'm sure I've said that I see some value or upside in Pods before, but having upsides doesn't mean it's necessarily better than a unit that's "bad". I can't think of a single unit in this game that doesn't have some "upside".

Someone saying a Drop Pod is worse than a Land Raider doesn't make it worse, true; Are you saying the Land Raider is, in fact, the worst choice in the game? Worse than Corsair squads? Worse than Stompas? Worse then Rein & Raus?

And, not just worse, but worse in every single way?

It doesn't have the be worse in every way. It only needs to be worse in the 1 way that matters. Cost prohibitive to the point is loses you the game.

So you're not arguing "The epitome" or "epitome" anymore? Just "worst"? For clarity.

"Cost prohibitive to the point is [sic] loses you the game" is a very narrow metric. If I added a 5 point unit that had the rule "Remove as a casualty at the start of the first player turn", by your definition it could arguably be better than something like a Land Raider; however, it clearly will do less for it's points than a Land Raider. Points effectiveness is a much more common and accepted metric. But, I digress. We can look at it from your metric.

Also to be fair. A few of these options don't count. Corsairs have not received a first update - they are basically 7th edition units.

I would agree that Corsairs aren't a great example of what we should expect to be balanced. But it's hard to accept something being "the worst choice in the game" when dismissing so many choices that are "in the game".
That said, Corsairs did get a first update - the Forgeworld Index has rules for them. And a CAs/FAQs have changed them.

Plus Many of the large forge world superheavies were up to doubled in points intentionally so they could not be played in tournaments. This is across the board these units do not count because they aren't ment to be considered.

IOW, things that are overpointed too much shouldn't be considered. Incidentally, anything pointed worse than Land Raider is what you're considering "too much". Why do the classic SM big centerpieces (Land Raiders) count but not the classic big centerpieces of other factions (Squigoths, Stompas, Greater Demons, Vampyrs, etc)? Your argument will always be true when you reinvent reality to match it.

Rein & Raus WTF? what is that some exclusive white dwarf fluff ball unit no one cares about? It's still not worse than a LR? What do they cost you? 40 points and you get an untargetable sniper?

Warhammer Quest, not White Dwarf. Not the most unreasonable exclusion, but it's still arbitrary.

One of their guns can shoot. Not the whole model.

They are so expensive and now we are talking multiple babysitters.

If the guns were 24" range instead of 18" I'd be a lot more excited about trying that.

Martel732 wrote:
But they aren't. Why do you think that they are?

That list won once, and will probably never be seen again. For a reason.

The list has two top ten and a top twenty placing, actually. Sorry that you have trouble believing that BA can be anything other than trash. Must be a depressing mindset.