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.

@Klicktor

I only skimmed what you wrote because it's not worth my effort. You seem to be exaggerating problems. Frankly I'm amazed you're having so much difficulty with the rules. I haven't come across anything that caused more than a few seconds of discussion at most and I've evidently played a lot more than you against a wide variety of opponents.

You got beaten badly in your first game. So what? Learn from it, change your list, play with better terrain. You talk about bloat of units - I agree Astartes suffer from this. You're in luck because Primaris are a lot more streamlined.

If you think other companies are doing so much better feel free to leave 40k and move on to them. GW gain nothing by pandering to some minority opinions such as yours, and neither does to community.

Instead of complaining about this game, go praise a different game on it's associated forum.

Martel732 wrote:
Tacs were still really bad in 6th/7th, though. I'm not sure this is the gold standard. Maybe they were better off than now. Who knows at this point? Rapid fire turning off assaulting was really dumb.

Forgot that bit. That brings it down to 30/9 HP - still more than 10% over what's needed to kill a 3HP vehicle. And still averaging nearly one pen every other time.

Wasn't claiming they were the gold standard. I'd go into how they weren't "really bad" in 6th/7th, but we've clogged enough threads with that nonsense.

The claim is that they *did* provide a threat to nearby vehicles. Even naked, alone, min, unsupported, they could kill the average tank on average dice in one round.

More of a threat than in 8th, but i think vehicles were unnecessarily flimsy under hull points.

Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.

 Ishagu wrote:
@Klicktor

I only skimmed what you wrote because it's not worth my effort. You seem to be exaggerating problems. Frankly I'm amazed you're having so much difficulty with the rules. I haven't come across anything that caused more than a few seconds of discussion at most and I've evidently played a lot more than you against a wide variety of opponents.

You got beaten badly in your first game. So what? Learn from it, change your list, play with better terrain. You talk about bloat of units - I agree Astartes suffer from this. You're in luck because Primaris are a lot more streamlined.

If you think other companies are doing so much better feel free to leave 40k and move on to them. GW gain nothing by pandering to some minority opinions such as yours, and neither does to community.

Instead of complaining about this game, go praise a different game on it's associated forum..

I DON'T have a difficult time with understanding the rules. That doesn't mean they are written in a good way. You sure you would even have any opponents left or GW would be in a good state if everyone did what you just told me? Don't understand why you think the game is close to perfect and don't want it to get better than it is. With your attitude GW should never release an update because it would be pandering to the minority that want knew rules and updates. I still get a lot of enjoyment out of the game but that doesn't mean I don't want it to be better.

Unless you are trolling can you please tell me what GW would lose by "pandering" to my opinions? I know the forums doesn't reflect the community but at least here I don't think I'm a minority and where I am I know I'm not with this opinion. Who knows it isn't you that belongs to the minority of fan boys that defend everything? Who know how many who are like me who wish GW would write better rules for the game they spend so much time and money on?

If the other games I played wouldn't have died in my area I would probably still play them instead of 40k. I used to only play 40k in team tournaments back when I played Warmachine since Warmachine were the better game. Didn't mean I didn't enjoy 40k and I did and still do.

Edit: Damn, you really are condecending towards players. Bet you love stomping new players with competitive lists. Saying it's their fault they are playing with stuff they have payed hundreds of pounds for and spent hundreds of hours painting and should have bought better stuff to play this game. It isn't GW's fault for making imbalanced rules but the player using the wrong things, they should just get good and tailor the terrain and lists for their opponents so they have a chance. Now I'm being a bit hyperbolic but I'm just being it in kind.

Difference between you and me is that I enjoy more balanced games and both players having fun, winning or losing. A good and balanced rules set makes it easier to achieve that. A bad one makes it harder. GW has nog excuse for not doing that and you can't even come up with a reason to defend them. Warmachine/Horde got a lot of complaints due to being very brutal to new players and you think it is a good idea that uninformed or new 40k players get stomped if they have bought the wrong units.

Luckily I don't care too much if I lose hard sometimes and I do like the challenge of list building and finding out what works or not. Why I mentioned being stomped my first game wasn't because I felt bad about losing and thought it was unfair. Why I mentioned it is because that list was HORRIBLE and most of those units are now sitting on a shelf waiting for an update that might make them viable. I have shelved about 2000pts of Blood Angels out of my 3000pts in total. With a few new purchases and borrowing some models from other club members I have no problem with fielding a playable list. But just having 2k points sitting there almost worthless isn't a good feeling and screams of bad internal balance. Know of a few marine players who just don't think it's worth it to play anymore since most of their collection is quite garbage right now and rather do something else.

He's not even reading your posts. He's just here to condescend and pump up his ego

From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Martel732 wrote:
I meant all guys using krak grenades.

The wording change in 7th changed it. Multiple Kraks againt vehicles in CC was the correct interpretation from 4th through 6th at least. The change to 'single' was 7th. And terrible.

Intersting. I have jettisoned my 5th and 6th rulebooks, so i had no way to know for sure. Its definitely typical gw that ig has a way to throw multiple grenades, but marines cant ever.

 Ishagu wrote:
From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.

Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.

Actually I don't care about winning at all outside of a tournament. I play and enjoy any type of game, from ITC to fun and random Maelstrom missions.

My experience with the game does not lead me to conclude it's broken. That's not to say that any list should be able to beat another - that would be stupid.

You lost your first match because the terrain was clearly not adequate and your list had no redundancy - that's a strategic failure and bad preparation on the part of both players.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.

In charging a tank? sure.

In denying a small area - such as an objective or ideal firing position - to a tank? Nowhere close. With an Assault Squad, you were paying those points to hold a larger area. With a Marine squad, you were paying those points to carry a special/heavy, hold a point, engage infantry, and deny the zone to vehicles.

The two roles are very different. Using a unit like ASM to deny a critical point to vehicles was silly. You could do the same with Tacs, while also getting a lot more out of it. ASM were ideally used much more aggressively to bully the opponent.

Different squads with different uses. Either could deny space to most vehicles. Use the right tool for the job - ASMs were bullies, Tacs were board control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.

Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.

Can I suggest you both just take some time off of this thread/eachother? You both seem like reasonable people, and you're both getting worked up.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.

In charging a tank? sure.

In denying a small area - such as an objective or ideal firing position - to a tank? Nowhere close. With an Assault Squad, you were paying those points to hold a larger area. With a Marine squad, you were paying those points to carry a special/heavy, hold a point, engage infantry, and deny the zone to vehicles.

The two roles are very different. Using a unit like ASM to deny a critical point to vehicles was silly. You could do the same with Tacs, while also getting a lot more out of it. ASM were ideally used much more aggressively to bully the opponent.

Different squads with different uses. Either could deny space to most vehicles. Use the right tool for the job - ASMs were bullies, Tacs were board control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.

Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.

Can I suggest you both just take some time off of this thread/eachother? You both seem like reasonable people, and you're both getting worked up.

Except Tactical Marines weren't a firing squad because 1 Lascannon or Grav Cannon for every 5-10 Marines fething sucks. Devastators and Assault Marines and Command Squads made them obsolete.

Don't even bother bringing up Objective Secured because it's such a non-rule.

 Ishagu wrote:
Actually I don't care about winning at all outside of a tournament. I play and enjoy any type of game, from ITC to fun and random Maelstrom missions.

My experience with the game does not lead me to conclude it's broken. That's not to say that any list should be able to beat another - that would be stupid.

You lost your first match because the terrain was clearly not adequate and your list had no redundancy - that's a strategic failure and bad preparation on the part of both players.

Not every list should be able to beat every list. That I agree on. But most lists with a little of everything should be able to beat most lists.

The terrain in the first match were good so no problem there. My problem is like you said no redundancy. No redundancy of good units. I was foolish enough to use 2 full tactical squads, Terminators in a Land raider and 10 Assault marines and some extras. Mephiston, Sanguinor and my 2 scout squads were the only good things in that list. I see no reason why this list shouldn't work under a good and well written rules set. I have both long range and short range fire support. Mobile units that hit hard etc. This kind of list worked OK in earlier editions and in Warmachine I could take almost anything and still win against most opponents as long as it wasn't all infantry, solos or warjacks. My list is the kind of list you see GW use in promotional photos of the game. And yet the internal balance for marines make most of it almost unplayable. Sure you can take one or two of those units in a good list but I had 1500pts of those bad units. It was like playing with a 500pts handicap and that is bad balance.

I have also had better lists than that face opponents were first turn really was crucial to who would win. Like knights list with just a cp battery or two. If I start and it's dawn of war deployment I can easily kill one of their knights in melee turn 1. If they start they kill of half my army. Those games all hinges on who gets first turn or a couple of saves turn 1. Goes really fast to decide a victor then and that is also bad game design I think. Having a 124pts model turn 1 kill a 704pts model in melee is balanced but I feel that it shouldn't be since it makes for very swingy and one sided games that it is even at all possible.

I'm not going to lie, given my proclivity for being flat out wrong on issues, I've learned to listen to the people who've learned a lot in this game, and played more than me.

I think Ishagu is right on this one. It sounds like you are demanding balance in order to obtain a win. Not to enjoy the game.

Now you might cvome back with, "Winning is fun". But to that I say you must live a very un-fun life, playing this terrible unbalanced game game as much as you claim to do. Take a step back, paint some models, read some fluff, or go outside and walk through the nearest park.

All are worth far more time than griping about the hobby you constantly play, but seem to hate.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.

In charging a tank? sure.

In denying a small area - such as an objective or ideal firing position - to a tank? Nowhere close. With an Assault Squad, you were paying those points to hold a larger area. With a Marine squad, you were paying those points to carry a special/heavy, hold a point, engage infantry, and deny the zone to vehicles.

The two roles are very different. Using a unit like ASM to deny a critical point to vehicles was silly. You could do the same with Tacs, while also getting a lot more out of it. ASM were ideally used much more aggressively to bully the opponent.

Different squads with different uses. Either could deny space to most vehicles. Use the right tool for the job - ASMs were bullies, Tacs were board control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.

Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.

Can I suggest you both just take some time off of this thread/eachother? You both seem like reasonable people, and you're both getting worked up.

Except Tactical Marines weren't a firing squad because 1 Lascannon or Grav Cannon for every 5-10 Marines fething sucks. Devastators and Assault Marines and Command Squads made them obsolete.

Don't even bother bringing up Objective Secured because it's such a non-rule.

For clarity, we were talking 6th/7th here, not 8th, in case that got missed.

You needed Troops regardless. Sure, Bike lists didn't need Tacs. But otherwise, it's Scouts or Tacs. Devs/ASM/CS couldn't replace all of them.

A single Lascannon had a smallish but not unreasonable chance of killing a Land Raider. But a Melta/CombiMelta had a good chance. And Plasma Guns hurt most things reliably. And Flamers weren't trash (although not particularly good then). Some people even used Combi-Gravs to great success, somehow.

Tacs could take a single Special more cheaply than a Command squad. They could Pod into position easily, unlike an ASM squad. They could eat your Troops slots instead of your FA/Elite/HS slots, unlike the Devs/ASM/CS. They were cheaper than CS or JP ASM. They didn't waste as much points on heavy weapons when shooting pistols than charging anything that got too close like Devs did.

If you wanted a backfield heavy fire support unit, you're right, Devs did better. If you wanted a bully that pushed fast and hard, ASM did it better. If you wanted a Melticide unit, Vets (of various flavors) did that better. But if you wanted a mainline combat unit, Tacs gave you more baseline midrange combat ability than any of the other options.

It's another case of use the right tool for the job.
Use Devs as frontline? If you have more Toys than Boys, you've got frontline troops in the 50ppm range - and will lose the engagement to most troops, including basic Tacs. And if you go more Boys than Toys, you have no HS slots left.
Use ASM as frontline? Get shot op by anything. Then lose out in CC to anything. So the opponent can go wherever they want. You're paying a ton for too much mobility and not enough staying/fire power.
CS or other Vets as frontline? You're bleeding points and slots to do a job Tacs do only marginally worse at.
Scouts? Cheap way to abandon the frontline. They're ideal if you're not intending to contest the frontline.

As for not mentioning ObSec, do you realize how many people won tournaments by dropping a gakton of PA ObSec and cheap/durable DTs on the board?

 Stux wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
yeah, Xeno, your math or logic is off. vs T7 multi-wound model, the krak is far better.

Against T7 (let's assume 3+ save)

Double tap Bolt Rifle:
.22 wounds

Krak Grenade:
.22 wounds

Yeah, far better...

Are you possibly confusing Krak grenades with the far stronger Krak missiles?

nah, I was doing my calculations with bolters, not bolt rifles so the -1 AP didn't come into it. With DW SIA it's an even better deal for the bolters but I'm typically using kraks on my Vanvet with SS. Plus you do have to consider that the potential for 3 wounds is always there with the krak (which is why I love them since I seem to always roll a 5 or 6 for damage.....unlike my lascannons where it is inevitably a 1 or 2).

 bullyboy wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
yeah, Xeno, your math or logic is off. vs T7 multi-wound model, the krak is far better.

Against T7 (let's assume 3+ save)

Double tap Bolt Rifle:
.22 wounds

Krak Grenade:
.22 wounds

Yeah, far better...

Are you possibly confusing Krak grenades with the far stronger Krak missiles?

nah, I was doing my calculations with bolters, not bolt rifles so the -1 AP didn't come into it. With DW SIA it's an even better deal for the bolters but I'm typically using kraks on my Vanvet with SS. Plus you do have to consider that the potential for 3 wounds is always there with the krak (which is why I love them since I seem to always roll a 5 or 6 for damage.....unlike my lascannons where it is inevitably a 1 or 2).

Oh yeah, Tacticals with Bolters are pretty terrible anyway so definitely talking Intercessors.

Also, bare in mind that there are a lot of 2W models out there, especially in the T5/6 sweet spot for Krak Grenades, which means you have to factor in against those targets that on a 3 you are losing a wound. Meaning average damage against those targets is 1.67 rather than 2.

Klickor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.

Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.

I wouldn't engage anymore...I really don't think you guys are going to be changing any minds. You have already won the debate though - move on gracefully.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Klickor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.

Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.

I wouldn't engage anymore...I really don't think you guys are going to be changing any minds. You have already won the debate though - move on gracefully.

So you think that the current rules are so broken the game cannot be played at all?

As usual, its the not rules as much as the costing on units at both ends of the spectrum. And headscratchers like cultists vs guardsmen.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'm not going to lie, given my proclivity for being flat out wrong on issues, I've learned to listen to the people who've learned a lot in this game, and played more than me.

I think Ishagu is right on this one. It sounds like you are demanding balance in order to obtain a win. Not to enjoy the game.

Now you might cvome back with, "Winning is fun". But to that I say you must live a very un-fun life, playing this terrible unbalanced game game as much as you claim to do. Take a step back, paint some models, read some fluff, or go outside and walk through the nearest park.

All are worth far more time than griping about the hobby you constantly play, but seem to hate.

I do not demand balance to win. I can do that just fine now that I have learned most codecies and how to build lists that can handle the different kinds of threats. Still lose a bit more than I win since there are still things I havent faced yet or misremember from earlier editions(lost my last game against necrons partly because I played around his 20+ destroyers having 36" range) but I'm confident that will soon turn around to more wins than losses even as a Marine/Blood Angels player.

Why I mentioned some of my losses weren't because I think I deserved to win but to show how 40k suffer from some very swingy matchups that can be furthet exasperated by having bad internal balance that make some army lists almost unplayable, especially if you have a bad matchup and get wiped turn 2. Not even my opponents looked like they had that much fun during those games. Now I play melee lists so I cant really table anyone before turn 3 so I cant tell about me doing the same but perhaps I should have lied and changed it to me wiping the opponent just to make sure people dont misunderstand my point.

I dont really mind the mindset of adapting since I love listbuilding and crunching numbers and trying to get the best usage out of a list. But having walked through most of my models both playing them and comparing them to other imperial options I could take instead I have found out that the internal balance is really bad. I have also spent a lot of time reading data sheets. Most of the data sheets and rules of the game in less than 2 months and have seen many units/stratagems/relics/traits that are just bad or the same ability that are exactly the same as another ability but just worded differently. While reading 3 books in a day and units in all books all have the same abilities but different name I cant not think of why they have done it that way instead of using a template of sorts or a universal name.

When I talk with friends we use old words for abilities when we talk about what units have. Like deepstrike, fnp, infiltrate, melta etc. Its much easier than each unit having a different unique word for deep strike.

I might be wrong on these 2 points for example and there is no way a multi million dollar company that works with this could do it better than how it currently is. Perhaps it is perfection and what most other companies do is inferior. All I have heard against these points is just that I'm a loser and that people would leave the game if the rules were better written and bad units werent so bad.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Klickor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.

Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.

I wouldn't engage anymore...I really don't think you guys are going to be changing any minds. You have already won the debate though - move on gracefully.

So you think that the current rules are so broken the game cannot be played at all?

No one thinks they are broken so the game cant be played.
But there are certainly badly designed aspects of the game and some mechanics. Also some bad internal balance and bloat. Can still have really fun with it but it doesnt change that there are many things that could and should be improved.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Klickor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.

Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.

I wouldn't engage anymore...I really don't think you guys are going to be changing any minds. You have already won the debate though - move on gracefully.

So you think that the current rules are so broken the game cannot be played at all?

Again - you are setting the bar really low there. I use to design little campaign mission in starcraft and have to decide on the unit stats. If I did a bad job balancing the stats the game wasn't fun because it was ether too easy or too hard but it was still playable without making the adjustments.

There shouldn't be a single example - as in not one example. Of a worse unit costing more than a better unit in the entirety of a rules set if you are to claim "the game is in a good state". These are objective statements. A Cultists is worse than a gaurdsmen and costs more. Then you space marine chapter tactics not aspplying to vehicals while almost ever other army has them apply. Do you seriously think it is hard to correct these issues? They have had about 2 years and I can't even count the number of FAQ and errata they have had oppertunities to fix the most glaring issues and they get ignored. Is there any excuse other than laziness for a multi million dollar company to have a scheduled balancing for their flagship game...and for some reason on 10% of the units recieve any attention? When clearly 50-60% of the models don't even get used their rules are so bad? My answer is no...then again I expect a little bit more out of GW than you do I susspect. You should. We make them rich.

Go ahead and design a better game with the same number of units and factions.
Let me know when it's ready.

In the meantime I'll continue to play this game which is not perfect, but certainly not broken or unplayable like some on this forum are claiming.

Fair and level criticism is perfectly valid, unfortunately most of the criticism we get around here is hyperbolic nonsense. The person I argued with literally said the game cannot be taken seriously or enjoyed because it's a complete mess, and no GW game has any value. With those kinds of absolutes being thrown around you can't say that's valuable criticism and will not be respected.

Fixing present flaws and tearing it down to the studs are two different propositions. There are quite a few point costs that just make no sense at all in the current structure. If we destroy the current structure, then everything can get recosted.

 Ishagu wrote:
Go ahead and design a better game with the same number of units and factions.
Let me know when it's ready.

In the meantime I'll continue to play this game which is not perfect, but certainly not broken or unplayable like some on this forum are claiming.

Why should we make a better game than a huge company when no one will play it.

But who except you is claiming that its unplayable. You are quite hyperbolic in your statement. The game is quite playable but certain aspects is pushed to the extremes is unplayable or close to it. Even you admit that marines are in a bad spot,think I saw you do that at least. Shouldnt we at least expect GW to do a bit more to fix that. They do change point costs now so no good reason for them not to do it to certain units and weapons.

Dont even have to make the choices equal to the best choices but not feeling punished for using a whirlwind over a wyvern/mortar would be a good start. Whirlwind is way worse against everything, something like 30-90% as effective per point depending on target. And since using loyal 32 already is an upside many times the whirlwind is barely a choice even without wyvern shooting twice and can get ap1 and ignore cover from the detachment.

Are we really going to spend pages arguing whether:
A) The game isn't so bad that it's unplayable,
or
B) The game is bad, but it's playable
?

I mean, it sounds like Ishagu and Klickor are making the same claim.

It sounds like any disagreement is over how easy it is to design a replacement. On that, I'll have to side with "Not as easy as most people think". Just cruise through any players' suggestions for how to balance the game. I don't think there's any one poster I'd trust to be able to do it better/faster than GW. Most would be much, much worse.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.

In charging a tank? sure.

In denying a small area - such as an objective or ideal firing position - to a tank? Nowhere close. With an Assault Squad, you were paying those points to hold a larger area. With a Marine squad, you were paying those points to carry a special/heavy, hold a point, engage infantry, and deny the zone to vehicles.

The two roles are very different. Using a unit like ASM to deny a critical point to vehicles was silly. You could do the same with Tacs, while also getting a lot more out of it. ASM were ideally used much more aggressively to bully the opponent.

Different squads with different uses. Either could deny space to most vehicles. Use the right tool for the job - ASMs were bullies, Tacs were board control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.

Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.

Can I suggest you both just take some time off of this thread/eachother? You both seem like reasonable people, and you're both getting worked up.

Except Tactical Marines weren't a firing squad because 1 Lascannon or Grav Cannon for every 5-10 Marines fething sucks. Devastators and Assault Marines and Command Squads made them obsolete.

Don't even bother bringing up Objective Secured because it's such a non-rule.

For clarity, we were talking 6th/7th here, not 8th, in case that got missed.

You needed Troops regardless. Sure, Bike lists didn't need Tacs. But otherwise, it's Scouts or Tacs. Devs/ASM/CS couldn't replace all of them.

A single Lascannon had a smallish but not unreasonable chance of killing a Land Raider. But a Melta/CombiMelta had a good chance. And Plasma Guns hurt most things reliably. And Flamers weren't trash (although not particularly good then). Some people even used Combi-Gravs to great success, somehow.

Tacs could take a single Special more cheaply than a Command squad. They could Pod into position easily, unlike an ASM squad. They could eat your Troops slots instead of your FA/Elite/HS slots, unlike the Devs/ASM/CS. They were cheaper than CS or JP ASM. They didn't waste as much points on heavy weapons when shooting pistols than charging anything that got too close like Devs did.

If you wanted a backfield heavy fire support unit, you're right, Devs did better. If you wanted a bully that pushed fast and hard, ASM did it better. If you wanted a Melticide unit, Vets (of various flavors) did that better. But if you wanted a mainline combat unit, Tacs gave you more baseline midrange combat ability than any of the other options.

It's another case of use the right tool for the job.
Use Devs as frontline? If you have more Toys than Boys, you've got frontline troops in the 50ppm range - and will lose the engagement to most troops, including basic Tacs. And if you go more Boys than Toys, you have no HS slots left.
Use ASM as frontline? Get shot op by anything. Then lose out in CC to anything. So the opponent can go wherever they want. You're paying a ton for too much mobility and not enough staying/fire power.
CS or other Vets as frontline? You're bleeding points and slots to do a job Tacs do only marginally worse at.
Scouts? Cheap way to abandon the frontline. They're ideal if you're not intending to contest the frontline.

As for not mentioning ObSec, do you realize how many people won tournaments by dropping a gakton of PA ObSec and cheap/durable DTs on the board?

You mean those 350+ points of free transports? Amazing how much better an army does when it gets FREE units, huh? ObSec spam hardly worked either once other codices were released for 6th in the same way Croissant Spam didn't work: everyone got updated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and a Lascannon hurting a Land Raider was unreasonable. That's. 23 HP removed per shot. I honestly stopped reading after that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yeah you could've just used an Assault Squad to do that whole thing and had a LOT more success.

In charging a tank? sure.

In denying a small area - such as an objective or ideal firing position - to a tank? Nowhere close. With an Assault Squad, you were paying those points to hold a larger area. With a Marine squad, you were paying those points to carry a special/heavy, hold a point, engage infantry, and deny the zone to vehicles.

The two roles are very different. Using a unit like ASM to deny a critical point to vehicles was silly. You could do the same with Tacs, while also getting a lot more out of it. ASM were ideally used much more aggressively to bully the opponent.

Different squads with different uses. Either could deny space to most vehicles. Use the right tool for the job - ASMs were bullies, Tacs were board control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Klickor wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
From what I read he lost a game badly. That's a poor reason to complain about a game two years on.

Probably projecting here on your part. I don't complain about me losing. Should probably have told the story in reverse just to make my point. Some of use can take losing and understand why we lost, if it is because we played bad or if there were something else. Since you probably are a really sore loser you think everyone else is too. You don't have any arguments and just strawman people.

Btw, I crushed the same opponent 2 weeks later with another BA list and it was 2 months ago.

Can I suggest you both just take some time off of this thread/eachother? You both seem like reasonable people, and you're both getting worked up.

Except Tactical Marines weren't a firing squad because 1 Lascannon or Grav Cannon for every 5-10 Marines fething sucks. Devastators and Assault Marines and Command Squads made them obsolete.

Don't even bother bringing up Objective Secured because it's such a non-rule.

For clarity, we were talking 6th/7th here, not 8th, in case that got missed.

You needed Troops regardless. Sure, Bike lists didn't need Tacs. But otherwise, it's Scouts or Tacs. Devs/ASM/CS couldn't replace all of them.

A single Lascannon had a smallish but not unreasonable chance of killing a Land Raider. But a Melta/CombiMelta had a good chance. And Plasma Guns hurt most things reliably. And Flamers weren't trash (although not particularly good then). Some people even used Combi-Gravs to great success, somehow.

Tacs could take a single Special more cheaply than a Command squad. They could Pod into position easily, unlike an ASM squad. They could eat your Troops slots instead of your FA/Elite/HS slots, unlike the Devs/ASM/CS. They were cheaper than CS or JP ASM. They didn't waste as much points on heavy weapons when shooting pistols than charging anything that got too close like Devs did.

If you wanted a backfield heavy fire support unit, you're right, Devs did better. If you wanted a bully that pushed fast and hard, ASM did it better. If you wanted a Melticide unit, Vets (of various flavors) did that better. But if you wanted a mainline combat unit, Tacs gave you more baseline midrange combat ability than any of the other options.

It's another case of use the right tool for the job.
Use Devs as frontline? If you have more Toys than Boys, you've got frontline troops in the 50ppm range - and will lose the engagement to most troops, including basic Tacs. And if you go more Boys than Toys, you have no HS slots left.
Use ASM as frontline? Get shot op by anything. Then lose out in CC to anything. So the opponent can go wherever they want. You're paying a ton for too much mobility and not enough staying/fire power.
CS or other Vets as frontline? You're bleeding points and slots to do a job Tacs do only marginally worse at.
Scouts? Cheap way to abandon the frontline. They're ideal if you're not intending to contest the frontline.

As for not mentioning ObSec, do you realize how many people won tournaments by dropping a gakton of PA ObSec and cheap/durable DTs on the board?

You mean those 350+ points of free transports? Amazing how much better an army does when it gets FREE units, huh? ObSec spam hardly worked either once other codices were released for 6th in the same way Croissant Spam didn't work: everyone got updated.

I'm confused. Where did they get 350+ points of free transports before the Gladius came out later in 7th?
ObSec spam at the start of 7th was a difficult list to deal with. Gladius lists are certainly related, but put a lot more into firepower than ObSec spam lists did. And had a lot more non-ObSec stuff. Two related concepts, that look similar at first glance, but are built very differently, from a different time, and play differently. But again, another scenario where you'd use Tac Marines instead of ASM for some jobs (because you had 6 units of Tacs, and only 3 ASM).

I could truck other marine lists trying obj sec spam pre-gladius pretty easily with a terrible codex. How did anyone lose to it?