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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Games Workshop aren't fixing Marines because they have a longer term plan with codex releases.

Guess we should all just wait to have a fair game until 2020? I think I understand now! I can just stomp kids with gman and knights until my ultras get fixed. Waits that is what I have been doing!

If you're playing kill points on an open table go right ahead. I don't care lol
Some lists are amazing in certain situations.

People who get upsets about army performance need to sort their priorities out. Are you a fluff player or a competitive player?
If you're competitive you play whatever is hot in the meta, you chase it so to speak. If you're a lore player you attach yourself to a faction. Any army can perform at a decent level, not all can win a major tournament.
If you're upset that your army can't win the LVO you have to ask yourself why? I don't care if my current favourite isn't performing at the top, I can still win 3 out of 5 games.
If you want to play the top list you'd better get used to changing faction every 3 months.

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

That's true, but the command russ is way undercosted, too. Unless you'd leave command russ alone in your scenario.

Martel732 wrote:
That's true, but the command russ is way undercosted, too. Unless you'd leave command russ alone in your scenario.

The way I'd fix it would be to balance to the top. No one gets upset when their units get buffed but people hate nerfs. Plus we have the most data on the top units already. Balance around them and all will be fine.

What would you rather have? a 140 point quad las pred? or a 180 point russ with a battle cannon? I think it's a fair comparison at those points. Also it if you do 30% drops on units like repulsors and storm ravens you see it's a little to much. For them it's more like 20%. In fact 20% on an executioner puts it at 230-240 which is exactly where it should be.

 Ishagu wrote:
Can anyone prove that Guilliman has any impact on the cost of units?

GW are not costing units around him. You're already paying for his aura with his substantial cost which is frankly stifling in any game at 2k or below.

It's one of these silly myths, same as the myth that transport capacity increases unit price, even though a Razorback chassis costs less than a Predator chassis.
The Space Marine books simply suffer from being the first books written for 8th edition. Nothing more.

You care to actually respond to the aura being a bad design choice or are you just going to deflect instead of actually countering the points being made about why the design of codex marines is bad.

I love the aura. Has pros and cons

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

Do you seriously think a QuadLas Pred for 130 is about right?

BL Falcons are 132 points. Roughly the same, but 3xS8 AP-4 shots vs *4*xS*9* AP-3 shots. The Falcon has weaker guns, shorter range, and a full quarter *fewer shots*. It does have Fly and Chapter Tactics and a transport cap of 6. No way is the QuadLas Pred worse less per model than the BL Falcon.

The Railgun HH is even worse. 150 points for heavy *1*, but at S10, and wounds of 6 cause a couple MW too. The QuadLas pred heavily outclasses it.

Compared to xenos tanks in the same class, the QuadLas pred should *not* be 30% cheaper.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Games Workshop aren't fixing Marines because they have a longer term plan with codex releases.

Guess we should all just wait to have a fair game until 2020? I think I understand now! I can just stomp kids with gman and knights until my ultras get fixed. Waits that is what I have been doing!

If you're playing kill points on an open table go right ahead. I don't care lol
Some lists are amazing in certain situations.

People who get upsets about army performance need to sort their priorities out. Are you a fluff player or a competitive player?
If you're competitive you play whatever is hot in the meta, you chase it so to speak. If you're a lore player you attach yourself to a faction. Any army can perform at a decent level, not all can win a major tournament.
If you're upset that your army can't win the LVO you have to ask yourself why? I don't care if my current favourite isn't performing at the top, I can still win 3 out of 5 games.
If you want to play the top list you'd better get used to changing faction every 3 months.

So how exactly do you create a list that's ok for pick up games against a marines list but has enough puch to play against guard plus super soup, or are you suggesting people take 18 diffrent army's to a game day/night so they can have a balanced game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
I love the aura. Has pros and cons

That tells me you have zero interest in 40k actually being balanced then as the aura is terrible design if you have any intention of balancing vehicals and troops.

Command Russ is an outrageous anomaly. It is absurdly undercostred even by IG standards and renders other Russes obsolete.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

Do you seriously think a QuadLas Pred for 130 is about right?

BL Falcons are 132 points. Roughly the same, but 3xS8 AP-4 shots vs *4*xS*9* AP-3 shots. The Falcon has weaker guns, shorter range, and a full quarter *fewer shots*. It does have Fly and Chapter Tactics and a transport cap of 6. No way is the QuadLas Pred worse less per model than the BL Falcon.

The Railgun HH is even worse. 150 points for heavy *1*, but at S10, and wounds of 6 cause a couple MW too. The QuadLas pred heavily outclasses it.

Compared to xenos tanks in the same class, the QuadLas pred should *not* be 30% cheaper.

Well maybe we could just charge guard the 90 point for a BS3+ battlecannon and say 60 for the BS4+ version then? Given they have the same stats as a knight battlecannon anyway.

The Knight battle cannons cost more because they're on a more resilient platform, the same reason a Lascannon costs 20 on a Guardsmen and 25 on a Space Marine.

 Crimson wrote:
Command Russ is an outrageous anomaly. It is absurdly undercostred even by IG standards and renders other Russes obsolete.

True - the drop in CA2019 was ...........bizare. As was Cultists up but not Guardsmen and reduction of Plasma but not Melta guns

However as we have Primaris - there is no room to fix marines really....

but

Compared to a command russ, most marine vehicles are way more than 20% off.

Not giving Chapter Tactics to all Marine vehicles (and SOBs who also got this Bul%^^%) is a direct slap in the face for no reason

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

Do you seriously think a QuadLas Pred for 130 is about right?

BL Falcons are 132 points. Roughly the same, but 3xS8 AP-4 shots vs *4*xS*9* AP-3 shots. The Falcon has weaker guns, shorter range, and a full quarter *fewer shots*. It does have Fly and Chapter Tactics and a transport cap of 6. No way is the QuadLas Pred worse less per model than the BL Falcon.

The Railgun HH is even worse. 150 points for heavy *1*, but at S10, and wounds of 6 cause a couple MW too. The QuadLas pred heavily outclasses it.

Compared to xenos tanks in the same class, the QuadLas pred should *not* be 30% cheaper.

We are comparing to command russ, though. And IKs. Units that actually get used. The BL falcon with -1 to hit is probably worth more than a quad las pred. By a significant margin, actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:
The Knight battle cannons cost more because they're on a more resilient platform, the same reason a Lascannon costs 20 on a Guardsmen and 25 on a Space Marine.

It's still not worth 100 pts, though. Not even close.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Command Russ is an outrageous anomaly. It is absurdly undercostred even by IG standards and renders other Russes obsolete.

And is the standard for imperial tanks, because they are in so many lists.

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

Do you seriously think a QuadLas Pred for 130 is about right?

BL Falcons are 132 points. Roughly the same, but 3xS8 AP-4 shots vs *4*xS*9* AP-3 shots. The Falcon has weaker guns, shorter range, and a full quarter *fewer shots*. It does have Fly and Chapter Tactics and a transport cap of 6. No way is the QuadLas Pred worse less per model than the BL Falcon.

The Railgun HH is even worse. 150 points for heavy *1*, but at S10, and wounds of 6 cause a couple MW too. The QuadLas pred heavily outclasses it.

Compared to xenos tanks in the same class, the QuadLas pred should *not* be 30% cheaper.

Falcon has fly keyword and I said 140 points seems like a fair price. The flacon I run is starcannon with shuriken cannon and CTM and I play Ulthwe so I get a sweet 6+++ as well which is basically worth 2 more wounds. 138 points for 16" move and shoot closest target / clear heavy infantry then deploy firedragons. It's a little more versatile in it's targets. Seems fair to me. You eldar players always seem to think your nearly double mobility should just be free. That is pretty odd to me because I view mobility as being somewhat game changing. ESP in eldar vs SM matchups. That Falcon can easily charge your pred turn 2 and take a whole turn of shooting away from the pred.

I don't think the Falcon is particularly good though. Almost no reason to take it over the crimson hunter which is more durable and has better firepower and barely costs more. Unless you want to deploy a small unit of firedragons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Newman wrote:
The Knight battle cannons cost more because they're on a more resilient platform, the same reason a Lascannon costs 20 on a Guardsmen and 25 on a Space Marine.

You can't do that. Plus russ gets LC for 20 points....If you are gonna do that you have to be consistent across all armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
Command Russ is an outrageous anomaly. It is absurdly undercostred even by IG standards and renders other Russes obsolete.

The idea I have is to balance to the top. We have data on those units because they get used. Just bringing everything to that level is the way to do it IMO. Yeah. Command russ is good - no doubt. Bringing 3 in my space marine lists was pretty standard for me the last 6 month. For as good as they are. You touch them they can't shoot. IMO that is a massive drawback that can't be ignored. Lots of high teir armor doesn't have this issue. Take a look at the custode tank. FFS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Command Russ is an outrageous anomaly. It is absurdly undercostred even by IG standards and renders other Russes obsolete.

True - the drop in CA2019 was ...........bizare. As was Cultists up but not Guardsmen and reduction of Plasma but not Melta guns

However as we have Primaris - there is no room to fix marines really....

but

Compared to a command russ, most marine vehicles are way more than 20% off.

Not giving Chapter Tactics to all Marine vehicles (and SOBs who also got this Bul%^^%) is a direct slap in the face for no reason

I agree. Direct slap to the face. My face hurts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd argue a predator might even be 50% off from a command russ. Battlecannons being 22 pts is fething absurd.

At 30% off a quad las pred would be about 130 points. Right in the same ball park as an admech dunecrawler. Maybe a little better than it at that price but he has a lot of advantages including the ability to move and shoot without penalty and AP-4 and str 10 more and a 6++ and reroll 1's for saves. It should probably be 140 with quad las build IMO.

Do you seriously think a QuadLas Pred for 130 is about right?

BL Falcons are 132 points. Roughly the same, but 3xS8 AP-4 shots vs *4*xS*9* AP-3 shots. The Falcon has weaker guns, shorter range, and a full quarter *fewer shots*. It does have Fly and Chapter Tactics and a transport cap of 6. No way is the QuadLas Pred worse less per model than the BL Falcon.

The Railgun HH is even worse. 150 points for heavy *1*, but at S10, and wounds of 6 cause a couple MW too. The QuadLas pred heavily outclasses it.

Compared to xenos tanks in the same class, the QuadLas pred should *not* be 30% cheaper.

Well maybe we could just charge guard the 90 point for a BS3+ battlecannon and say 60 for the BS4+ version then? Given they have the same stats as a knight battlecannon anyway.

Honestly they way they do it a good portion of your main weapon on a tank is included in the base cost but not all of it. Clearly the chassis of the russ is including some of that cost you are mainly paying for the difference in ability between weapon options. I wish they would just give you the base cost of the tank without guns. Then give you the actual value of the weapon.

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
The Knight battle cannons cost more because they're on a more resilient platform, the same reason a Lascannon costs 20 on a Guardsmen and 25 on a Space Marine.

You can't do that. Plus russ gets LC for 20 points....If you are gonna do that you have to be consistent across all armies.

No, you shouldn't do that. GW has demonstrated pretty conclusively that you can.

Not giving Chapter Tactics to all Marine vehicles (and SOBs who also got this Bul%^^%) is a direct slap in the face for no reason

Don't forget GSC!

 Ishagu wrote:
I love the aura. Has pros and cons

Auras are a crap mechanic because they make balancing characters more difficult and GW already has a tough time balancing things. It's hard to put a proper price on some thing that is situational in how many units it effects based on game size and model position and also stacks with other auras and strats.

I miss the old IC rules were characters mostly buffed one unit.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
I love the aura. Has pros and cons

Auras are a crap mechanic because they make balancing characters more difficult and GW already has a tough time balancing things. It's hard to put a proper price on some thing that is situational in how many units it effects based on game size and model position and also stacks with other auras and strats.

I miss the old IC rules were characters mostly buffed one unit.

I miss PARTS of the old IC rules.

Definitely not the whole thing.

So apparently the Blood Ravens also have the Angels of Death rule, so anyone with the codex should be able to say what the new ruling includes.

The Newman wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

The Newman wrote:
The Knight battle cannons cost more because they're on a more resilient platform, the same reason a Lascannon costs 20 on a Guardsmen and 25 on a Space Marine.

You can't do that. Plus russ gets LC for 20 points....If you are gonna do that you have to be consistent across all armies.

No, you shouldn't do that. GW has demonstrated pretty conclusively that you can.

Certainly - that is exactly what I mean.

The Newman wrote:


And in-context were talking about a Dd3 weapon, so the average isn't more wounds than a Primaris Marine even I wasn't specifically talking about shooting tanks with the ruddy thing.

You're not wrong, just pendantic.

Now go back and see the quoted tweet talking about T3-T6. That's Primaris Marines. You're not wrong, just cherry picking what "we" were talking about in a generalized statement.

 bullyboy wrote:
So apparently the Blood Ravens also have the Angels of Death rule, so anyone with the codex should be able to say what the new ruling includes.

Is that on Gabriel Angelos’ sheet?

 Ishagu wrote:

People who get upsets about army performance need to sort their priorities out. Are you a fluff player or a competitive player?
If you're competitive you play whatever is hot in the meta, you chase it so to speak. If you're a lore player you attach yourself to a faction. Any army can perform at a decent level, not all can win a major tournament.
If you're upset that your army can't win the LVO you have to ask yourself why? I don't care if my current favourite isn't performing at the top, I can still win 3 out of 5 games.
If you want to play the top list you'd better get used to changing faction every 3 months.

Why can't I be both? Why can't I be competitive by creating my own Meta that's also fluffy? I don't care if I win 1 out of 5, 3 out of 5, or 5 out of 5. I care if I had a fair shot at winning 5 out of 5. I know when I roll 8 2's from my four Intercessors to knock the 5 Guardsmen off an objective I had a chance to win, but random chance intervened. I know when those 20 points/3 Power Level of Guardsmen return fire, and all of them miss, they still control the objective instead of my 68 points/5 Power Level of Intercessors I was screwed by the rules and didn't have a chance to win. I know that those same Intercessors reinforced for the next battle to 10 models, 170 points and 10 Power Level can't capture the objective against 30 Termagaunts with a value of 120 points and 9 Power Level, even if they whittle the unit down to 11 models worth 44 points and 6 PL without taking a single casualty themselves.


When it comes to fluffy competitive, I know the Loyal 32 costs Guard about 180 points. a Captain, LT, and 30 Tactical Marines with zero upgrades is 527 points. I know if you want to make it fluffy - while still maintaining the Batallion Command Point Generation) and turn it into the most generic, barebones and fluffy (so box art) Demi Company with Cap, Lt, 3 Flamer/ML Tac Squads, one BP/CS 10 man Assault Squad, and one 10 model Dev Squad (4ML generic hybrid choice 965 points) or (ML, GCWA, LC, HB 968 points) - The "Cadian Demi Company" using two bare bones commanders, 3 Box Art Infantry squads - Vox, Grenade Launcher, no HW Team), a 3 model unit of Armored Sentinels (Multi-Laser, Auto Cannon, Missile Launcher) and a Heavy Weapons Team (Autocannon, Missile Launcher, Las Cannon) is 387 points. Space Marines are paying 65% of their points totals to keep Fluffy (Demi Company) and Competitive (5CP) Guard are paying 26% of their 1500 points to be fluffy (Loyal 32 with upgrades/extras you'd see in just about any Black Library book) and get their competitive 5CP.

The point I'm making here - because the Force Org Chart is standardized across all armies, they generate the same CP per detachment, not per point or Power Level. Space Marines have two thirds of their army points all but pre-selected and locked in for those 5 CP. 500 points doesn't go very far in variety when you're looking at 200+ point units, and you still need to kit out your Demi-company- 2/3 of your army being so barebones isn't going to be effective. Guard have 75% of their army they can tool up and flesh out with options to change things up and keep it new and exciting. A Space Marine army is better off taking a Loyal 32 Soup detachment - and their 5CP - for SLIGHTLY - about 2.5%) more than they pay for ONE Intercessor/Tactical with Options squad Combined Arms Detachment going from 1HQ/2Troop to Batallion 2HQ/3Troop has just exacerbated the pre-selected army issue. The Dark Angels player trying to go full Raven/Death Wing or even Raven+Death Wing is fluffy but not at all competitive. They cannot get Objective Secured, nor can they generate anywhere near the CP a Batallion does. The same can be said of the jetbikes of Saim-Hann. They can't even soup in the Loyal 32 and leave them in reserves all game long.

I'm hoping many of these "New Marine Abilities" involve re-writing so many of the generic rules to a horde/elite army neutral state. Generate CP based on Power Level, or points. Generate objective securing and the Objective Secured rule based on something similar - AND allow for fluffy but non-standard armies to play the Objective Game as easily

Breton wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

People who get upsets about army performance need to sort their priorities out. Are you a fluff player or a competitive player?
If you're competitive you play whatever is hot in the meta, you chase it so to speak. If you're a lore player you attach yourself to a faction. Any army can perform at a decent level, not all can win a major tournament.
If you're upset that your army can't win the LVO you have to ask yourself why? I don't care if my current favourite isn't performing at the top, I can still win 3 out of 5 games.
If you want to play the top list you'd better get used to changing faction every 3 months.

Why can't I be both? Why can't I be competitive by creating my own Meta that's also fluffy? I don't care if I win 1 out of 5, 3 out of 5, or 5 out of 5. I care if I had a fair shot at winning 5 out of 5. I know when I roll 8 2's from my four Intercessors to knock the 5 Guardsmen off an objective I had a chance to win, but random chance intervened. I know when those 20 points/3 Power Level of Guardsmen return fire, and all of them miss, they still control the objective instead of my 68 points/5 Power Level of Intercessors I was screwed by the rules and didn't have a chance to win. I know that those same Intercessors reinforced for the next battle to 10 models, 170 points and 10 Power Level can't capture the objective against 30 Termagaunts with a value of 120 points and 9 Power Level, even if they whittle the unit down to 11 models worth 44 points and 6 PL without taking a single casualty themselves.


When it comes to fluffy competitive, I know the Loyal 32 costs Guard about 180 points. a Captain, LT, and 30 Tactical Marines with zero upgrades is 527 points. I know if you want to make it fluffy - while still maintaining the Batallion Command Point Generation) and turn it into the most generic, barebones and fluffy (so box art) Demi Company with Cap, Lt, 3 Flamer/ML Tac Squads, one BP/CS 10 man Assault Squad, and one 10 model Dev Squad (4ML generic hybrid choice 965 points) or (ML, GCWA, LC, HB 968 points) - The "Cadian Demi Company" using two bare bones commanders, 3 Box Art Infantry squads - Vox, Grenade Launcher, no HW Team), a 3 model unit of Armored Sentinels (Multi-Laser, Auto Cannon, Missile Launcher) and a Heavy Weapons Team (Autocannon, Missile Launcher, Las Cannon) is 387 points. Space Marines are paying 65% of their points totals to keep Fluffy (Demi Company) and Competitive (5CP) Guard are paying 26% of their 1500 points to be fluffy (Loyal 32 with upgrades/extras you'd see in just about any Black Library book) and get their competitive 5CP.

The point I'm making here - because the Force Org Chart is standardized across all armies, they generate the same CP per detachment, not per point or Power Level. Space Marines have two thirds of their army points all but pre-selected and locked in for those 5 CP. 500 points doesn't go very far in variety when you're looking at 200+ point units, and you still need to kit out your Demi-company- 2/3 of your army being so barebones isn't going to be effective. Guard have 75% of their army they can tool up and flesh out with options to change things up and keep it new and exciting. A Space Marine army is better off taking a Loyal 32 Soup detachment - and their 5CP - for SLIGHTLY - about 2.5%) more than they pay for ONE Intercessor/Tactical with Options squad Combined Arms Detachment going from 1HQ/2Troop to Batallion 2HQ/3Troop has just exacerbated the pre-selected army issue. The Dark Angels player trying to go full Raven/Death Wing or even Raven+Death Wing is fluffy but not at all competitive. They cannot get Objective Secured, nor can they generate anywhere near the CP a Batallion does. The same can be said of the jetbikes of Saim-Hann. They can't even soup in the Loyal 32 and leave them in reserves all game long.

I'm hoping many of these "New Marine Abilities" involve re-writing so many of the generic rules to a horde/elite army neutral state. Generate CP based on Power Level, or points. Generate objective securing and the Objective Secured rule based on something similar - AND allow for fluffy but non-standard armies to play the Objective Game as easily

You can be both, but you can't complain about it. Dividing your priority means you don't truly excel at anything.

My general focus is on building thematic armies, but making them as powerful as possible whilst keeping to the lore and theme. I also understand fully that in a truly competitive environment my thematic armies are not 100% optimised, and I temper my expectations of their performance accordingly.

I've finished in the top 12 of 100+ man tournaments with strictly thematic, lore influenced armies and that's about as far as you can push them at a high level of competition. I find that I can usually win 3/4 out of 5 games on average. Sometimes if the mood strikes I'll build a meta list but I don't generally enjoy it as much. Other times I'll run something more fluffy.

In a casual setting I rarely if ever run the same list twice. I love my collection of models and like to make sure they all see the tabletop at some point. When building a casual list I simply make sure to have a decent number of bodies, anti tank, anti infantry, mobility, etc and every game tends to be quite fun. I've not experienced any turn 1 losses as I know the game well, and we play on good tables with terrain and LoS blocking. Frankly I don't care about the result of any casual game - you learn from each one, and I play often enough that I don't place any mental stakes on the games.

The thing is, you DO have a fair shot at winning. But you must also be mindful of your opponents. If your local meta is obsessed with chasing the top performance it does make it harder to perform well with a strictly thematic army. That's a symptom of your local scene however and it's a matter of different player priorities. You can find like minded players, and after a few games you can gauge what kinds of armies will make for the most enjoyable experience.

When I go to a club, if I'm doing a pick up game, I'll chose what faction I'm playing and bring along a KR bag full of models. After a brief word with a potential opponent I typically know exactly what level of list I have to use.

I don't experience these nightmare games people talk about. My last 10 casual games were decided on turn 5 and were narrow wins or losses with plenty of fun occurances throughout the turns, and those games involved Eldar flyer spam, Knights, Guard, Orks, Nids, mixed Chaos, FW Deathguard Dreads, etc.

Ironically I recently went to a tournament with a meta Knight + friends list and performed very badly, losing 3 out of 5 games! It's a dice game. It's supposed to be fun. I have a suspicion that the players most upset about balance don't play as often, and because they have fewer games to enjoy the obsess over them and possible ways they were wronged or the game let them down. I don't care about a loss because I'll be playing again in no time at all, enjoying my models and rolling dice.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

Not giving Chapter Tactics to all Marine vehicles (and SOBs who also got this Bul%^^%) is a direct slap in the face for no reason

Don't forget GSC!

Good point - no idea why they do this after taking all that time and effort to make sure Guard, Eldar etc get CT that work for their vehicles.

 Ishagu wrote:


You can be both, but you can't complain about it. Dividing your priority means you don't truly excel at anything.

This is a false dichotomy. There is no inherent fluffy/competitive points/rules trade-off, a point is a point is a point. Or it should be. Rewarding Fluffy lists is the entire reason things like Batallion/Brigade/Lion's Blade/Gladius/etc exist(ed), thus not only can I complain, I should. I can make a pretty fluffy and competitive Knights list at 1500-2000 points with three/four different Knight models that get 6 CP for their formation. Fluffy and Competitive need not and should not be mutually exclusive. Ergo - the Beta Bolter Rule: a bandaid on the arterial hemorrhage spray that is balancing your game on points, then declaring victory on model count.

Does anybody know what are the rules for Angels of Death?

I'd like to discuss how viable would be to give marines (infantry only) the ability of rerolling armour save rolls of 1. (Not invulns). Perhaps it would make SS less of an autotake. Of course perhaps a point adjustment would be in order.

 Kithail wrote:
I'd like to discuss how viable would be to give marines (infantry only) the ability of rerolling armour save rolls of 1. (Not invulns). Perhaps it would make SS less of an autotake. Of course perhaps a point adjustment would be in order.

No pls! No more rerolls!

 Ishagu wrote:


Honestly I think the problem might be your ability as a player. I don't have the problems you describe. Consider the difference between us to be ability.

And there it is. "Learn to play", if packaged in a slightly less odious manner.

Imperial Guard certainly seem capable of making fluffy lists that are also competetive. Chaos lists can be fluffy and competetive. Genestealer Cults can be fluffy and competetive. Why on Earth would you conclude that it is unreasonable for Space Marine players to complain that they cannot? LIke, in what reality does that argument make an iota of sense?

When people complain that the only way to be competetive with their army is to play it in a way that is greatly divergent from the way the background tells us the army ought to play like, responding with "l2p" or a variation thereof is just a donkeycave move.