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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

Salamanders are a functional army even without the Supplement. They're not top tier, but that's OK. The supplement let's them play more focused on their fluff, and boosts them in terms of general power. How far, I'm not sure. Not as far as IH pre nerf, but probably still top tier material.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

No, some people just like having some functional rules for their army is all.

Gadzilla666 wrote: Most of what I've heard about salamanders isn't horrible. However I've heard they have a votlw equivalent strategem that works for all their units not just infantry. That's csm best strategem but better. That's gak.

Gadzilla666 wrote:The fact that they got a superior version of votlw is what irks me. It's bad enough that sm get everyone else's stuff but they get better versions of it.

There's always the chance that they'll update our strat, if they ever update our codex. Rumors indicate we shouldn't expect that update in Psychic Awakening.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

I would advise against arguing with slayer in regards to Salamanders. He has some weirdly intense hate for them.

In regards to the Salamander CT vs the +3 and Master Artisans combo. It's actually surprisingly close for me, and I'll try both.
On the one hand +3 to range really helps the threat range of meltas and flamers (obviously) and allow for easier board control and deepstriking flamers (tasty but expensive)
On the other I recently went to a tournament, and in every single match-up (Necrons/Marines/Chaos/Knights/Tau) The ignore AP1 kept several more models on the board for longer. The ignoring AP1 is also going to help ameliorate the flamer bomb tactic from above.

Also interesting thought, With the first option ASM with 2 flamers and a combi-flamer become decent harassers/chaff clearers.

Vilehydra wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

I would advise against arguing with slayer in regards to Salamanders. He has some weirdly intense hate for them.

In regards to the Salamander CT vs the +3 and Master Artisans combo. It's actually surprisingly close for me, and I'll try both.
On the one hand +3 to range really helps the threat range of meltas and flamers (obviously) and allow for easier board control and deepstriking flamers (tasty but expensive)
On the other I recently went to a tournament, and in every single match-up (Necrons/Marines/Chaos/Knights/Tau) The ignore AP1 kept several more models on the board for longer. The ignoring AP1 is also going to help ameliorate the flamer bomb tactic from above.

Also interesting thought, With the first option ASM with 2 flamers and a combi-flamer become decent harassers/chaff clearers.

I don't hate the Salamanders. However, anyone arguing they're a strong army is not correct and just letting personal bias get in the way.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't hate the Salamanders. However, anyone arguing they're a strong army is not correct and just letting personal bias get in the way.

define strong.
Top 1? top 2? 5? 10?

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't hate the Salamanders. However, anyone arguing they're a strong army is not correct and just letting personal bias get in the way.

define strong.
Top 1? top 2? 5? 10?

They're the bottom of the Chapter Tactics with Crimson Fists. For strength itself, that's a tough call as it seems we are going through an iteration of Edition 8.5 and we need to see the Eldar release. In terms of Marines though, I wouldn't even think twice about building to counter Salamanders as an army. Per rumors they have done strong strats but that's mostly gimmicks and for whatever reason they're getting their own Slamguinus. No clever nickname for it yet

Thanks to several posters here, I'm now officially rioting. See me in the streets of Paris, turning cars over and setting them on fire!
(Maybe I should go do that in Nottingham? In GW's parking lot?)

Small note on the being salty about sallies getting votlw +1, Imperial Fists get it -2. Their's is only against one specific vehicle and costs 2 CP.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't hate the Salamanders. However, anyone arguing they're a strong army is not correct and just letting personal bias get in the way.

define strong.
Top 1? top 2? 5? 10?

They're the bottom of the Chapter Tactics with Crimson Fists. For strength itself, that's a tough call as it seems we are going through an iteration of Edition 8.5 and we need to see the Eldar release. In terms of Marines though, I wouldn't even think twice about building to counter Salamanders as an army. Per rumors they have done strong strats but that's mostly gimmicks and for whatever reason they're getting their own Slamguinus. No clever nickname for it yet

He is simply known as Godzilla

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

No, some people just like having some functional rules for their army is all.

Man, you've got a fethed up idea of what Salamanders are. Nobody said they're the best, I'll play them whether or not their rules are good. Absolutely zero other Marines even remotely interest me. You're mistaking flavour-of-the-month players for Salamanders.

 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't hate the Salamanders. However, anyone arguing they're a strong army is not correct and just letting personal bias get in the way.

define strong.
Top 1? top 2? 5? 10?

They're the bottom of the Chapter Tactics with Crimson Fists. For strength itself, that's a tough call as it seems we are going through an iteration of Edition 8.5 and we need to see the Eldar release. In terms of Marines though, I wouldn't even think twice about building to counter Salamanders as an army. Per rumors they have done strong strats but that's mostly gimmicks and for whatever reason they're getting their own Slamguinus. No clever nickname for it yet

He is simply known as Godzilla

That's fantastic. Let's make it happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:LOL Salamanders themselves are still crap though. Everyone is gonna do a Successor for the extra 3" on their Melta and Flamer weapons, and since the spamming of auto hits will be a thing you won't even pick Artisans, not that it was a good choice to begin with.

SALAMANDERS players most likely will not be doing that.

Those looking for the new way to eviscerate their opponent in the shortest amount of time, will do that.

What should happen is if you are 100% Salamanders and not a successor, the bonus to range on flame & melta (only) applies.

Yeah that's a bad proposed rule.

And yeah I can guarantee Salamanders players will be doing that because they might actually want a functional army.

why the hell would a Salamanders player play someone else? O wait, I forgot, that it only matters in screw you competition, since obviously that's where the cool kids are. If you aren't playing their way, you're just a complete imbecile and should just stop playing.

No, some people just like having some functional rules for their army is all.

Man, you've got a fethed up idea of what Salamanders are. Nobody said they're the best, I'll play them whether or not their rules are good. Absolutely zero other Marines even remotely interest me. You're mistaking flavour-of-the-month players for Salamanders.

Wanting your army to not suck =/= flavor of the month players. Nice virtue signaling though.

My Salamanders have not sucked all edition. They have always performed how I want them to.

not virtue signaling.

I don't know how you'vebeen playing them...but it must suck. Now if you meta is at go feth yourself levels then nothing but the most ridiculous whatever spam crap will do. But being a Salamanders commander requires more than just point and click.

A.T. wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Salamanders? Strong using their fluff friendly weapons?

And this is bad, why?

Serious answer - you have a unit. That unit is arbitrarily stronger depending on the colour it is painted. You can set one price for it - do you price it for red paint, green paint, blue paint, or silver?

Not even colour. Have it painted blue and still use salamanader rules in full. It's rather "which models I want to use today that decide which rules I use"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
If all your units are a little overpriced, but the ones for your color are a little overpowered, it evens out. You are not going to spam 100% of your good units, as you still need to take some stock units, fill roles, etc. So each color army is rewarded to play to their strengths, but overall as an army everything is balanced..

And that leads to unfluffy situations like we have now. Blood angels not having any devastators(despite fluff saying otherwise), bad moon slugga and choppa boyz don't exist etc. Armies dont' look at all how they are actually supposed to be.

And everybody spams 100% of your good units. Weak units? You take them from other armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
The fact that they got a superior version of votlw is what irks me. It's bad enough that sm get everyone else's stuff but they get better versions of it.

GW has no clue how to balance SM's as they are so the only option they see is to throw a gakload of special rules on it and hope it works.

Turns out throwing a load of special rules on an army that is mediocre might make them to good. Who could have known.

Who says they want to balance them rather than sell moah marines for moah £££££

I dont see how its meta chasing for going with the +3" trait to make the flamer/melta tactics more viable for a salamanders list. It feels like that is the trait they should have had since it makes their doctrine and stratagems work better. Unless you really want the special characters you dont really change anything. Still have Master Artisan, stratagems, traits, powers, relics and doctrine the same.

Why play "false" salamanders with bad flamers when you can play "true" with just a single chapter tactic change. Unless in a tournament I wouldnt even blink if an opponent wanted that and still play with Vulkan in his list. I would allow that.

Playing with 3" better flamers is probably more of a trap in list building if you want the actual best "Salamander" list. It makes more flamer units and builds viable but they are not what is gonna make Salamanders good anyway. Its the only way to play flamer units in a pod for example which I remember doing in 4th or 5th with a Vulkan list and it needs the 3" trait to work again.

How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

+3 range for flamers with all the flame bonus beats.

Nothing is good or bad on it's own. Only relatively something is good or bad

Salamander CT is a solid boost. But it’s not something that can be leveraged into a game breaking combo. Which is what you want at the competitive level to be “good”

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
My Salamanders have not sucked all edition. They have always performed how I want them to.

not virtue signaling.

I don't know how you'vebeen playing them...but it must suck. Now if you meta is at go feth yourself levels then nothing but the most ridiculous whatever spam crap will do. But being a Salamanders commander requires more than just point and click.

I love you have to use the whole "there's skill not point and click" as an argument in their benefit. Why can't you just admit at that point you really don't have an argument that really defends their rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
Salamander CT is a solid boost. But it’s not something that can be leveraged into a game breaking combo. Which is what you want at the competitive level to be “good”

They can't even be leveraged into a regular "okay" combo. It's just a bad trait all around. If they had the ignore AP-1 weapons and something better then we'd be talking.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
Salamander CT is a solid boost. But it’s not something that can be leveraged into a game breaking combo. Which is what you want at the competitive level to be “good”

They can't even be leveraged into a regular "okay" combo. It's just a bad trait all around. If they had the ignore AP-1 weapons and something better then we'd be talking.

YMMV. I've been having tons of fun and exciting games since the codex came out, even when playing tournament level lists (Ars Bellica rules). They're not top tier, but they're a far cry from "not okay" as in "not viable".
I'm not a tournament player, but I'm somewhat used to the rule sets since I frequently stand in as a training partner for the guys in our club that are. I prefer more casual games, and it's honestly kinda hard to build lists now that ARE casual enough. Even with "not OK" Salamanders, oddly enough.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

They stacked it ontop of IronHands reroll all 1's when hitting on 2or 3 for that -1 to hit when you roll a problem number it wasn't just the artisans trait alone.

Salamander arn't exactlly OP and they arn't exactlly bad they should have some nasty combos once people have the actual wordings of the rules but I don't think anything with game breaking potential has been found day one which probably means that like Ultramarines ravenguard and whitescars they will probably be in the 40 to 60 % (balanced win ratio) Ultramarines and ravenguard are close to 50% white whitescars is a bit higher but I suspect that's because people playing whitescars are playing a more structured list with a plan and once people know their many tricks they might fall back into a more balanced win ratio.

People should probably be more worried about the fists rather than salamanders who while on paper sounding crazy have a lot of real gameplay issues such as short range expensive units vrs no overwatch units they will unfortunately likely be a rock, paper scissors army instead of a straight up win ratio vrs the field but they arn't likely to be meta defining OP.

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

When you have ironhands free reroll 1's it is a lot better.

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

Which was already made redundant because all those guys are being ran as, surprise surprise, Iron Hands! They could've gone with literally anything else and gotten better results.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

Which was already made redundant because all those guys are being ran as, surprise surprise, Iron Hands! They could've gone with literally anything else and gotten better results.

Are you saying these guys were just too stupid to go "oh. ANYTHING ELSE is better, let's take one of those" ?
I mean, I'm pretty fething sure that I've been able to roll quite a lot of rolls due to MA, even though I normally do run the reroll 1 HQs, so it's clearly not useless. Most Marine stuff doesn't hit and wound on 2+ after all. And 'literally anything' would include stuff like Indomitable or Born Heroes. Are you sure about that?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to back it up.

Which was already made redundant because all those guys are being ran as, surprise surprise, Iron Hands! They could've gone with literally anything else and gotten better results.

Well if you are outside a full re-roll bubble being able to re-roll misses besides one is useful and always re-rolling a wound is great. It's especially good for fliers. Not every single unit is always going to be within 6 of a re-roll aura.

For a small unit like eliminators that have only 3 shots MA almost acts like full rerolls. A smash captain only need reroll 2s to hit and wounds most things on 2s or 3s so a single reroll to wound is also almost like having full rerolls. An Invictor warsuit in melee have 5 attacks but the MA is about the same as giving it 2 free attacks. Also really helpful in shooting if using auto cannons.

SM is mostly run MSU so MA shouldnt be underestimated. And even for a unit like Vanguard veterans its like having an extra TH veteran in the squad for free.

If you run units that are not killing stuff only by sheer amount of str 4 hits MA is super strong. And it even works well with reroll 1 abilities since you can always reroll the 2s for free.

For normal repulsors, 10 man intercessors, leviathans, redemptors, heavy bolter devastators, centurions/aggressors etc its a bad trait but you probably dont build a list around those units with master artisan.

Think of it like this. Ironhands successors were able to reroll all 1's and one 2. Then reroll one failed wound roll. There is a good chance this trait gets you 2 additional wounds through. That is pretty big and they get the always counts in cover trait too. It's not the way I would do it but it is an effective strategy. 6+FNP and 5+ overwatch is just too good to give up. I'd just take a chapter master for my main units and my units outside the aura would just wound a little less. No biggy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
My Salamanders have not sucked all edition. They have always performed how I want them to.

not virtue signaling.

I don't know how you'vebeen playing them...but it must suck. Now if you meta is at go feth yourself levels then nothing but the most ridiculous whatever spam crap will do. But being a Salamanders commander requires more than just point and click.

I love you have to use the whole "there's skill not point and click" as an argument in their benefit. Why can't you just admit at that point you really don't have an argument that really defends their rules?
The rules seem to work just fine

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
Salamander CT is a solid boost. But it’s not something that can be leveraged into a game breaking combo. Which is what you want at the competitive level to be “good”

They can't even be leveraged into a regular "okay" combo. It's just a bad trait all around. If they had the ignore AP-1 weapons and something better then we'd be talking.

"good" is relative. they've been working for me for 2 plus years.

Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
How is a ignore -1AP and two free rerrols per unit per turn bad? Maybe compared with other SM tactics is regular but with many other subfaction tactics of the game is phenomenal.

The two rerolls are "bad" because Marines already basically rely on their HQ rerolls (less so with the AP boost but they still need it) which makes it super redundant, and the best units have super high RoF weapons which get the least amount of benefit.

The list of good players that all brought successor chapters with Master Artisans disagrees with you, and they have actual results to

It sounds to me like all you do is park your marines around a Capt/Lt, why would you do that when you dont need their reroll all the time. Salamanders benefit from being aggressive, how else do you get your flamer & melta in range?
I think at that point you are not playing Salamanders at all. Your playing a successor chapter, which is why I said Salamanders players wont be doing that. Also how would He'stan, Bray'arth, Mir'san, etc... work in a non Salamanders army?

I have zero interest in playing a successor, I couldn't give 2 scheiss if it would make them "better" Salamanders. Who the feth cares about what "good" players are doing. hey wait, the cool kids just said they're all smoking crack, does that sound like something you'd want to do?