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.

Are you really equating having a good army to smoking crack? That's an argument made by a kid not putting thought into their point of view if I've ever seen one.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you really equating having a good army to smoking crack? That's an argument made by a kid not putting thought into their point of view if I've ever seen one.

You mean like someone claiming Salamanders are 'not functional' just because they are not the best possible combination of chapter tactics?

No, what I'm saying is that they've been functional the entire edition and are not useless, as you've stated many times. Since the lenses you look thru are tinged with an all or nothing view, it is impossible for you to see anything else. Forest thru the trees.

I have never said they were OP, good, bad or anything other than working fine. need some buffs but not useless.

And the analogy fits for the way you seem to play.
If there is a change that is "better" than what you have you will drop it like it's on fire. seems pretty fickle to me. or fairweather. or whatever fits.

Not very Salamander like.

Slayer- Fan like many on Dakka has a binary view of the game. It's either OP or Trash, there is no middle ground. He can't be convinced otherwise.

 Sentineil wrote:
Slayer- Fan like many on Dakka has a binary view of the game. It's either OP or Trash, there is no middle ground. He can't be convinced otherwise.

that may be true, but sometimes they might have a moment of clarity....extremely wishful thinking.

Also, I'm beginning to doubt they play Salamanders, oh wait...not beginning to...

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:
Slayer- Fan like many on Dakka has a binary view of the game. It's either OP or Trash, there is no middle ground. He can't be convinced otherwise.

that may be true, but sometimes they might have a moment of clarity....extremely wishful thinking.

Also, I'm beginning to doubt they play Salamanders, oh wait...not beginning to...

Why would I play with a Chapter that has trash rules? I don't have to be a chef to know if the food I'm tasting tastes like gak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Are you really equating having a good army to smoking crack? That's an argument made by a kid not putting thought into their point of view if I've ever seen one.

You mean like someone claiming Salamanders are 'not functional' just because they are not the best possible combination of chapter tactics?

They're the second worst besides Crimson Fists, and we already know Eldar are in the middle of getting a rework, which means 8.5th is abound.

^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

A single Heavy weapon with those rerolls wasn't good last codex, period, and the armor bonus didn't change that. If that's really your best defense, you honestly never had one to begin with.

Imo artisans is a great benefit if you're building for it. The armor save bonus is definitely interesting as well. I'm not keeping up with the rest of their bonuses, but I'm curious. On tge face of it they seem to be good at building for board control as they don't have to aura as hard.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

A single Heavy weapon with those rerolls wasn't good last codex, period, and the armor bonus didn't change that. If that's really your best defense, you honestly never had one to begin with.

And there is your lack of imagination showing. Seriously 1 special 1 combi. Toss them in a rhino. The package is versatile, dangerous, and - thanks to the salamander re-roll - reliable on performing specific rolls without the need for constant babysitting.
You keep mentioning that they where trash before codex, and I'm curious if you ever actually tried playing with them. Myself and many others have reported success with them, I took them to my first two GT's ever, and scored a respectable 3-3 (during codex 1.0) and 3-2 (during codex 2.0 with UM IH RG WS).

And the even more important take away from every match-up that I lost was that I made a poor tactical decision, either due to fatigue or misunderstanding a rule (or just plain old screwing up). It wasn't my list that lost those game, it was how I played it. I came away from all of those games knowing I had a way to win it from the start

If your point is its not as plug and play as IH was for example. Your right.
If your point is that you can't get enough leverage out of the CT to make it worth it. Then that's on you.

Master artisans is a CT that you to build into, if not it is not going to net you much advantage.

If you do though, it's the most poweful CT out there.

For units like eliminators/attack bikes/stalkers/vindicators/whirlwinds it is close to a +50% buff.

Racerguy180 wrote:

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?

So you admit for you it isn't about good or bad and are happy to use inferior rules just cause it's named salamanders. Ok. Don't try then to claim it's good rules and mislead others.

Salamander's rules are good rules by any standard.

Sure, if you want to maximize your flame combos then going successor could work better, but there is more to Salamanders than just flames.

Spoletta wrote:
Master artisans is a CT that you to build into, if not it is not going to net you much advantage.

If you do though, it's the most poweful CT out there.

For units like eliminators/attack bikes/stalkers/vindicators/whirlwinds it is close to a +50% buff.

With a 3+ to hit and 3+ to wound it's around an 80% buff.

.666 x .666 = .44
.888 x .888 = .78

The percentage of improvement actually gets higher the worse the rolls are. Like a 3+ 5+ gets a 110% boost. The limiting factor is that each reroll only works on one shot. The fun bit is having a Captain and Lt around anyways for multi-heavy squads, and they can pick up the 1s while the CT picks up 2s.

Spoletta wrote:Salamander's rules are good rules by any standard.

Sure, if you want to maximize your flame combos then going successor could work better, but there is more to Salamanders than just flames.

They are incredibly versatile. you just need to know what your doing

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

A single Heavy weapon with those rerolls wasn't good last codex, period, and the armor bonus didn't change that. If that's really your best defense, you honestly never had one to begin with.

What defense, that they're not useless?

cuz they're not.

I really feel bad for you, it must suck to be that narrow, like mail slot narrow.

Am I missing something here or do Salamanders also have all the Boni that have been added to Marines plus their supplement Boni - how then can their Chapter tactic turn them from one of the strongest factions right now into "Trash" ? I'm not getting that argument.

Yeah. Salamanders having the basic Master Artisan and VotlW for everything on 1 CP makes them pretty gnarly right out of the gate, even if you don't build into any of the flame/melta stuff and self sacrifice get's nerfed into oblivion.

Vilehydra wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

A single Heavy weapon with those rerolls wasn't good last codex, period, and the armor bonus didn't change that. If that's really your best defense, you honestly never had one to begin with.

And there is your lack of imagination showing. Seriously 1 special 1 combi. Toss them in a rhino. The package is versatile, dangerous, and - thanks to the salamander re-roll - reliable on performing specific rolls without the need for constant babysitting.
You keep mentioning that they where trash before codex, and I'm curious if you ever actually tried playing with them. Myself and many others have reported success with them, I took them to my first two GT's ever, and scored a respectable 3-3 (during codex 1.0) and 3-2 (during codex 2.0 with UM IH RG WS).

And the even more important take away from every match-up that I lost was that I made a poor tactical decision, either due to fatigue or misunderstanding a rule (or just plain old screwing up). It wasn't my list that lost those game, it was how I played it. I came away from all of those games knowing I had a way to win it from the start

If your point is its not as plug and play as IH was for example. Your right.
If your point is that you can't get enough leverage out of the CT to make it worth it. Then that's on you.

I didn't NEED to test the Chapter Tactic in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Strat in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Relic in the old Codex either. The whole package was bad compared to Ultramarines and Raven Guard just like everyone else. All I needed to do was a little reading and that was it. Even the old Iron Hands was better for the straight up survivability and their Strat and Relic were straight up garbage (queue the people that wanna say "u jus haf to no how 2 use it L2P").

With the new codex there's still no comparison. The armor bonus is still better than the reroll bonus. Strats are also only gonna be once a turn, so I look at that the same way people tout VotLW: with a big "So what?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:Salamander's rules are good rules by any standard.

Sure, if you want to maximize your flame combos then going successor could work better, but there is more to Salamanders than just flames.

They are incredibly versatile. you just need to know what your doing

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
^You just hate em cause you hate Tactical Squads, which happen to pair great with their Chapter Tactics.

dingdingding and we have a winner!

A single Heavy weapon with those rerolls wasn't good last codex, period, and the armor bonus didn't change that. If that's really your best defense, you honestly never had one to begin with.

What defense, that they're not useless?

cuz they're not.

I really feel bad for you, it must suck to be that narrow, like mail slot narrow.

We would have people defending 10 point Cultists with the whole "You just have to know how to use them", so color me not impressed. Those L2P equivalent arguments are never good and anyone attempting them should feel bad about it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I didn't NEED to test the Chapter Tactic in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Strat in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Relic in the old Codex either. The whole package was bad compared to Ultramarines and Raven Guard just like everyone else. All I needed to do was a little reading and that was it. Even the old Iron Hands was better for the straight up survivability and their Strat and Relic were straight up garbage (queue the people that wanna say "u jus haf to no how 2 use it L2P").

With the new codex there's still no comparison. The armor bonus is still better than the reroll bonus. Strats are also only gonna be once a turn, so I look at that the same way people tout VotLW: with a big "So what?"


.

And there we have it. You admit to having no experience on the subject, you did some reading and that's great. But when it comes down to it your just not credible.
You want to math hammer or theorycraft some counter point? Great, we all do thought experiments.

But when it comes to if the Salamander CT has actual merit, you should generally cede to people who are experienced with them.
Exactly the same way I may go talk to an experienced GSC or Admech player about interesting combos and setups, but generally trust them when they give reasons why something would (or wouldn't) work on the tabletop.

Anyways I'm out, I don't really see the point in continuing this.
You'll keep saying Salamanders can't work,
I'll keep making them do so.

Last word is yours

Ohh gee slayer-fan telling fans of a chapter whom are all quite happy with their rules how aweful their rules are and how insulted they should feel by them. well golly gee it's almsot like a sense of deja vu here!

BrianDavion wrote:
Ohh gee slayer-fan telling fans of a chapter whom are all quite happy with their rules how aweful their rules are and how insulted they should feel by them. well golly gee it's almsot like a sense of deja vu here!

day that ends in ¿why?

The old CT wasnt bad but you didnt really have as many good units to use it on and it alone wasnt strong enough to uplift the whole marine codex. Now you get it + another strong chapter tactic and it also works on your vehicles + a bunch of new or buffed units.

MA is great on both the new warsuit and eliminators, 2 unit you didnt even have access to before. Its really good on whirlwinds and TFC, 2 units that were buffed, who you might not want to have a bunch of characters baby sitting far away in a corner.

SM artillery is much stronger in this book compared to the last. The new space marines also have much stronger fighting characters and giving each of them an extra hit and wound reroll is really good. It maths out to be giving them 1-2 extra attacks in melee.

MA not having good targets because marines in general sucked before didnt make it a bad CT.

As soon as I saw the build your own CT section and saw it and stealthy being options I knew how I would build my lists. I was only waiting for the supplement to decide who I wanted to be a successor of. Not surprised at all that many others who placed good in tournaments thought the same thing.

At a glance it might look weak since it doesnt do anything new unlike some other CT or open up some nice combos. But it makes every unit in your list more reliable and perform better. There isnt a unit it doesnt buff. It buffs all your units almost all the time. Its one of the few that is good on both a character and a TFC, so the buff is never "wasted".

Stealthy doesnt really do anything against a melee army or much on your own melee units half the time or if facing "ignore cover". Exploding bolters is only on bolters in the shooting phase. IH doesnt gain anything on its artillery hiding out of LOS and if overwatch isnt useful and their opponent kills each tank instead of just damage it you only get the 6+++. Extra advance/charge distance which is also a strong CT isnt active on most units or in most turns and will be irrelevant in some matchups were you already are much faster and it isnt needed. MA is always on and always giving you value on every unit every turn.

Much more subtle than most of the other CT but also stronger than all of them. Even if not built around it is still one of the strongest CT available to marines. The better marines are the better it gets. And current marines are much stronger than a few months ago.

Klickor wrote:

Spoiler:

The old CT wasnt bad but you didnt really have as many good units to use it on and it alone wasnt strong enough to uplift the whole marine codex. Now you get it + another strong chapter tactic and it also works on your vehicles + a bunch of new or buffed units.

MA is great on both the new warsuit and eliminators, 2 unit you didnt even have access to before. Its really good on whirlwinds and TFC, 2 units that were buffed, who you might not want to have a bunch of characters baby sitting far away in a corner.

SM artillery is much stronger in this book compared to the last. The new space marines also have much stronger fighting characters and giving each of them an extra hit and wound reroll is really good. It maths out to be giving them 1-2 extra attacks in melee.

MA not having good targets because marines in general sucked before didnt make it a bad CT.

As soon as I saw the build your own CT section and saw it and stealthy being options I knew how I would build my lists. I was only waiting for the supplement to decide who I wanted to be a successor of. Not surprised at all that many others who placed good in tournaments thought the same thing.

At a glance it might look weak since it doesnt do anything new unlike some other CT or open up some nice combos. But it makes every unit in your list more reliable and perform better. There isnt a unit it doesnt buff. It buffs all your units almost all the time. Its one of the few that is good on both a character and a TFC, so the buff is never "wasted".

Stealthy doesnt really do anything against a melee army or much on your own melee units half the time or if facing "ignore cover". Exploding bolters is only on bolters in the shooting phase. IH doesnt gain anything on its artillery hiding out of LOS and if overwatch isnt useful and their opponent kills each tank instead of just damage it you only get the 6+++. Extra advance/charge distance which is also a strong CT isnt active on most units or in most turns and will be irrelevant in some matchups were you already are much faster and it isnt needed.

MA is always on and always giving you value on every unit every turn.

No need to HQ babysit troop squads and can save them for melee combat or fire support.
Master Artisans has changed the outcome of the game many, many times for me.

been the diff between letting that knight survive to shoot a giant and punching it to death with a Relic Contemptor.

Its helped soften up a carnifex before charging Tartaros finish it off.

More than once turning my opponents joy at a crappy roll with no CP left to Haha Multimelta to the face.

etc...etc...etc... Maybe if Slayer has actually played the 18th they might understand...but most likely not.

Racerguy180 wrote:

Klickor wrote:

Spoiler:

The old CT wasnt bad but you didnt really have as many good units to use it on and it alone wasnt strong enough to uplift the whole marine codex. Now you get it + another strong chapter tactic and it also works on your vehicles + a bunch of new or buffed units.

MA is great on both the new warsuit and eliminators, 2 unit you didnt even have access to before. Its really good on whirlwinds and TFC, 2 units that were buffed, who you might not want to have a bunch of characters baby sitting far away in a corner.

SM artillery is much stronger in this book compared to the last. The new space marines also have much stronger fighting characters and giving each of them an extra hit and wound reroll is really good. It maths out to be giving them 1-2 extra attacks in melee.

MA not having good targets because marines in general sucked before didnt make it a bad CT.

As soon as I saw the build your own CT section and saw it and stealthy being options I knew how I would build my lists. I was only waiting for the supplement to decide who I wanted to be a successor of. Not surprised at all that many others who placed good in tournaments thought the same thing.

At a glance it might look weak since it doesnt do anything new unlike some other CT or open up some nice combos. But it makes every unit in your list more reliable and perform better. There isnt a unit it doesnt buff. It buffs all your units almost all the time. Its one of the few that is good on both a character and a TFC, so the buff is never "wasted".

Stealthy doesnt really do anything against a melee army or much on your own melee units half the time or if facing "ignore cover". Exploding bolters is only on bolters in the shooting phase. IH doesnt gain anything on its artillery hiding out of LOS and if overwatch isnt useful and their opponent kills each tank instead of just damage it you only get the 6+++. Extra advance/charge distance which is also a strong CT isnt active on most units or in most turns and will be irrelevant in some matchups were you already are much faster and it isnt needed.

MA is always on and always giving you value on every unit every turn.

No need to HQ babysit troop squads and can save them for melee combat or fire support.
Master Artisans has changed the outcome of the game many, many times for me.

been the diff between letting that knight survive to shoot a giant and punching it to death with a Relic Contemptor.

Its helped soften up a carnifex before charging Tartaros finish it off.

More than once turning my opponents joy at a crappy roll with no CP left to Haha Multimelta to the face.

etc...etc...etc... Maybe if Slayer has actually played the 18th they might understand...but most likely not.

I even forgot to mention how you can spend less on buff characters and more on threats and how your whole army is more mobile and doesnt need to be inside of 6" auras to get some rerolls. You can still start the game in a castle and have rerolls like you had a primarch there, reroll 1s still work nice with MA, and then start moving around. Thanks for reminding me of that.

Klickor wrote:
The old CT wasnt bad but you didnt really have as many good units to use it on and it alone wasnt strong enough to uplift the whole marine codex. Now you get it + another strong chapter tactic and it also works on your vehicles + a bunch of new or buffed units.

Yea if it was the same CT I'd be kinda "meh", but now it works on vehicles while is nice on top of the new units mentioned it has a place in well constructed lists.

Slayer, i'm cringing hard reading your posts here.

The reroll on salamanders is excellent, it just means you dont need to play bubblehammer with units that shoot like crazy.

it helps low shot weapons like lascannons/melta/missiles.

It wants you to run a MSU type of army that plays on the board control since they are not bound to their captain/lieutenant aura and they still get rerolls.

Its basically getting 2 free command point per unit in your shooting phase (unless you already hit with everything).

e

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Those L2P equivalent arguments are never good and anyone attempting them should feel bad about it.

Public Service Announcement: Nobody actually feels bad about 'L2P' when you tell them to.

Vilehydra wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I didn't NEED to test the Chapter Tactic in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Strat in the old codex and I didn't NEED to test their old Relic in the old Codex either. The whole package was bad compared to Ultramarines and Raven Guard just like everyone else. All I needed to do was a little reading and that was it. Even the old Iron Hands was better for the straight up survivability and their Strat and Relic were straight up garbage (queue the people that wanna say "u jus haf to no how 2 use it L2P").

With the new codex there's still no comparison. The armor bonus is still better than the reroll bonus. Strats are also only gonna be once a turn, so I look at that the same way people tout VotLW: with a big "So what?"


.

And there we have it. You admit to having no experience on the subject, you did some reading and that's great. But when it comes down to it your just not credible.
You want to math hammer or theorycraft some counter point? Great, we all do thought experiments.

But when it comes to if the Salamander CT has actual merit, you should generally cede to people who are experienced with them.
Exactly the same way I may go talk to an experienced GSC or Admech player about interesting combos and setups, but generally trust them when they give reasons why something would (or wouldn't) work on the tabletop.

Anyways I'm out, I don't really see the point in continuing this.
You'll keep saying Salamanders can't work,
I'll keep making them do so.

Last word is yours

Sorry, but I would NEED to play them to make the statements I'm making?

Would I need to actually play with 10 point Cultists to tell you they're terrible? Yes or no?

Maybe not in that case but you are the only one saying MA is bad AND you havent even tried it. You say its bad. I and many others say its really good.

I would say that the MA is easily one of the 3 best codex marine CTs. The ignore ap 1 will depend a lot on the meta though. If its mainly armies with ap 0 or ap2+ its worthless. If not then its incredible but it depends on the opponents list. MA doesnt its always good.