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.

Karol wrote:
Why not just use units that can shot both the melee and shoting units of other armies in to oblivion. Then you don't risk that, if something wrong happens or someone has a skew build, your army is still working at 100% capacity. It is the core of why IH are so good, and why other armies that were good in the past.

Good armies often don't care what they opponent do, just like in boxing or wrestling, if your bigger with a longer reach, you just dominate and fight every fight more or less the same way, generating win after win. Why would anyone want to chang ethat?

Tau players say, 'Hi!'

 flandarz wrote:
As was mentioned, being a generalist isn't about being as good as a specialist unit at what they do, it's about being able to do it well enough that you can change your unit tactics depending on the opponent. If you had a unit that was as good at everything as a dedicated unit, you could certainly call it a generalist, but unless it was expensive as gak, it'd be incredibly OP.

Except that Intercessors aren't even passable in melee unless you waste points that are better spent elsewhere on giving the sergeant a melee weapon. You take them because you need troops to access that sweet CP and they're one of the few options that can do more than just camp an objective all game.

The point of the thread is not that intercessors are so good they're walking them across the table to attack things in melee. The point is that - for what is arguably THE BEST troop choice unit pound for pound at over 24" range - the fact that they can fairly handily beat or come close to beating many dedicated anti-marine assault units in melee range is stupid.

I do love the "One of the most common units in all competitive lists for the past 2-3 months isn't good, it's just things that can't beat them are bad!" argument. Very logic, highly intelligence.

The increasing escalation of what you're supposed to have to bring to the table to fight the new basic, bog-standard space marine is also great. Throw out your...every troop choice you have, Eldar players, Guardians, Storm Guardians, Dire Avengers and Rangers are all trash now - you can't fight the most common troop unit in the game with some kind of piddly anti-infantry weapon! Also, toss out your striking scorpions and banshees, those melee units aren't fit to be fighting the long-range gunline units of the imperium. Dark Reapers, Warp Spiders and Swooping hawks, what do you think this is some kind of joke? A pathetic anti-elite unit like warp spiders should never be expected to win a firefight against space marines, no - bare minimum you need S6 AP-2 D2 attacks out of the 30ppm biker unit to ever expect to win in a fistfight.

Imagine how much fething space marine players would rage if Fire Warriors could sock an assault squad's lights out in melee. Or hell, if they could shoot twice at 30" range if they didn't move. Just fething imagine how uninteractive and anti-fun and miserable they'd say that army is to play against, how they're ignoring every phase of the game but one!

Oh, but Bolter Drill? That's not even enough! That's the bare minimum! We NEED the supplements to compete, we DESERVE IH super dreadnoughts because we shouldn't be catering to these disgusting minority faction players, we should be rewarding marines and making sure they're the best because more people play them!

Darsath wrote:
Regardless of what Canadian 5th says, I'd trade Intercessors for any of the my troops in a heartbeat. Comparing them to Immortals it's obvious to see the difference. How about it, man? Trade your Intercessors for the best unit in my Codex? Doesn't sound like you like them too much.

We've had the Orks and Nids already so why not have the Necrons come in and complete the set of players who's armies are in a rough spot complaining about Space Marines. Should I start taking bets on when we see a Dark Eldar player show up in this thread... Your armies have all spent some time being good in 8th so just wait for your next codex creep bump when you'll get to be the new hotness again.

the_scotsman wrote:
The point of the thread is not that intercessors are so good they're walking them across the table to attack things in melee. The point is that - for what is arguably THE BEST troop choice unit pound for pound at over 24" range - the fact that they can fairly handily beat or come close to beating many dedicated anti-marine assault units in melee range is stupid.

I do love the "One of the most common units in all competitive lists for the past 2-3 months isn't good, it's just things that can't beat them are bad!" argument. Very logic, highly intelligence.

The increasing escalation of what you're supposed to have to bring to the table to fight the new basic, bog-standard space marine is also great. Throw out your...every troop choice you have, Eldar players, Guardians, Storm Guardians, Dire Avengers and Rangers are all trash now - you can't fight the most common troop unit in the game with some kind of piddly anti-infantry weapon! Also, toss out your striking scorpions and banshees, those melee units aren't fit to be fighting the long-range gunline units of the imperium. Dark Reapers, Warp Spiders and Swooping hawks, what do you think this is some kind of joke? A pathetic anti-elite unit like warp spiders should never be expected to win a firefight against space marines, no - bare minimum you need S6 AP-2 D2 attacks out of the 30ppm biker unit to ever expect to win in a fistfight.

Imagine how much fething space marine players would rage if Fire Warriors could sock an assault squad's lights out in melee. Or hell, if they could shoot twice at 30" range if they didn't move. Just fething imagine how uninteractive and anti-fun and miserable they'd say that army is to play against, how they're ignoring every phase of the game but one!

Oh, but Bolter Drill? That's not even enough! That's the bare minimum! We NEED the supplements to compete, we DESERVE IH super dreadnoughts because we shouldn't be catering to these disgusting minority faction players, we should be rewarding marines and making sure they're the best because more people play them!

Eldar can go 3-2 at ITC events with a collection of random junk that the player running the list had laying around:



Actually good lists, see below, do even better:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Regardless of what Canadian 5th says, I'd trade Intercessors for any of the my troops in a heartbeat. Comparing them to Immortals it's obvious to see the difference. How about it, man? Trade your Intercessors for the best unit in my Codex? Doesn't sound like you like them too much.

We've had the Orks and Nids already so why not have the Necrons come in and complete the set of players who's armies are in a rough spot complaining about Space Marines. Should I start taking bets on when we see a Dark Eldar player show up in this thread... Your armies have all spent some time being good in 8th so just wait for your next codex creep bump when you'll get to be the new hotness again.

At what point in 8th edition have Necrons been good? I can tell you other times Space Marines have been good in 8th edition (mostly at the start when they would run those janky Stormraven lists).

Darsath wrote:
At what point in 8th edition have Necrons been good? I can tell you other times Space Marines have been good in 8th edition (mostly at the start when they would run those janky Stormraven lists).

Admittedly, Necrons have had the shortest end of the stick this edition. You still do have tournament winning lists though:



Even Post 2019 CA they can still post top 3 results:



The main issue is that they mostly rely on a very specific set of units that some Necron players don't have in the numbers required to make these lists run.

Ah, I see. I suppose that means that things are fine in your opinion. I stand corrected.

Darsath wrote:
Ah, I see. I suppose that means that things are fine in your opinion. I stand corrected.

I literally said Crons have had the shortest stick this edition. In spite of that, you still have a tournament-winning list at your disposal.

As a point of fact, in spite of the complaints about balance, it would seem that every single army managed at least 1 top 3 result at an ITC event in 2019.

http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

That's not bad for a game that gets moaned about as much as 40k does.

You tell me my army is mostly fine because it can still get a win, yet Space Marines were able to get wins before their new codex, and we all agree they sucked hard before it.

Darsath wrote:
You tell me my army is mostly fine because it can still get a win, yet Space Marines were able to get wins before their new codex, and we all agree they sucked hard before it.

Please quote me saying that if you'd please. I'd kindly ask you not to put words in my mouth.

You did make the comment that the balance wasn't bad, using that as an example.

Darsath wrote:
You did make the comment that the balance wasn't bad, using that as an example.

Compared to previous editions, the balance is in a lovely place. Or would we rather return to the days of unkillable multi-wound unit shenanigans, invisible deathstars, and flying bakeries?

So, I wasn't putting words in your mouth if you agree it's in a lovely place. I disagree pretty hard with your statement, though.

Darsath wrote:
So, I wasn't putting words in your mouth if you agree it's in a lovely place. I disagree pretty hard with your statement, though.

You specifically said, "yet Space Marines were able to get wins before their new codex, and we all agree they sucked hard before it."

Quote me ever having said a word about Space Marines sucking before or after their current codex.

If you believe that Space Marines didn't need the new Codex, then you wouldn't be playing defence for the new stuff on past pages on this thread.

please do not bypass the language filter like this.

reds8n

Darsath wrote:
If you believe that Space Marines didn't need the new Codex, then you wouldn't be playing defence for the new stuff on past pages on this thread.

Is that so? I was unaware that my participating in a discussion automatically meant I held a certain opinion.

Here's a hint for you, I've been away from the hobby since around the end of 5th edition and didn't really have a stake in the game until around a month ago when I figured it was high time I at least looked at the state of the game. I still haven't actually put models to table, but I have been watching video bat reps and reading reports from the likes of Goonhammer to get back up to speed. So, any stake you think I have in things probably doesn't exist.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Darsath wrote:
Ah, I see. I suppose that means that things are fine in your opinion. I stand corrected.

I literally said Crons have had the shortest stick this edition. In spite of that, you still have a tournament-winning list at your disposal.

As a point of fact, in spite of the complaints about balance, it would seem that every single army managed at least 1 top 3 result at an ITC event in 2019.

http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

That's not bad for a game that gets moaned about as much as 40k does.

Balance was pretty damn good throughout most of 2019. The horrible 5th-ed era "This one codex is 60+% of winning competitive lists for months on end" bs only began in, what, november?

Honestly, that's a return to normal for me. 8th ed where you saw any kind of variety at the top is somehwat unusual - I'm used to hearing the tournament guys talking for multiple YEARS on end about how they're going to try a new variant of lasplasrazspam to take on their buddy's screamerstar or how missiledevs are totally out and laslongfangs (totally different!) are the new hotness.

Seeing these tables full of half-assembled knight legs or proxied bottlecaps while the tourney dudes drop multiple grand every 6 months on churning a new commission-painted army is the thing that's weird. Living where I'm at, I am used to wild, egregious displays of wealth - I used to work near a big student housing neighborhood where you had these borderline slum houses all going for 2500$+ rent and each one had a scratched, beaten up sports car with 1 side mirror in it. the term for when all the rich kids too lazy to move at the end of the semester would leave their TVs, leather couches and furniture out on the street for anyone to take was "Allston Christmas".

it's just a strange shift from the hobby I've been used to participating in, where for the most part people just played with the minis they had, bought a new box and painted it up, then brought it in to slightly alter their list a week later, and just kept doing that for multiple editions.

Thinking about it, maybe it's good that things just be totally broken for a while. Give those competitive dudes' bank accounts a break, make sure little timmy can just automatically win the first few games he plays with his starter box, and more relaxed groups can just opt not to play games with all the crazy supplement crap.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Darsath wrote:
If you believe that Space Marines didn't need the new Codex, then you wouldn't be playing defence for the new stuff on past pages on this thread.

Is that so? I was unaware that my participating in a discussion automatically meant I held a certain opinion.

Here's a hint for you, I've been away from the hobby since around the end of 5th edition and didn't really have a stake in the game until around a month ago when I figured it was high time I at least looked at the state of the game. I still haven't actually put models to table, but I have been watching video bat reps and reading reports from the likes of Goonhammer to get back up to speed. So, any stake you think I have in things probably doesn't exist.

I never said anything about just existing meaning you had an opinion. I specifically mentioned that you holding an opinion (That the new stuff is mostly fine as is) meant you held that opinion.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Except that Intercessors aren't even passable in melee unless you waste points that are better spent elsewhere on giving the sergeant a melee weapon. You take them because you need troops to access that sweet CP and they're one of the few options that can do more than just camp an objective all game.

I dunno how a WS3 S4 A2+1 T4 SVG3+ base profile isn't even "passable in CC" when it's better than some dedicated CC units profile and the sergeant is able to output more damage than certain dedicated CC characters in other armies if "you waste points" on him, while hiding behind up to 18 hit points from his buddies ("it's not the Intercessors that are good, it's the rest that is bad !!!").

And this profile can very easily be buffed by the rest of the army around it.
It's completely anecdotal but before Codex Marines 2.0 I used (once) intercessors in a DA list within a bubble of +1A, +1S, reroll to hit and to wound, can pile in and make one attack before they die.
The tyranid player didn't like it much for some reason. And now, I still have access to these buff but also all the new marines toys.

They sure don't feel like bad in CC. Of course they aren't "destroy a knight or two in one turn" good. But they are way better than a lot of dedicated melee choices out there which makes them better than average, while being quite good at shooting too.

Which was the point of the thread I think ? Not, are you going to make a CC list from intercessors.

Edit : And how can you tell others their opinion is irrelevant to you because they don't follow tournaments when you didn't play since 5th...

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
1) Tyranid warriors are one of the mainstay of competitive nids right now, and nids are also decently represented in the competitive setting. You see them snatching second and third places here and there, which for the numbers of players of that faction is quite remarkable. (we are talking unit balance here, so i'm using non ITC results)

Why are you eliminating ITC results? That smacks of sour grapes about how well Nids fair at the most competitive tournaments.

Because it is widely accepted that ITC is a set of houserules which skews the balance between factions and in particular penalizes tyranids and advantages marines, so obviously if you refer some tourney results when speaking about the GW balance, they cannot be ITC results. ITC is a perfectly fine format, but referencing ITC results is useful only in relation to discussions of ITC balance and tactics. When you discuss unit design and the shortcomings of GW, ITC results are no longer applicable.

I restate my idea that you have never actually played many games, all your statements reek of "But this math!" "But they say!" "But i heard!"

dhallnet wrote: And how can you tell others their opinion is irrelevant to you because they don't follow tournaments when you didn't play since 5th...

Spoletta wrote:
I restate my idea that you have never actually played many games, all your statements reek of "But this math!" "But they say!" "But i heard!"

Discuss the topic and not the person?

Yeah, for years people decried problems with the Marine codex, like bolters not feeling nearly as strong as they once did, marines not having melee ability to back up their "generalist" style, chapter tactics and strats being super lackluster due to being dropped first in the edition, units being overcosted, weapons like the Demolisher cannon being useless, vehicles not getting chapter tactics, marine players feeling like they have to soup and include allies to feel at all effective...

So GW released this beautiful love letter of a Codex 2.0, fixing all those problems people complained about, and ohrealquickhangon before we get a chance to see how that works competitively here's a gigantic seven layer dip of fething crazy ass rules like Tau Drone Intercessors and unkillable dreadnoughts and make everyone within 6" a character and Ap-2 D2 assault cannons and infiltrating assault centurions and perma-stationary Aggressors... and suddenly the meta goes "Whoops! Only Space Marines!"

And just like the infuriating Eldar apologists in 7th, we now have a dedicated group of marine fanboys shifting wildly between declaring parity with every new rules release because "GW is just changing the power level of the game you guys, you'll get your stuff for sure!" and asserting "everything is fiiiine you guys just need to git gud if marines didn't have all this stuff they'd be so terrible why do you hate fluffy rules?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dhallnet wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Except that Intercessors aren't even passable in melee unless you waste points that are better spent elsewhere on giving the sergeant a melee weapon. You take them because you need troops to access that sweet CP and they're one of the few options that can do more than just camp an objective all game.

I dunno how a WS3 F4 A2+1 T4 SVG3+ base profile isn't even "passable in CC" when it's better than some dedicated CC units profile and the sergeant is able to output more damage than certain dedicated CC characters in other armies if "you waste points" on him, while hiding behind up to 18 hit points from his buddies ("it's not the Intercessors that are good, it's the rest that is bad !!!").

And this profile can very easily be buffed by the rest of the army around it.
It's completely anecdotal but before Codex Marines 2.0 I used (once) intercessors in a DA list within a bubble of +1A, +1F, reroll to hit and to wound, can pile in and make one attack before they die.
The tyranid player didn't like it much for some reason. And now, I still have access to these buff but also all the new marines toys.

They sure don't feel like bad in CC. Of course they aren't "destroy a knight or two in one turn" good. But they are way better than a lot of dedicated melee choices out there which makes them better than average, while being quite good at shooting too.

Which was the point of the thread I think ? Not, are you going to make a CC list from intercessors.

Edit : And how can you tell others their opinion is irrelevant to you because they don't follow tournaments when you didn't play since 5th...

Yeah, my last game with my marines was the game I tested out the new Bolter Drill with my deathwatch vs Tau. We lined up 30" away from each other and I lost...maybe 10 models in the whole game?

Since then they've retracted the interaction between SIA and Bolter Drill, but I'm certain you've got folks who think Deathwatch need supplement-tier rules additions in PA to be "Viable." lol.

the_scotsman wrote:


And just like the infuriating Eldar apologists in 7th, we now have a dedicated group of marine fanboys shifting wildly between declaring parity with every new rules release because "GW is just changing the power level of the game you guys, you'll get your stuff for sure!" and asserting "everything is fiiiine you guys just need to git gud if marines didn't have all this stuff they'd be so terrible why do you hate fluffy rules?"

From someone returning from a long hiatus: how much is it SM in general, and how much primaris and a few key other units?

Something I found absurd in 8th is the suppression of templates, together with these bubble effects that result in some seemingly OP combos that can't really be punished effectively.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And the humble Tactical Marine is generally a wet noodle, barring their one special/heavy weapon.

I wasn't talking about the firepower difference between the two units. I was talking about their ability to take hits...

Disagreed with that. The embedded weapon on the Sergeant (so 4 attacks) isn't far off the same kind of damage HQ choices are putting out, and the sheer weight of attacks is enough to make most enemies think twice.

They don't make anything that would be willing to charge them think twice and anything they'd be happy to charge will just be glad that literally anything else didn't charge them instead.

It's not about clearing hordes, or piercing armour - it's presenting a threat, and being able to make a pretty decent dent before they go down.

Even against GEQ a 5-man unit of Intercessors puts out between 4 and 5 unsaved wounds. That's not a threat worth worrying about.

Except they don't. the Intercessors win at an arms reach and in melee the win if they charge hands down, if they take the charge they still kill 1-2 guardsmen before dropping 4 more for 1 lost in return and the guardsmen lose 1-2 from morale and get mopped up next battle round. The guardsmen fare worse if the intercessors charge since they ate 10 rounds before the charge then peel off less wounds from the marines. because they're a generalist unit that can perform in all phases.

Lets make it a fair 20 guardsmen vs 5 intercessors deploying from 30 inches away (given there's no reason for the intercessors to deploy on the line), give the guardsmen 1st turn for lols:






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grey40k wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


And just like the infuriating Eldar apologists in 7th, we now have a dedicated group of marine fanboys shifting wildly between declaring parity with every new rules release because "GW is just changing the power level of the game you guys, you'll get your stuff for sure!" and asserting "everything is fiiiine you guys just need to git gud if marines didn't have all this stuff they'd be so terrible why do you hate fluffy rules?"

From someone returning from a long hiatus: how much is it SM in general, and how much primaris and a few key other units?

Something I found absurd in 8th is the suppression of templates, together with these bubble effects that result in some seemingly OP combos that can't really be punished effectively.

Most armies have combo bubbles now but that's not the problem here, the multiple layers of extra rules marines can apply for no real hindrance is proving too much. If the supplements were taken away suddenly things would look better but it's mostly primaris and it's mostly supplements doing the harm.

People pretending the shooting phase doesn't exist before a charge really makes me sad.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
Except that Intercessors aren't even passable in melee unless you waste points that are better spent elsewhere on giving the sergeant a melee weapon. You take them because you need troops to access that sweet CP and they're one of the few options that can do more than just camp an objective all game.

Exactly. They're a "tax" unit that can actually do more than just fill troops slots and die. Intercessors are a threat at both shooting and melee and fairly durable, things that most armies troops choices rarely provide and definitely not at the same level of effectiveness per points spent. So they don't really feel like a tax, unlike things like cultists or csm.

And as far as the new sm rules being fluffy, what's fluffy about rg trading their jump packs for "super sneaky " centurions? What's fluffy about dreadnoughts that can infiltrate better than whole armies based on guerrilla tactics? Or snipers who don't even have to see what they're shooting at to hit it? A lot of this stuff is ridiculous from a game balance perspective, as well as one based on fluff or just plain logic.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
So, you have no idea what's actually viable then... I can safely ignore you from here on out.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Darsath wrote:
If you believe that Space Marines didn't need the new Codex, then you wouldn't be playing defence for the new stuff on past pages on this thread.

Is that so? I was unaware that my participating in a discussion automatically meant I held a certain opinion.

Here's a hint for you, I've been away from the hobby since around the end of 5th edition and didn't really have a stake in the game until around a month ago when I figured it was high time I at least looked at the state of the game. I still haven't actually put models to table, but I have been watching video bat reps and reading reports from the likes of Goonhammer to get back up to speed. So, any stake you think I have in things probably doesn't exist.

Ohhhhh, that's rich. So you, a non-player, are telling us actual players how it really is, huh? I think perhaps we can safely ignore you.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Intercessors are not generalist units, they're troop choices that happen to actually have a role as a primary source of anti chaff shooting.

Shooting vs. GEQ
10 x .666 x .666 x .83 = 3.6 wounds
Assault vs. GEQ
16 x .666 x .666 x .666 = 4.7 wounds

Hmm, sure looks like they hit harder in Assault vs. chaff than they do with shooting. Wait a minute, they can do BOTH in the same turn! Perhaps that's even more efficient that merely shooting them!

-Generalists 101

 Canadian 5th wrote:
The listed examples of Jumping Orks and Tyranid Warriors are both countered by cheap screening units eating their alpha strike and then the meat of the army blowing them off the table. You literally don't need to do anything special to counter them.

Heh. My Warriors list straight up murders chaff. Glides right through it, generally. Why? Because each model has at least 6 Attacks counting both shooting and CC. 3 at S5 AP-1 BS3+ and 3 at S4 AP0 WS 2+. After chaff, all they have to do is touch tanks and it's game over. Half the time they just shoot past the chaff and roll up the screeners in CC on their way in anyways.

Grey40k wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:


And just like the infuriating Eldar apologists in 7th, we now have a dedicated group of marine fanboys shifting wildly between declaring parity with every new rules release because "GW is just changing the power level of the game you guys, you'll get your stuff for sure!" and asserting "everything is fiiiine you guys just need to git gud if marines didn't have all this stuff they'd be so terrible why do you hate fluffy rules?"

From someone returning from a long hiatus: how much is it SM in general, and how much primaris and a few key other units?

Something I found absurd in 8th is the suppression of templates, together with these bubble effects that result in some seemingly OP combos that can't really be punished effectively.

In my opinion, at least, competitively the problem is with a few key units that interact in wonky-ass ways with the various supplements (Assault Cents for example being able to just show the feth up 9" away from you in new RG, move, and immediately assault you if you didn't get first turn, or Thunderfire Cannons which can now for 2CP halve the movement, advance rolls and charge rolls of 2 of your units automatically, basically gimping several armies that rely on fast units early) and casually a lot of the complaints - fair complaints - are leveled at the whole codex.

Take a super non-competitive game where both players are playing Land Raiders, one playing Iron Hands and one playing Iron Warriors.

The Iron Hands land raider costs identically as much, and:

-Gets a 6++ invuln
-counts the number of wounds it has as double for determining the damage table (meaning it doesn't get bracketed at all until 4 wounds remaining)
-Gets an extra -1AP on all its guns
-Overwatches on a 5 and 6
-Rerolls all hits rolls of 1

All that just for being on the table. Just for showing up. Not even getting in to the possibility that the IH player takes the special relic giving the land raider -1 damage from all weapons, or that the IH player could spend 2CP to give the whole army ANOTHER -1AP on every 6+ to wound, or spend 1CP to make the land raider wound twice on a 6, or take the special IH psychic power that is the same as Prescience +1 to hit but only WC5 instead of WC7, or the other Ironhands-only psychic power for +1 to save rolls...

As an ILLUSTRATION of the problem - not an example of a scenario that would likely happen, just an ILLUSTRATION of the perceived problem using some math, let's take an IH land raider, give him the MM upgrade, and give him the first shot. And let's run him up against 2 Chaos land raiders. So this is 299 points taking on 554 points of units.

Round 1: IHLR deals 8.0 damage to the first CLR, bracketing it.
Round 1: CLR1 deals 2.6 damage, CLR2 deals 3.8 damage, 6.4 wounds total.
Round 2: IHLR destroys CLR1 with another 8.0 damage.
Round 2: CLR2 deals 3.8 damage, bringing IHLR up to 10.2 damage. Thanks to the IH chapter tactic, he's still not bracketed!
Round 3: 8.0 wounds to CLR2, now bracketed.
Round 3: CLR2 deals 2.6 damage to IHLR, bringing it to just about 13W. That would be the 2nd damage bracket, but it becomes the first.
Round 4: IHLR deals 6 wounds to CLR2, bringing it to the damage bracket.
Round 4: CLR2 deals 2.2 wounds to IHLR, taking it to the very last wound.
Round 5: CLR2 destroyed.

All those bonuses individually don't seem like much, but the sheer number of them stacked up together make it so that "the same" unit taken from another army for the same cost is nearly twice as effective. And though I haven't mathed it out, I would presume the situation would be even worse with IF, who would be dealing +1 damage on all their guns, though the IH land raider might win out thanks to the 2nd of its 5 army-wide benefits.