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.

SemperMortis wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
I think that point was reached 10 minutes after the first indomitus spoilers.

And yet you still have Marine defenders in here saying its fine.

When was the last post from anyone saying they were fine?

You literally have players saying Aggressors aren't playable because they lost shoot twice, likewise you have players saying if you remove double shot from Eradicators they would be trash. What nerf is acceptable? I mean, someone a page ago or so said the best nerf would be to make them worse vs heavy infantry....

The aggressors statements aren't really valid, theyre still good, their owners just lost half their output which will feel bad. Eradicators wouldn't be trash, they'd just be lacklustre possibly.

Saying a proposed nerf is disagreeable doesn't mean anyone is saying they're fine as is though.

Ice_can wrote:
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.

The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.

5+ 18 for bolt fists. So 23' threat range



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dudeface wrote:


The aggressors statements aren't really valid, theyre still good, their owners just lost half their output which will feel bad. Eradicators wouldn't be trash, they'd just be lacklustre possibly.

Saying a proposed nerf is disagreeable doesn't mean anyone is saying they're fine as is though.

Then again, what is acceptable. So far the space marine defenders only retort has been to say "Make them less efficient against heavy infantry". That doesn't address the problem even remotely.

SemperMortis wrote:

Breton wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


No easy transport? Can they not use Primaris Transports? Pretty sure they can, you might not like the transport but it exists and is not that bad an option, i mean, for xenos armies its not bad.

Well, they’re Gravis, so they can’t use the Impulsor, leaving only the Repulsors all at 300+ Points, or a Thunderhawk checking in at what? 1500+ points? Which one of those is “not bad”?

So you are mad because you have to take a 300pt transport that comes standard with Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannon, Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Krakstorm Grenade Launcher, Storm bolter, Twin heavy bolter and can upgrade basically all those to become anti-infantry, anti-heavy infantry or anti-vehicle. its also T8 w/ 16 wounds and 3+ save.

As opposed to orkz who can take a paper thin Trukk with no weapons except a single Big Shoota (ignorable) or a massive Battlewagon which is T8 16W 4+ save, but has ZERO guns for 135pts. And if you do equip it with guns you are actually hurting yourself because BS5 kind of sucks as do most of the weapons you can put on the stupid thing.

A great example of disparity between the two is Orkz have a fragstorm grenade launcher of sorts.

SM: 18' D6 shots, S4 Blast.
Ork: 12; D6 shots, S3 blast Can only be used if unit is embarked.

Same price, 5pts.

Put it this way --

6 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 1.8 wounding hits from Eradicators on a Trukk. At 5.5 damage average that kills the Trukk. One out of every three such incidents they'll ramshackle and take 6 damage and live.

That means 9 Eradicators can kill 2.5 trukks. You're out 120/130 points.

Those same 9 Eradicators -- 18 * .666 * .5 * 5.5 = 33 -- they kill two Repulsors. You're out 600+ points.

I fully expect the Repulsors to do some work when they're alive as Eradicators can't reach everything all at once, but the situation isn't as simple as you indicate.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Breton wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
And armies like genestealer cults and imperial guard that are pretty dated.

There are a number of armies that probably shouldn’t be armies but instead sub factions. GSC started as a Nid subfaction and probably should have stayed there. Custodes probably should have been finagled like Agents of The Imperium. Imperial/Chaos Knights too.

All of which are massively powerful forces - Even the Custodes has 10,000.

Not when we have Chapters of a mere 1000 Marines somehow proclaimed and endlessly indulged as Factions (rather than Sub-Sub factions)...

We are not playing 30K where its JUST Marines no matter what some may want.

And supposedly haven't left Earth in generations? Plus still have to guard the Imperial Palace and the Golden Throne? And don't have very many data sheets? IK are just inherently too skew as knight only.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:


So you are mad because you have to take a 300pt transport

300+. A lot plus. And it's bad. Just about everyone who isn't complaining about marines and trying to pretend the Gravis Transport options don't suck says so in multiple threads on here.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Autocannons are in a weird spot. I think they need more AP and less str.

They should be str 6 ap -3 flat 3 damage (the old index starcannon profile) - maybe with a reroll wounds vs vehicals with a t6 or less. IDK the right cost for such a weapon. Maybe 25 points?

no.

assault cannons are for S6 and not AC's

Autocannons and Assault Cannons share little overlap in armies and its fine for both to be roughly the same area of stats.
Autocannons having str 6 is fine to take down its anti-vehicle use and it can have a bit less shots but more AP then an Assault Cannon. Tho I don't see why they would need 3 damage. 2 is plenty.

Just because the HB already has 2 damage now. 2 is fine or d3.

Suppressors have special ones. You can give them the same rule of helping stop Overwatch and something additional like subtracting movement from hit units.

Breton wrote:

And supposedly haven't left Earth in generations? Plus still have to guard the Imperial Palace and the Golden Throne? And don't have very many data sheets? IK are just inherently too skew as knight only.

Actually they had been leaving earth the whole time, just not on mass.
Also seriously the skew angle when we have a wounding system that means everything hurts everything, before we even touch the auto wounding on 6's and the MW etc.

Ice_can wrote:
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.

The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.

You don't NEED one, but it is one of the drawbacks. I'm not a fan of transporting much of anything at this point. You lose at least one turn of use from the unit you're transporting, more likely two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.

The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.

5+ 18 for bolt fists. So 23' threat range

5+ D6" +18. Without shoot twice there's no reason not to Advance if necessary for range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Put it this way --

6 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 1.8 wounding hits from Eradicators on a Trukk. At 5.5 damage average that kills the Trukk. One out of every three such incidents they'll ramshackle and take 6 damage and live.

That means 9 Eradicators can kill 2.5 trukks. You're out 120/130 points.

Those same 9 Eradicators -- 18 * .666 * .5 * 5.5 = 33 -- they kill two Repulsors. You're out 600+ points.

I fully expect the Repulsors to do some work when they're alive as Eradicators can't reach everything all at once, but the situation isn't as simple as you indicate.

No, let him keep going. I'm entertained watching someone so intent on complaining about Marines they're trying to claim Repulsors (And Land Raiders) aren't bad.

Niiru wrote:

Catulle wrote:

One assumes by scheduling their supplement for imminent release, just like the two special chapters that lost stuff and didn't get a big bump to tide them over..? Such *appalling* treatment.

Your response would make sense, if Blood Angels lost their Death Company and if Space Wolves lost all of their frost/helfrost based weapons and their wolf units in their index.

But they didn't. So your response is nonsensical.

With the codex supplement coming out in time for Christmas, they sure aren't getting "squatted" which was the risible premise that started that tangent.

Ice_can wrote:
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.

The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.

On planet bowling ball, yes. Often terrain impedes line of sight.

Ice_can wrote:
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.

The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.

The idea is that you want to shoot first because you are going to be destroyed if you don't. In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable. Most lists are loading at least a few units capable of 1 shooting such a unit off the table without effort.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.

The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.

The idea is that you want to shoot first because you are going to be destroyed if you don't. In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable. Most lists are loading at least a few units capable of 1 shooting such a unit off the table without effort.

It’s a lot more durable than any similar Melta/anti-tank unit I can think of.

They can get wiped-but it will take more effort than taking out other units.

Catulle wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Catulle wrote:

One assumes by scheduling their supplement for imminent release, just like the two special chapters that lost stuff and didn't get a big bump to tide them over..? Such *appalling* treatment.

Your response would make sense, if Blood Angels lost their Death Company and if Space Wolves lost all of their frost/helfrost based weapons and their wolf units in their index.

But they didn't. So your response is nonsensical.

With the codex supplement coming out in time for Christmas, they sure aren't getting "squatted" which was the risible premise that started that tangent.

Squatted, or legended, are just terms which can easily be used to refer to something that is being removed from the game in a meaningful sense.

The fluff and unique aspects of Deathwatch have been removed from the game, in their entirety. Whether some of it gets brought back in the supplement is anyones guess. They could well just end up as another bland flavour of generic space marines number 27.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.

The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.

The idea is that you want to shoot first because you are going to be destroyed if you don't. In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable. Most lists are loading at least a few units capable of 1 shooting such a unit off the table without effort.

It’s a lot more durable than any similar Melta/anti-tank unit I can think of.

They can get wiped-but it will take more effort than taking out other units.

Talking about aggressors at this point. Aggressors are worthless now. Even if they seem like a bargain for their price still. They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile. Errads are freaking bonkers. You pay the price to get them into position and they just kill too much for their cost.

Like if I want to shoot things with str 4 ap-0. I'm putting 6 tactical squads with a gravcannon and a combi flamer in 3 drop pods and completely controling the pace of the game - even if they all die at least they gave me something for it. Aggressors are predictable garbage now where before they were predictable overkill. OFC they nerfed them. New Heavy intercessors are coming. which have much better stock weapons and don't waste points on CC they have no real ability to use.

Xenomancers wrote:In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable.

Xenomancers wrote:They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile.

Do you make these kinds of statements based on
-How other factions in the game compare,
-How other units in the SM codex compare, or
-How top-tier meta tournament build min-max units compare?

Grounding your opinion would really help understand context here.

So we are back to Agressors are trash but be happy Xeno players you got 12 inch flamers too.
So for only 45 points I can make a crisis suit with 2 flamers with -1AP. Oh joy such balance.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.

The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.

The idea is that you want to shoot first because you are going to be destroyed if you don't. In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable. Most lists are loading at least a few units capable of 1 shooting such a unit off the table without effort.

It’s a lot more durable than any similar Melta/anti-tank unit I can think of.

They can get wiped-but it will take more effort than taking out other units.

Talking about aggressors at this point. Aggressors are worthless now. Even if they seem like a bargain for their price still. They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile. Errads are freaking bonkers. You pay the price to get them into position and they just kill too much for their cost.

Like if I want to shoot things with str 4 ap-0. I'm putting 6 tactical squads with a gravcannon and a combi flamer in 3 drop pods and completely controling the pace of the game - even if they all die at least they gave me something for it. Aggressors are predictable garbage now where before they were predictable overkill. OFC they nerfed them. New Heavy intercessors are coming. which have much better stock weapons and don't waste points on CC they have no real ability to use.

Harlequins and hordes winning tournaments because Space Marines are focussing to heavy on the anti-space marine meta are why you still want Aggressors.

And no your tactical marines are not more effective mass shooting then Aggressors, even without double shots.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.

The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.

The idea is that you want to shoot first because you are going to be destroyed if you don't. In the real world of 40k t5 3W 3+ save is NOT durable. Most lists are loading at least a few units capable of 1 shooting such a unit off the table without effort.

It’s a lot more durable than any similar Melta/anti-tank unit I can think of.

They can get wiped-but it will take more effort than taking out other units.

Talking about aggressors at this point. Aggressors are worthless now. Even if they seem like a bargain for their price still. They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile. Errads are freaking bonkers. You pay the price to get them into position and they just kill too much for their cost.

Like if I want to shoot things with str 4 ap-0. I'm putting 6 tactical squads with a gravcannon and a combi flamer in 3 drop pods and completely controling the pace of the game - even if they all die at least they gave me something for it. Aggressors are predictable garbage now where before they were predictable overkill. OFC they nerfed them. New Heavy intercessors are coming. which have much better stock weapons and don't waste points on CC they have no real ability to use.

The bolded part is where we disagree.
9th edition absolutely requires you to engage in CC. You can't avoid it.
Without the aggressors, many lists are left with just a few support chars for CC.
Now that they have no reason to stand still, they will contribute even more to that aspect.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Put it this way --
6 * .666 * .666 * .666 = 1.8 wounding hits from Eradicators on a Trukk. At 5.5 damage average that kills the Trukk. One out of every three such incidents they'll ramshackle and take 6 damage and live.
That means 9 Eradicators can kill 2.5 trukks. You're out 120/130 points.
Those same 9 Eradicators -- 18 * .666 * .5 * 5.5 = 33 -- they kill two Repulsors. You're out 600+ points.
I fully expect the Repulsors to do some work when they're alive as Eradicators can't reach everything all at once, but the situation isn't as simple as you indicate.

6 shots implies 3 Eradicators. 3 Eradicators with Heavy get 6 shots, 4 hits for 2.66 wounds, no armor save, 1 out of 6 will end up getting ramshackle and suffer 1 dmg instead of D6+2 So lets lower the wounds from 2.66 to 2.4 to make you happy. D6+2 x2 = 11dmg, so 3 Eradicators pop 1 trukk by themselves without too much trouble. Those trukkz also have no chance of killing 1 Eradicator or Gravis model during the entire game.

6 shots with heavy vs repulsor = 4 hits, 2 wounds no armor save so 11 dmg, Still alive. wounded, but very much alive. That repulsor in contrast is killing 2-3 Eradicators a turn.

9 Eradicators can't kill 2 repulsors because you would have to split fire which means no double tap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Talking about aggressors at this point. Aggressors are worthless now. Even if they seem like a bargain for their price still. They don't do anything useful with their short threat range/slow movement/weak ass weapon profile. Errads are freaking bonkers. You pay the price to get them into position and they just kill too much for their cost.

Like if I want to shoot things with str 4 ap-0. I'm putting 6 tactical squads with a gravcannon and a combi flamer in 3 drop pods and completely controling the pace of the game - even if they all die at least they gave me something for it. Aggressors are predictable garbage now where before they were predictable overkill. OFC they nerfed them. New Heavy intercessors are coming. which have much better stock weapons and don't waste points on CC they have no real ability to use.

enter Xeno to prove my point that Marine players think Aggressors are garbage because they don't make their points back in 1 turn


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:


No, let him keep going. I'm entertained watching someone so intent on complaining about Marines they're trying to claim Repulsors (And Land Raiders) aren't bad.

Ironically I don't think the Repulsor is all that great, its not bad but in a codex as loaded as the SM one is, it won't see play because there are just too many better options to take.

Add in the smaller board size and why bother?

Wouldn't aggressors also make an incredible distraction carnifex? They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right? If so move up the field on foot, pouring out a lot of anti infantry fire to annoy the enemy with the threat of capable melee.

They're too dangerous to ignore and are tough enough that it's a pain to remove them. And even with all that they're not massively expensive.

cody.d. wrote:
They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right?

No, they did not.

Sterling191 wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right?

No, they did not.

Really? That's interesting. So they lost both the fire twice and the advance with no penalties. Almost like GW realized what a mess of a unit they'd created.

You can almost hear the cheezy 12PM infomercial about them previously. "It slices, it dices etc etc etc."

cody.d. wrote:
Wouldn't aggressors also make an incredible distraction carnifex? They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right? If so move up the field on foot, pouring out a lot of anti infantry fire to annoy the enemy with the threat of capable melee.

They're too dangerous to ignore and are tough enough that it's a pain to remove them. And even with all that they're not massively expensive.

No, from what I’ve heard they lost that one too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
]

Ironically I don't think the Repulsor is all that great, its not bad but in a codex as loaded as the SM one is, it won't see play because there are just too many better options to take.

Add in the smaller board size and why bother?

They approach knight prices for 2/3 the wounds and no invuln. Theyre bad. They’re bad even compared to other transports at a time when all transports are bad. The Executioner is more than 80% of the cost of a Knight Errant with less than 67% of the durability. The regular is 75% the the cost. Just about any options are better options. I mean my plan is to take a similarly priced Primarch, and just advance them all over the board instead of buy that hunk of junk Repulsor.

cody.d. wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right?

No, they did not.

Really? That's interesting. So they lost both the fire twice and the advance with no penalties. Almost like GW realized what a mess of a unit they'd created.

You can almost hear the cheezy 12PM infomercial about them previously. "It slices, it dices etc etc etc."

Except the advance rule wasn't breaking anything, and now we have an extreme inconsistency with how Marines interact with Grav armor.

SemperMortis wrote:

So you are mad because you have to take a 300pt transport that comes standard with Heavy Onslaught Gatling Cannon, Icarus Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Ironhail Heavy Stubber, Krakstorm Grenade Launcher, Storm bolter, Twin heavy bolter and can upgrade basically all those to become anti-infantry, anti-heavy infantry or anti-vehicle. its also T8 w/ 16 wounds and 3+ save.

As opposed to orkz who can take a paper thin Trukk with no weapons except a single Big Shoota (ignorable) or a massive Battlewagon which is T8 16W 4+ save, but has ZERO guns for 135pts. And if you do equip it with guns you are actually hurting yourself because BS5 kind of sucks as do most of the weapons you can put on the stupid thing.

A great example of disparity between the two is Orkz have a fragstorm grenade launcher of sorts.

SM: 18' D6 shots, S4 Blast.
Ork: 12; D6 shots, S3 blast Can only be used if unit is embarked.

Same price, 5pts.

Trukks and Battlewagons are much better than Repulsors my man. The Repulsor is literally over twice the price of the Battlewagon and more than five times the price of a Trukk. Do you think it's five times as durable as a Trukk? It's also slower than either a battlewagon or a trukk, which is a pretty big deal for a transport. Give the Battlewagon an 'ard case and it is just slightly less durable than the Repulsor while losing the ability to fire from it, still for 135 points. 1 CP to make it objectively more durable than the Repulsor.

The guns do not make it better either. If you're using it to caddy dudes to a point you're vastly overpaying for that purpose and by putting a unit of Aggressors in it you're making it a huge 600ish point fire magnet that won't last a turn of shooting against many lists

SemperMortis wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

ok first off regarding agressors transport issues, the only transport they can take is the repulsor. which really is too expensive to be counted on as pure transport. you claim that "they'd be a fine transport via xenos standards" but I'm not sure that's true.

I mean wave serpants are about 150 points, (maybe 200 if you wanna take a buncha expensive weapons options) raiders and venoms are around the price of a rhino (maybe even less) the Ork Battlewagon is about 135 points. vs the repulsor being over 300 points. that's a LOT of points to sink into something to truck about agressors. I mean if you list includes one great, but I doubt any marine players sit back and say "Ok I'm gonna take a repulsor to transport my... anything" the only xenos transport similer to the repulsor is the monolith, whiiich is DOA being a combination of insanely expensive and a LOW choice

135pts for a vehicle that serves no purpose except as transport, has no guns, and even though its T7, is pretty easy to pop since its 4+. It has 6 attacks in CC but WS5+

So you are literally paying for transport capacity and not much else, so its a good transport and that is it, where as the repulsor can shoot a couple Battlewagons to death while dropping off its payload of infantry.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying the Repulsor is a BAD tank. but rather it's not exactly an ideal TRANSPORT because it's expensive eneugh that your not going to be using it to just shuttle troops around the board.

No but it did compliment the aggressors designed purpose. A melee unit with good short ranged weapons. Or a short ranged unit with good melee weapons. Either way they had the tools to deal with most targets and the ability to move at a decent pace. (Average move of 8.5 isn't half bad)

SemperMortis wrote:

135pts for a vehicle that serves no purpose except as transport, has no guns, and even though its T7, is pretty easy to pop since its 4+. It has 6 attacks in CC but WS5+

So you are literally paying for transport capacity and not much else, so its a good transport and that is it, where as the repulsor can shoot a couple Battlewagons to death while dropping off its payload of infantry.

The main gun on the Repulsor does a whopping 1.78 wounds to a Battlewagon that hasn't been upgraded at all.

That Repulsor could fire 100 shots heavy onslaught gatling cannon at a Battlewagon and on average would only do about 15 wounds, failing to kill it.

The repulsor does not get 100 shots, and most of its shots are of lesser quality than the heavy onslaught gatling cannon. You're delusional my man.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Yes, that's the one. Sorry, forget the name right now. But what does that have to do with anything? They're heavy weapons, they can't fire if they advance anyway. The point is it allows the eradicators to reposition in order for a better shot at their chosen target without suffering the -1 to hit from moving with heavy weapons. The idea that if they did that they would be less effective due to hitting on 4s instead of 3s made the heavy meltas seem a little less ridiculous to me. That strategem kills that balancing mechanism.

If you're planning on moving and shooting, I think you'd stick with the basic (assault) melta rifle not the heavy.

You always have to plan on moving and shooting. Do you expect your opponent to simply move whatever target you want to hit right in front of your eradicators? You have to expect to need to maneuver the unit into position to take the shot. You're going to have to do that eventually, and the strategem removes the penalty for doing so. It looks like it was designed just for eradicaters with the heavy meltas, or devastators with multi-meltas.

No one should ever take the basic melta rifle. The -1 to hit is not a huge hindrance given the +2 damage. This is the point where I wish stacking negatives were back, but I'd honestly prefer they tweak Eradicators more and the Chatpers they thrive in.

But that strategem gets rid of even that small hindrance. Agreed they need some adjustments, and I still can't believe they didn't change the Salamanders super doctrine.

BrianDavion wrote:


Keep in mind, I'm not saying the Repulsor is a BAD tank. but rather it's not exactly an ideal TRANSPORT because it's expensive eneugh that your not going to be using it to just shuttle troops around the board.

Don't be so modest. For its point cost it's laughably fragile and as such is a poor transport and its shooting is not nearly lethal enough to offset that. It's a poorly-designed tank with an identity crisis and is in fact a bad tank. I'd be very interested in hearing a well-reasoned (so not some garbage about how it can pop two battlewagons) argument against that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
I still don't get why people believe they need a transport for them.

The way 9th plays you need objectives to score often both primary and secondarys. Take unit waddle 5 inches and shoot 12 that puts any objective in your half of the table easily within threat range, not to mention you can charge if needed as powerfists mean they are no push over in CC either.

This at least I think is true. Aggressors were wildly ridiculously overpowered before and are still strong now IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
Harlequins and hordes winning tournaments because Space Marines are focussing to heavy on the anti-space marine meta are why you still want Aggressors.

And no your tactical marines are not more effective mass shooting then Aggressors, even without double shots.

How do aggressors help against Harlequins? Harlequins are so fast that they can easily dictate the terms of engagement and proceed to wipe your Aggressor squad off the board with a single unit of Skyweavers charging into them. With murderous entrance and troupe master rerolls or, in a pinch, the +1 to wound Frozen Stars strat, that almost wipes a squad of Aggressors off the map. A single kitted out smash troupe master can also just about do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
They’re bad even compared to other transports at a time when all transports are bad.

Transports aren't bad right now lol.

Sterling191 wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
They kept their advance and fire with no penalty rule right?

No, they did not.

I mean, Mine still get to Advance and Fire without penalty...