What am I missing with Eradicators?

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.

**catbarf**

Xenomancers wrote:
Compare them to shining spears. Then realize they are vastly inferior to shining spears.

A few pages ago, I asked you this:

catbarf wrote:
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.

And you never replied, but it's becoming apparent with examples like this that your baseline for a 'good unit' is holding it up against the standout, top-performing units of other factions as your baseline.

You're not comparing them to Wraithguard.

You're not comparing them to Grotesques.

You're comparing them to a tournament staple of the Eldar codex, and using that comparison to say that they're horrifically bad. To be 'decent', would they merely have to be as good as one of the top units in the Eldar codex?

It is really surprising to me how quickly Marine players got accustomed to being the very top of the pack, to the point where having a unit nerfed down to 'still really goddamn good compared to common non-Marine units, just not as good as top tournament-meta units' is perceived as unplayable trash.

Edit: Also, if you're going to claim that Bullgryns are way better than the straight performance comparison implies because they can rely on a psyker (more points) to cast a particular spell on them (no guarantee it succeeds), I'm going to start listing all the stratagems, doctrines, auras, litanies, and subfaction traits Aggressors can benefit from. In terms of ability to force-multiply through buffing, it ain't even close.

**Ice_can**

Xenomancers wrote:

Compare them to shining spears. Then realize they are vastly inferior to shining spears.

I thing your about to be disappointed even against one of elders strongest units but fine

4 shining spears 140 points vrs 3 agressors 135

Shooting
4x4 S4 ap0 1D shots
4x S6 ap-4 2D shots
Math Hammer says 4.7 wounds 1 model killed 1 wounded
6 ork boys
1.7 Knight

Vrs
3x9.5 S4 ap0 1D shots
MathHammer says 3.1 wounds 1 model killed
7.9 boys
1 Knight

Combat (charging)
9 S6 AP-4 D2
8 wounds 2 models killed
4 Boys
4 Knight

13 S8 Ap-3 D2
9 wounds 3 models killed 1 wounded 50%
5 boys
5.4 Knight

Combat (Non Charging)
9 S3 Ap-4 D2
4 wounds 1 model killed
2 Boys
2 Knight

13 S8 Ap-3 D2
9 wounds 3 models killed 1 wounded 50%
5 Boys
5.4 Knight

The Spears out shoot the agressors but are worse at CC against everything even on the charge. Ignoring doctorines or any other buffs.
TLDR Agressors as white scars scream blender.

**SemperMortis**

Xenomancers wrote:

First of all I literally state here that the only way you can fail to kill a repulsor is to ignore shooting altogether. Those ork lists do. Because the game has evolved into fighting in a junkyard where you can't draw LOS anywhere. Can't blame them.
An ork list with 9+ smasha/custommega blasta will annihilate a repulsor as fast as any army with lascannons. It is trivially easy to destroy and cost nearly 1/5 of your army. An utterly garbage unit far worse than any unit being discussed in this thread.

i'll give you the Horde list not being shooty because it absolutely isn't which is the point I was trying to make. The #1 list for orkz has almost no shooting.

But the 2nd list? At a minimum its spamming 9 buggies and a wartrike, or likely 12-15 + wartrike which is most of your list. These guys are good in melee but they are just as good in ranged combat, but they aren't very good at killing T8 3+. Also if you take 12-15 buggies and a wartrike, you don't really have room for 9 Smasha gunz let alone KMKs which are 25ppm more expensive. 9 KMKs would run you just shy of 600pts and 9 Smashas would be 360. 1 Full battery of 6 is doable, 9 or more...not so much, not in a buggy list, and especially not if you want to win the game since you want to talk about slow? Mek gunz have 3' movement.

**Nitro Zeus**

Why won’t Xenomancers post his Necron list that he claims will decimate any Space Marine list? Seems the easiest way to support that claim would just be to post it, I’m confused here. It’s really difficult to believe that you’re doing anything other than bs’ing.

**VladimirHerzog**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
Why won’t Xenomancers post his Necron list that he claims will decimate any Space Marine list? Seems the easiest way to support that claim would just be to post it, I’m confused here. It’s really difficult to believe that you’re doing anything other than bs’ing.

hes probably running some squigbuggies in it.

but yeah, its not the first times he's made these kind of controversial claims without backing them up with lists, just tune them out

**BrianDavion**

Ice_can wrote:
Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.

The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.

But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.

except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.

**Ice_can**

BrianDavion wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.

The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.

But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.

except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.

Yeah and surprise surprise one of the other factors is CC ability to contest objectives (idealy with obsec)
Which factions troops do well at Shooting, Fighting and Durability as you do have to survive an opponents turn on the objective to score.

Shooty, fighty, durable troops with the ability to win most obsec fisty cuffs. Sounds shockingly like someone describing Marines unit concept.

**BrianDavion**

Ice_can wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.

The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.

But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.

except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.

Yeah and surprise surprise one of the other factors is CC ability to contest objectives (idealy with obsec)
Which factions troops do well at Shooting, Fighting and Durability as you do have to survive an opponents turn on the objective to score.

Shooty, fighty, durable troops with the ability to win most obsec fisty cuffs. Sounds shockingly like someone describing Marines unit concept.

so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once

**catbarf**

BrianDavion wrote:
except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.

In practice there is little cost to board control, because mobility and board control do not generally come at the cost of firepower or durability. You're just as tough and just as shooty chilling in your deployment zone as you are moving up the board.

It does have impact on auras, but that's not part of a unit profile.

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
You say "Anything they shoot can charge them" like that's supposed to matter. Aggressors WANT to be charged-they all have Powerfists and a bunch of attacks!

And yes, they can be killed-but it's considerably harder to kill three T5 3+ W3 models than a lot of other stuff in the game. They're not unkillable, but they are durable.

No they don't. They have more shooting than they have punching. Only in a few certain scenarios do they want to be charged or charge. Otherwise they want to be >1.1 inches away.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JNAProductions wrote:
Oh no, if you soup, you lose your massive amount of otherwise free bonuses that no other Codex even comes close to.

The reward for not souping is so good people don't want to soup anymore! And even though I hate soup, I hate people playing other armies getting a reward for not doing it even more!

**Nitro Zeus**

BrianDavion wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.

The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.

But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.

except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.

Yeah and surprise surprise one of the other factors is CC ability to contest objectives (idealy with obsec)
Which factions troops do well at Shooting, Fighting and Durability as you do have to survive an opponents turn on the objective to score.

Shooty, fighty, durable troops with the ability to win most obsec fisty cuffs. Sounds shockingly like someone describing Marines unit concept.

so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once

I don’t think he should have to. His points stand on its own and hold regardless of who he plays. Giving you guys an opening to scream that his Harlequins or whatever army he plays is also OP in response to every point he makes, as we all know you are angling for, doesn’t seem productive at all. I don’t think Marines are the only overtuned army either, that doesn’t make anything he’s saying any less correct

**Daedalus81**

Xenomancers wrote:

Compare them to shining spears. Then realize they are vastly inferior to shining spears.

The idea that every army must have a comparable analogue is silly to me. Different armies have their own strengths and weaknesses. Marine strength is fewer weaknesses, but they're not pushing out amazing spells or hordes or (at this point) strong backfield artillery, etc.

**Racerguy180**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

Compare them to shining spears. Then realize they are vastly inferior to shining spears.

The idea that every army must have a comparable analogue is silly to me. Different armies have their own strengths and weaknesses. Marine strength is fewer weaknesses, but they're not pushing out amazing spells or hordes or (at this point) strong backfield artillery, etc.

ditto, why the hell does everything have to be the same? sounds pretty frickin lame to me.

**Pyroalchi**

But that was not the (or at least not my) argument. The question of the threat was basically why other players think Eradicators were overpowered and got a bit extended to Aggressors as other Gravis unit. Especially as they have been nerfed. I don't claim that every army has to have everything, but my argument is that an anti-horde unit that even nerfed beats out other armies anti horde unit AND other armies best CC unit AND has a defensive profile of 5/3/3+ AND is in a codex with massive buffing potential is here - by some players - deemed bad or unplayable because they were a little downgraded (but still superior as l mentioned)

**BrianDavion**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Karol you've been drinking too much of the marine player coolaid.

The concept of unit x or y has to outperform equivalent points becuase my units more expensive rarely results in balanced games, yes their is cases like Knights & Hordes where other factors like table presence play a much higer percentage of the consideration.

But 5 marines at 90-100 points vrs 100 points of other troops actually tend to do well if not win.

except the game isn't PURE firepower, it's also board control etc. the ability to spread your troops out contest objectives (the more bodies the bette are where contesting objectives is concerned) and that should have SOME cost.

Yeah and surprise surprise one of the other factors is CC ability to contest objectives (idealy with obsec)
Which factions troops do well at Shooting, Fighting and Durability as you do have to survive an opponents turn on the objective to score.

Shooty, fighty, durable troops with the ability to win most obsec fisty cuffs. Sounds shockingly like someone describing Marines unit concept.

so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once

I don’t think he should have to. His points stand on its own and hold regardless of who he plays. Giving you guys an opening to scream that his Harlequins or whatever army he plays is also OP in response to every point he makes, as we all know you are angling for, doesn’t seem productive at all. I don’t think Marines are the only overtuned army either, that doesn’t make anything he’s saying any less correct

I asked him because the guy hasn't posted a post that isn't a "MARRRRINES SUCK" in months. it's exhausting to deal with people who literally can't seem to discuss anything else

**Nitro Zeus**

i get it but that goes two ways. Note that there isn't a bunch of argumentative threads about the current state of Harleys or other top tier armies. Do you know why I see this being so different? It's because there isn't a bunch of people who spend their time on here just denying and downplaying the faction. Harley players came up out the bottom end of the tier list to the top, when we talk about the faction now, almost all the players are generally like "yeah, we're pretty good now lol". Marine threads on the other hand have these constant aggregators such as Xenomancers, Daedulus, Martel, breton, even yourself, who are just loathe to concede that ANY aspect of your dex might be too much, and will argue all day how even a good unit is "dead" or "weak" now. You guys create the pushback that you recieve. Nobody would feel the need to be repeatedly arguing against this "marines aren't even that strong!" narrative bs if you guys didn't constantly push it, and cause threads like to this to reach 50 pages through sheer stubborness. That's my view on the matter anyway.

**Breton**

Nitro Zeus wrote:
i get it but that goes two ways. Note that there isn't a bunch of argumentative threads about the current state of Harleys or other top tier armies. Do you know why I see this being so different?

Because its different when you and the people you agree with do it?

It's because there isn't a bunch of people who spend their time on here just denying and downplaying the faction. Harley players came up out the bottom end of the tier list to the top, when we talk about the faction now, almost all the players are generally like "yeah, we're pretty good now lol". Marine threads on the other hand have these constant aggregators such as Xenomancers, Daedulus, Martel, breton, even yourself, who are just loathe to concede that ANY aspect of your dex might be too much, and will argue all day how even a good unit is "dead" or "weak" now.

I said some unit was dead or weak now? When was this? I mean I'm sure some of them are - The Thundercannon feels kind of lame if you compare it to the special ammo version of yore but it's not bad or dead. It's probably better than it was because most of the special ammo wasn't even that good, just funny. Land Raiders and Repulsors are bad, but just about everyone who isn't clamoring to nerf nearly every datasheet in the Marine Codex agrees with that, especially if you expand it to Vehicles in general are bad.

You guys create the pushback that you recieve.

And we're back to its different when we do it.

Nobody would feel the need to be repeatedly arguing against this "marines aren't even that strong!" narrative bs if you guys didn't constantly push it,

Just ask the guy continually pushing the Nerf Marines BS.

and cause threads like to this to reach 50 pages through sheer stubborness.

The thread that has had several different topics after the original one played out, but you're going to pretend it hit 50 pages on the one topic because Nerf Marines?

That's my view on the matter anyway.

**Bosskelot**

I'm gonna quote myself from a few pages ago:

This thread is an excellent microcosm for one of the reasons why people are actually mad at Marine dominance and prevalence.

It's not that they are overwhelmingly powerful for a large swathe of factions to deal with, or that they're far too common on the tabletop and so you get burned out on facing them. It's that there's a significant portion of the LSM playerbase that just refuses to believe there is an issue with the army and will not only refuse to acknowledge imbalance but will try and argue in the opposite direction. I have legitimately seen people arguing (not so much on Dakka to be fair) that Salamanders and Iron Hands are not overpowered but that they're actually bad armies. This is despite both of them ripping through the tournament scene at the moment. Even discounting empirical evidence you can understand how strong the armies are just through stats and mathhammering.

But there's a significant part of the LSM playerbase that just outright refuses to understand the problem or even acknowledge there is one.

I never saw Craftworld players in 8th saying Altaioc Flyers or Ynnari Spears/Reapers were underpowered units. At most they would point to the rest of the Codex being sub-optimal and wanting to rely on the broken gak in order to win games and they might try and offer counterplay ideas. Same with Drukhari players and mass Venom, Grotesque and Talos spam, and triple Dissy Ravagers. Everyone acknowledged they were good and tournament results reflected that.

The current situation with Space Marines is unique in recent memory because you have OVERWHELMING empirical evidence of Marines being dominant and opinions from top-tier incredibly skilled players stating again and again and again that the army needs a redesign somehow. You have 3x3 Eradicators showing up in every single top list and absolutely crushing everything. And yet here we are. People in this thread trying to somehow argue that Marines are not dominant and not even wanting to maybe consider that there might be a problem with Eradicators or the Codex and its supplements in general.

It's absurd. This is actually why there's so much backlash against Marines. Because of people like this.

Also with regards to Aggressors still; isn't it weird how Aggressors and Eradicators having double shoot is perfectly fine, but Ynnari Dark Reapers double shooting was totally unacceptable? How do these ardent Marine simps square that circle?

**Breton**

Bosskelot wrote:
Marine simps

Its different when we do it

**Blackie**

Xenomancers wrote:

An ork list with 9+ smasha/custommega blasta will annihilate a repulsor as fast as any army with lascannons. It is trivially easy to destroy and cost nearly 1/5 of your army. An utterly garbage unit far worse than any unit being discussed in this thread.

Very few players own 9+ mek gunz actually. Even less of them bring those mek gunz all together in 9th because HS slots are limited and gunlines are not the flavor of the edition. For the record 10 Smasha gunz are 400 points, for 10D3 BS4+ shots with extra hits on 6s. Which means an average of 17-18 hits. To wound T8 they need to roll an 8 on a 2D6, which is below 50%. So in the end those 400 points can barely kill a 360 points tank. Appropriate targets for Smasha Gunz are actually T4-5 high save multiwounds models. 10 Kustom mega kannons are 650 points, and 5 of them (325) can't kill a repulsor rolling with average results.

To bad that the ork player needs to buy 500$ of artillery (and 60 models to paint) to kill an 80-100$ vehicle. In real life it's an unlikely scenario. Many SM players will have their big tank and most of the ork ones will have 2-3 mek gunz at most, probably even 0.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

Compare them to shining spears. Then realize they are vastly inferior to shining spears.

The idea that every army must have a comparable analogue is silly to me. Different armies have their own strengths and weaknesses. Marine strength is fewer weaknesses, but they're not pushing out amazing spells or hordes or (at this point) strong backfield artillery, etc.

I agree, different factions should be different. But the overall power level should be very close. At the moment SM are able to dominate both competitive metas and casual ones, because average collections of SM models are easily good but they can also build some very competitive lists with little effort in terms of listbuilding, money invested and time/skills required to get everything battleready.

That's the reason why people complain about marines. If they only had a single skew list that dominates tournament, like the ork goff horde, it would be a different story. I certainly wouldn't mind a SM list with a 80% winning rate at tournaments that is also unlikely to show up everyday in real life, because only a few people would settle with buying and playing 5 stormravers for example. Or even a soup adding units from 2 other different books like the loyal32+castellan combo in 8th, which in my area not a single SM player wanted to bring and in fact I've never seen it in real life.

Unfortunately SM lists could be very powerful just by bringing units from starter boxes, and one of each of their most recent kits.

**Dudeface**

Bosskelot wrote:
I'm gonna quote myself from a few pages ago:

This thread is an excellent microcosm for one of the reasons why people are actually mad at Marine dominance and prevalence.

It's not that they are overwhelmingly powerful for a large swathe of factions to deal with, or that they're far too common on the tabletop and so you get burned out on facing them. It's that there's a significant portion of the LSM playerbase that just refuses to believe there is an issue with the army and will not only refuse to acknowledge imbalance but will try and argue in the opposite direction. I have legitimately seen people arguing (not so much on Dakka to be fair) that Salamanders and Iron Hands are not overpowered but that they're actually bad armies. This is despite both of them ripping through the tournament scene at the moment. Even discounting empirical evidence you can understand how strong the armies are just through stats and mathhammering.

But there's a significant part of the LSM playerbase that just outright refuses to understand the problem or even acknowledge there is one.

I never saw Craftworld players in 8th saying Altaioc Flyers or Ynnari Spears/Reapers were underpowered units. At most they would point to the rest of the Codex being sub-optimal and wanting to rely on the broken gak in order to win games and they might try and offer counterplay ideas. Same with Drukhari players and mass Venom, Grotesque and Talos spam, and triple Dissy Ravagers. Everyone acknowledged they were good and tournament results reflected that.

The current situation with Space Marines is unique in recent memory because you have OVERWHELMING empirical evidence of Marines being dominant and opinions from top-tier incredibly skilled players stating again and again and again that the army needs a redesign somehow. You have 3x3 Eradicators showing up in every single top list and absolutely crushing everything. And yet here we are. People in this thread trying to somehow argue that Marines are not dominant and not even wanting to maybe consider that there might be a problem with Eradicators or the Codex and its supplements in general.

It's absurd. This is actually why there's so much backlash against Marines. Because of people like this.

Also with regards to Aggressors still; isn't it weird how Aggressors and Eradicators having double shoot is perfectly fine, but Ynnari Dark Reapers double shooting was totally unacceptable? How do these ardent Marine simps square that circle?

This is half accurate, even if someone does feel marines aren't a problem or doesn't understand the current situation, that isn't an invalid opinion - as none are.

What is a problem is if 1 poster claims they're happy with A it doesn't need 50 borderline offensive posts from group B all saying the same thing.

Ultimately too many people, myself included, can't just let something go when they see what they perceive as an injustice, right or wrong.

Breton is 100% right, it's different for their statements because they're not part of the mob with the popular opinion. Likewise, maybe not antagonising the larger group is in everyones best interests. State it once and move on.

**Breton**

Dudeface wrote:
because they're not part of the mob with the popular opinion.

To be fair, I'm not sure which is the larger group/part of the mob. And it doesn't really matter. This place is what it is.

**Ice_can**

BrianDavion wrote:

so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once

I don't have just 1 army that's why actually have 3 and if you had actually looked at my post history you'd have been able to figure it out.

Marines
Knights
Tau

**Argive**

Bosskelot wrote:
I'm gonna quote myself from a few pages ago:

This thread is an excellent microcosm for one of the reasons why people are actually mad at Marine dominance and prevalence.

It's not that they are overwhelmingly powerful for a large swathe of factions to deal with, or that they're far too common on the tabletop and so you get burned out on facing them. It's that there's a significant portion of the LSM playerbase that just refuses to believe there is an issue with the army and will not only refuse to acknowledge imbalance but will try and argue in the opposite direction. I have legitimately seen people arguing (not so much on Dakka to be fair) that Salamanders and Iron Hands are not overpowered but that they're actually bad armies. This is despite both of them ripping through the tournament scene at the moment. Even discounting empirical evidence you can understand how strong the armies are just through stats and mathhammering.

But there's a significant part of the LSM playerbase that just outright refuses to understand the problem or even acknowledge there is one.

I never saw Craftworld players in 8th saying Altaioc Flyers or Ynnari Spears/Reapers were underpowered units. At most they would point to the rest of the Codex being sub-optimal and wanting to rely on the broken gak in order to win games and they might try and offer counterplay ideas. Same with Drukhari players and mass Venom, Grotesque and Talos spam, and triple Dissy Ravagers. Everyone acknowledged they were good and tournament results reflected that.

The current situation with Space Marines is unique in recent memory because you have OVERWHELMING empirical evidence of Marines being dominant and opinions from top-tier incredibly skilled players stating again and again and again that the army needs a redesign somehow. You have 3x3 Eradicators showing up in every single top list and absolutely crushing everything. And yet here we are. People in this thread trying to somehow argue that Marines are not dominant and not even wanting to maybe consider that there might be a problem with Eradicators or the Codex and its supplements in general.

It's absurd. This is actually why there's so much backlash against Marines. Because of people like this.

Also with regards to Aggressors still; isn't it weird how Aggressors and Eradicators having double shoot is perfectly fine, but Ynnari Dark Reapers double shooting was totally unacceptable? How do these ardent Marine simps square that circle?

The tumble weeds are deafening...
I can hear a "whhhhheeelllll ahhhctuallllyyy" spooling up..

And apparently comparing a jetbike to a heavy infantry unit and saying "same!!!!" Is frankly bananas... and yet not a single usual suspect marine defenders called it out as BS.. nitro summed it up pretty well.. and yet... here we are..

Never disapoint my lovelies.

**BrianDavion**

Ice_can wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once

I don't have just 1 army that's why actually have 3 and if you had actually looked at my post history you'd have been able to figure it out.

Marines
Knights
Tau

I did look at your post history Ice, after 15 pages of every post being about marines and how aweful they are I thought I'd just ask.

**Ice_can**

BrianDavion wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once

I don't have just 1 army that's why actually have 3 and if you had actually looked at my post history you'd have been able to figure it out.

Marines
Knights
Tau

I did look at your post history Ice, after 15 pages of every post being about marines and how aweful they are I thought I'd just ask.

I've been posting in the Knights tactics thread constantly, the Tau one is dead as they simply don't work in 9th edition. As for marine's the OP 2.0 codex and denialist mentality, they suck to play and play against. It's either effectively a mirrior match or easy winning.

**Hecaton**

Ice_can wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once

I don't have just 1 army that's why actually have 3 and if you had actually looked at my post history you'd have been able to figure it out.

Marines
Knights
Tau

I did look at your post history Ice, after 15 pages of every post being about marines and how aweful they are I thought I'd just ask.

I've been posting in the Knights tactics thread constantly, the Tau one is dead as they simply don't work in 9th edition. As for marine's the OP 2.0 codex and denialist mentality, they suck to play and play against. It's either effectively a mirrior match or easy winning.

Gotta love that for Tau players, shell out for a new edition and your faction's basically unworkable in it. GW has the playerbase by the balls and they know it.

But I digress.

**Racerguy180**

Hecaton wrote:

GW has the tourney playerbase by the balls and they know it.

fixed it for ya

**Ice_can**

Racerguy180 wrote:
Hecaton wrote:

GW has the tourney playerbase by the balls and they know it.

fixed it for ya

Nah he was right, 9th is such an imbalanced mess.
Nothing short of playing less than 1500 points of Marines or Harliquines in a 2000 point game will make some factions work against them.

**Mr Morden**

Ice_can wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

so what army do you play Ice? I've not seen you talk about it once

I don't have just 1 army that's why actually have 3 and if you had actually looked at my post history you'd have been able to figure it out.

Marines
Knights
Tau

Its apparently wierd to some people that you can play an army and still be critical about the power of specific elements.