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.

SecondTime wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Is this a bad time to point out guardsmen were 4 points in 8th edition? My memory at least was wall to wall declarations that they were too good with just a few usual suspects disagreeing.

Also people did run lots of guard. This idea it was the loyal 32 only isn't true. See the lists that came top in 2019's LVO for instance - I mean "1400~ points of Guard+Castelan" won the whole thing. Other variants with fewer Guard points and more other things obviously existed - but just shy of half the points was still in Guard, not 180 or so points.

Thanks for clarification - they were actually 4 points. Still OP at 5 even IMO. Then again a 2 wound 20 point space marine...that is over the top?

No, intercessors were crap at that price point in 8th.

So we can agree then. It is not 2 wounds that is the issue. For the most part - it is horde infantry for armies whos codex hasn't been released for 9th ed their troops are just bad in comparison per point.

Oh, no. There's a lot more going on now. 2W has to be looked in light of all the other garbage marines have access to now. Intercessors had almost nothing going for them in the first place OTHER than 2W and then they dropped codex: disintegrator.

I had debated Insectum many times about putting expensive gear on oldbois in 8th. But now? It's a not brainer with how much protection that gear has now.

 Xenomancers wrote:

SecondTime wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Is this a bad time to point out guardsmen were 4 points in 8th edition? My memory at least was wall to wall declarations that they were too good with just a few usual suspects disagreeing.

Also people did run lots of guard. This idea it was the loyal 32 only isn't true. See the lists that came top in 2019's LVO for instance - I mean "1400~ points of Guard+Castelan" won the whole thing. Other variants with fewer Guard points and more other things obviously existed - but just shy of half the points was still in Guard, not 180 or so points.

Thanks for clarification - they were actually 4 points. Still OP at 5 even IMO. Then again a 2 wound 20 point space marine...that is over the top?

No, intercessors were crap at that price point in 8th.

So we can agree then. It is not 2 wounds that is the issue. For the most part - it is horde infantry for armies whos codex hasn't been released for 9th ed.

No, it's the buffs after buffs that Marines have gotten.

Again-if GW wanted to ramp up the power, they should've ALSO increased the points costs to match the new power. But they didn't. And, hell, Necrons HAVE a new Codex, and aren't nearly as good.

SecondTime wrote:
I had debated Insectum many times about putting expensive gear on oldbois in 8th. But now? It's a not brainer with how much protection that gear has now.

Can confirm on both accounts.

The only thing Intercessors really have going for them imo is that they can be played incredibly lazily, since they can start the game Rapid Firing at stuff 30" away.

 Insectum7 wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
I had debated Insectum many times about putting expensive gear on oldbois in 8th. But now? It's a not brainer with how much protection that gear has now.

Can confirm on both accounts.

The only thing Intercessors really have going for them imo is that they can be played incredibly lazily, since they can start the game Rapid Firing at stuff 30" away.

They punch marginally better, but that's so... weak even for BA. If I want to punch, I can send like one of what 5? CC specialist units?

Assault intercessors do get the coveted fight twice, but that is much weaker with the nerfs to tripoint.

 Xenomancers wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:



It is the issue here though. AM infantry at 5 points were extremely OP. yet we have half of dakka saying its okay or not a big deal. I bet you if you looked at tournament placings - the winner of 8th edition was the IG infantryman.

They were OP, not because they were good. but because they fed good units CP. Nobody was winning LVO with a guard horde. They were winning by taking battalions of Loyal 32 to feed CP into Knights, smash captains etc.

Nobody is an exaggeration. Most were using IG to feed their soup with CP. Which also makes them OP as they are almost worth their value in just command points. IG horde won warzone Atlanta one year and also IG horde was a pretty standard front line for lots of army builds cause it was so cheap - they might not have won tournments but they sure won lots of games - I'm talking about armies taking close to or over 1000 points of IG in competitive. Then we had command tanks...

Funniest part about this is you citing The Vostroyan list that won Warzone as evidence...his list was illegal LOL. I won't assume his intent, could have been an accident, but yeah, totally illegal. And even with all those guard squads...they weren't the ones doing the heavy lifting, it was the quadruple Manticore batteries with full rerolls doing the work. And of course, this list relied exclusively on....CP. Which is why the other relic they took was to regen CP.

Models that cheap cause all kinds of unintended consequences. I'm very wary of them in 9th, still. Especially because they can jam up an even smaller board.

I think my view is colored by how much better they were than early 8th MARINES, not the field. Drukhari could fly over them, etc. But even in 8.5, I basically had to chain tripoint the squads to survive against them.

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, it's the buffs after buffs that Marines have gotten.

Again-if GW wanted to ramp up the power, they should've ALSO increased the points costs to match the new power. But they didn't. And, hell, Necrons HAVE a new Codex, and aren't nearly as good.

Can I just take a second to laugh at how the goal posts have moved so much.

Normal People: Marines are Too Powerful.
SM Defenders: You have to wait and see!

Normal People: Alright dude we waited, they are OP as hell.
SM Defenders: You have to wait, Not everyone has a codex, Necrons are just as good.

Normal People: Seriously, Necrons are getting destroyed by Marines, Space Marines are OP!
SM Defenders: You have to wait, not everyone has a codex, and Necrons not being as good isn't proof that SM are OP.

This has gone on now for like 2 months lol and the same characters keep coming in defending Codex: SM OP and finding new and more hilarious excuses for why SM's aren't OP.

Since their codex release Necrons went up from winning 37.7% of their games to 54.4%.

With the exception of DA and UM all Marines went down in winrate, some significantly.

https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SMWR_by_Chapter_Oct2020.png

But don't let statistics or insulting everybody who is not following your opinion as "not normal" get in your way. Push that post count up, boy.


p.s.
Haven't seen a single winning list on Goonhammer that spammed Eradicator. But vehicles are dead, don't let you tell otherwise.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Since their codex release Necrons went up from winning 37.7% of their games to 54.4%.

With the exception of DA and UM all Marines went down in winrate, some significantly.

https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SMWR_by_Chapter_Oct2020.png

But don't let statistics or insulting everybody who is not following your opinion as "not normal" get in your way. Push that post count up, boy.


p.s.
Haven't seen a single winning list on Goonhammer that spammed Eradicator. But vehicles are dead, don't let you tell otherwise.

I'm just kind of curious here, do they break down win rate vs specific armies as well as winrate as a whole? After all, Marine vs Marine shadow matches could easily skew the data by showing how each chapter fairs against other Marines, but not necessarily against other factions.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Since their codex release Necrons went up from winning 37.7% of their games to 54.4%.

With the exception of DA and UM all Marines went down in winrate, some significantly.

https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SMWR_by_Chapter_Oct2020.png

But don't let statistics or insulting everybody who is not following your opinion as "not normal" get in your way. Push that post count up, boy.


p.s.
Haven't seen a single winning list on Goonhammer that spammed Eradicator. But vehicles are dead, don't let you tell otherwise.

Comparing two side-by-side codexes does not start and end with tournament results. A faction can win tournaments but still be considered unenjoyable by a lot of it's player base. Dissapointing options, underperforming units, hum-drum WL traits, only a few viable competitive builds, etc.

By many accounts, although the Cron book is much more playable than it was, certain comparisons against the marine book still smack of heavy marine favoritism by the design department.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Since their codex release Necrons went up from winning 37.7% of their games to 54.4%.

With the exception of DA and UM all Marines went down in winrate, some significantly.

https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/SMWR_by_Chapter_Oct2020.png

But don't let statistics or insulting everybody who is not following your opinion as "not normal" get in your way. Push that post count up, boy.


p.s.
Haven't seen a single winning list on Goonhammer that spammed Eradicator. But vehicles are dead, don't let you tell otherwise.

Latest Tournament from 40kstats. 1st place. SM: Spammed...infantry. Including 10 Blade guard, 3 Eradicators, 10 Vanguard Vets, 10 Incursors, 10 inceptors and 5 Assault intercessors.

2nd event on 40k stats: 2nd Place SM: Including ....Spammed Eradicators, 11 of them to be exact, along with 6 MM Attack bikes.

3rd event on 40k Stats: 2nd Place SM: including 6 eradicators, a unit of bladeguard and a host of other stuff.

4th event on 40k Stats: NO SMs!!!!!!!!, no Necrons either.

5th event on 40k Stats: 1st Place, Soup, featuring SM, 6 aggressors, 6 bladeguard and 6 Eradicators as well as a host of other Marines.

2nd Place: MARINES! Including 2 units of Eradicators 1 big unit of aggressors another bladeguard unit etc.

So what is the tally? 2 First place finishes, 3 2nd place finishes. 5 top finishes in 5 events. Necrons had 1 third place finish.

But don't let meaningful stats get in the way of your nonsensical "Win" rate.

Yes. I mean I love the Goonhammer analysis but such stats have to be interpreted. Win rates being low due to lots of weaker players playing a popular faction (whatever is currently considered the best) don't make a faction balanced. See Eldar in 7th etc.

It will be interesting for instance to see if more people move to Harlequins, Slaanesh Daemons and Custodes due to their percieved power- and in doing so bring down their win rates.

We'll also see more evidence of the new codexes over the next 3 months rather than a couple of weeks.

Karol wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

Eradicators would be ok if they just costed at least 50% more. Otherwise I'm cool with the change to meltas.

If that was the case, people would not be taking them, and the anti tank would take the form of spamed units of primaris and regular attack bikes, and Multi Melta devastators in drop pods.

I feel like someone already predicted it would switch to MM ABs and speeders a while ago.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


The main reason i wouldn't play marines is because theyre too easy and overtuned at the moment, it feels bad to play against.

For sure - stopped playing marines against my friends a while ago unless they got a top tier army. That is the way the game should be played.
-"Wanna fool around or have a cutt throat battle?" This game is not designed for tournament play.

I’ve had my Ultras for 20+ years, and I make the same basic army as various units slot in and out with a comparable unit so every “unit” gets a turn on the table every so often. Few changes are based on what’s good or not so much as what hasn’t been used in a while.

I’m not using Repulsors/Land Raiders now - I didn’t use Dreads way back when MC’s got a lot better rules than Dreads even though they’re different window dressing on the same thing. I forget when... 4th ed?

 kurhanik wrote:
I'm just kind of curious here, do they break down win rate vs specific armies as well as winrate as a whole? After all, Marine vs Marine shadow matches could easily skew the data by showing how each chapter fairs against other Marines, but not necessarily against other factions.

The picture I shared is including mirror matches AFAIK. Here is one faction by faction. Though I believe that is pre-codex, as the Necron numbers are not matching up to the latest 54%.
https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/40k_H2H_Faction_10-2020_FIXED.png

SemperMortis wrote:

Latest Tournament from 40kstats...

How is citing single placements even a counter argument for you? Did I ever say Marines don't make top 3 anymore? Did I ever say Necrons are making top 3 constantly now? Don't forget to laugh while you move your goalpost.

Assuming "Eradicator squad" without a number to it to be 3 guys, as otherwise you would have pointed out there being 12 Eradicator in a list... having a little more than two min sized Eradicator units (6,4) on average in each Marine list is spam?

Tyel wrote:
Yes. I mean I love the Goonhammer analysis but such stats have to be interpreted. Win rates being low due to lots of weaker players playing a popular faction (whatever is currently considered the best) don't make a faction balanced. See Eldar in 7th etc.

It will be interesting for instance to see if more people move to Harlequins, Slaanesh Daemons and Custodes due to their percieved power- and in doing so bring down their win rates.

We'll also see more evidence of the new codexes over the next 3 months rather than a couple of weeks.

I'd have to double check but based on number of games played I'm fairly sure custodes were the second most played codex after Marine's but they're only about 4/9 the number of games of Marines.

Slaneshy list is like 2% of the marine games played, they don't list the players names but I'm.fairly sure it's only like 2-3 peoplewho genuinely know their lists that are taking that list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 kurhanik wrote:
I'm just kind of curious here, do they break down win rate vs specific armies as well as winrate as a whole? After all, Marine vs Marine shadow matches could easily skew the data by showing how each chapter fairs against other Marines, but not necessarily against other factions.

The picture I shared is including mirror matches AFAIK. Here is one faction by faction. Though I believe that is pre-codex, as the Necron numbers are not matching up to the latest 54%.
https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/40k_H2H_Faction_10-2020_FIXED.png

SemperMortis wrote:

Latest Tournament from 40kstats...

How is citing single placements even a counter argument for you? Did I ever say Marines don't make top 3 anymore? Did I ever say Necrons are making top 3 constantly now? Don't forget to laugh while you move your goalpost.

Assuming "Eradicator squad" without a number to it to be 3 guys, as otherwise you would have pointed out there being 12 Eradicator in a list... having a little more than two min sized Eradicator units (6,4) on average in each Marine list is spam?

When it's 2 out of your 3 heavy support choices it certainly is, not to mention that is rarely varies regadless of chapter or otherwise.
1 Dev squad and 2 eradicators seemed to be very standard fair for marines.
When they effectively making taking vehicals a liability that's not good for the game.

Also marines are definataly still a head of a lot of codex's solidly and considering they account for more than double the number of games of the next most popular faction the mirror matchups are going to be supressing that ratio.

https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FactionWR_Oct2020.png

Ice_can wrote:


When it's 2 out of your 3 heavy support choices it certainly is, not to mention that is rarely varies regadless of chapter or otherwise.
1 Dev squad and 2 eradicators seemed to be very standard fair for marines.
When they effectively making taking vehicals a liability that's not good for the game.

Taking vehicles were a liability before they released. You’re blaming the egg, when Marine players already know it doesn’t matter if the chicken or the egg came first, we’re all drowning in omelettes.

If we go sheet by sheet of the other pre 9th stuff:
Eliminators are too small for a limit 3 slot. 90 points, 3 model limit means you can’t pack enough in 1/3 of HS.
Cent Devs I have no experience with, but the changes to Bolter Drill doesn’t bode well for them.
Devs have the benefit of variation/options.
TF Cannon is similar to Eliminators and need their strategic round effects like subterranean blast - they pay too much for a techmarine.

Everything else is a vehicle.

Breton wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


When it's 2 out of your 3 heavy support choices it certainly is, not to mention that is rarely varies regadless of chapter or otherwise.
1 Dev squad and 2 eradicators seemed to be very standard fair for marines.
When they effectively making taking vehicals a liability that's not good for the game.

Taking vehicles were a liability before they released. You’re blaming the egg, when Marine players already know it doesn’t matter if the chicken or the egg came first, we’re all drowning in omelettes.

If we go sheet by sheet of the other pre 9th stuff:
Eliminators are too small for a limit 3 slot. 90 points, 3 model limit means you can’t pack enough in 1/3 of HS.
Cent Devs I have no experience with, but the changes to Bolter Drill doesn’t bode well for them.
Devs have the benefit of variation/options.
TF Cannon is similar to Eliminators and need their strategic round effects like subterranean blast - they pay too much for a techmarine.

Everything else is a vehicle.

just because the meta has shifted due to size creep and therefore beeing hostile to vehicles in general since 8th doesn't make eradicators not an issue.
The fact that despite the obvious lack of vehicles bar knights and other superheavies / invul spam / other extremely durable options they see play is paramount to their position as a solid issue in unit form.(infact they are probably the closest we got back to the oldshool oblit spam...since a long time) The other two big exceptions with custodes and quins have also far less neutralising mirrors to exclude from, and atleast against custodes which seem to have risen quite well in player popularity the eradicators also do their job quite well because they start bleeding over against other heavy infantry in their capabilities.

Not Online!!! wrote:


just because the meta has shifted due to size creep and therefore beeing hostile to vehicles in general since 8th doesn't make eradicators not an issue.
The fact that despite the obvious lack of vehicles bar knights and other superheavies / invul spam / other extremely durable options they see play is paramount to their position as a solid issue in unit form.(infact they are probably the closest we got back to the oldshool oblit spam...since a long time) The other two big exceptions with custodes and quins have also far less neutralising mirrors to exclude from, and atleast against custodes which seem to have risen quite well in player popularity the eradicators also do their job quite well because they start bleeding over against other heavy infantry in their capabilities.

Say what? Are you trying to move the goalposts here or something? Erads make vehicles bad. Even though they were bad before Erads. But this proves Erads are bad because Marines aren’t taking vehicles, because Erads make vehicles bad even before they were available to be taken?

Ice_can wrote:
I'd have to double check but based on number of games played I'm fairly sure custodes were the second most played codex after Marine's but they're only about 4/9 the number of games of Marines.

Slaneshy list is like 2% of the marine games played, they don't list the players names but I'm.fairly sure it's only like 2-3 peoplewho genuinely know their lists that are taking that list.

True. I think its already happened with Custodes. Given they are still performing so well would expect nerfs to follow.

On Eradicators and just as importantly 2 shot MMs they make the meta even worse for vehicles than it was already.

Really don't see how GW puts the toothpaste back in on that one. Double all vehicle/monster wounds, but simultaneously buff every anti-tank gun to MM levels in order to compensate? It was a terrible way of releasing rules.

Breton wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


just because the meta has shifted due to size creep and therefore beeing hostile to vehicles in general since 8th doesn't make eradicators not an issue.
The fact that despite the obvious lack of vehicles bar knights and other superheavies / invul spam / other extremely durable options they see play is paramount to their position as a solid issue in unit form.(infact they are probably the closest we got back to the oldshool oblit spam...since a long time) The other two big exceptions with custodes and quins have also far less neutralising mirrors to exclude from, and atleast against custodes which seem to have risen quite well in player popularity the eradicators also do their job quite well because they start bleeding over against other heavy infantry in their capabilities.

Say what? Are you trying to move the goalposts here or something? Erads make vehicles bad. Even though they were bad before Erads. But this proves Erads are bad because Marines aren’t taking vehicles, because Erads make vehicles bad even before they were available to be taken?

Vehicles were bad in 8th because the sizecreep lead to a prevalence in AT. Sizecreep introduced by let's be honest underpriced superheavies such as the castellan fuelled by f.e. 32 guardsmen.
This lead to a reaction: that increased AT in basically all lists
This lead to vehicles which have neither an Invul or FNP back up mechanic beeing comparatively worse because they get pushed out by the higher ammount of AT now in the meta.
Now they have been eliminated more or less, however even though they technically WOULD BE the preffered target for melta (including eradicators) because they have no Invul back up to flat out ignore the melta shot /s eradicators still see play. Partly because their firepower is still failsave ignoring enough through ROF against the former super durables whilest also seemingly good enough to target Heavy infantry which got with custodes (and other marines let's be honest) basically nearly allways a matchup served where they can do their job basically allways.
Basically it came closest to beeing the Obi-hörnchen aka it can do everything, well nearly. (still not as completly bonkers as old school oblits but 2/3 for a supposedly highly specialist unit with such a price tag is still pretty fething nuts)

Ice_can wrote:
When it's 2 out of your 3 heavy support choices it certainly is, not to mention that is rarely varies regadless of chapter or otherwise.
1 Dev squad and 2 eradicators seemed to be very standard fair for marines.
When they effectively making taking vehicals a liability that's not good for the game.

Also marines are definataly still a head of a lot of codex's solidly and considering they account for more than double the number of games of the next most popular faction the mirror matchups are going to be supressing that ratio.

https://d1w82usnq70pt2.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FactionWR_Oct2020.png

I disagree on the definition of spam based on slot occupation. Is taking two Suppressor Squads (6 guys in total) spam because they take up 2 of my 3 Fast Attack slots? Is taking a single 10 man squad less spam than taking 2x5 because I only use one slot?
Spam - for me - feels like it means total amount of models compared to what is on the field. 6 Eradicator in a 500p game? Spam. 6 Eradicator in a 5000p game? Not so much.

I agree that the balance between vehicles & monsters and vehicle removal units is not good at the moment. Eradicator are as much of a problem as vehicle prices/defenses imho.

I also agree that Marines are ahead of many other factions. Never argued otherwise. Just that they aren't alone at the top

Eradicators are uniquely broken. They not only have bordering on top tier AT for their points cost, they're also far more durable than the units that could contest the former claim while having access to better force-multiplying effects. Eradicators are simply pointed far too well for what they do.

It would be alot better if we'd get T8 and T9 on more vehicles for a playable price.

I did forget Hellblasters. The guys who pay about 13 extra points per model for a plasma gun that gets half the Special Issue treatment Sternguard get on their bolt gun.

Sternguard pay 2 points for +1A, 6” of range, and an extra AP.

Hellblasters pay 13 points for a 10 point plasma gun, and 6 inches of range, and and extra AP

Maybe. MAYBE they see more play if a new boxed set - where they’re practically a freebie throw in - comes with an ETB or Full Kit people can then use to make the Heavy Incinerator version after just about everyone made the rapid fire version.

But they’re too expensive with the Rapid Fire Incinerator, and I’m not buying another new kit just to change weapons when I’ve got “free” Erads in the current boxed set(s), and a dozen or more Devs - including four+ of just about every option- from the past 20 years.

The assault and Heavy incinerators have some interesting applications now, but they came too late after most of us picked a weapon option already.

At the X ppm they are now, all options cost the same - aside from the sgt pistol upgrade -
so the assault version stayed the same price but got better,
The RF 1 version stayed the same price and was too high
The heavy version went down, and got better, but probably not quite enough, while any more might be too much.

I'm honestly not sure how to nerf them without making them useless. Making them have baseline Marine durability is unfortunately off the tables because they're in Gravis armour and as such have to have the stupid Gravis profile, otherwise that's where I'd at least start.

a_typical_hero wrote:
It would be alot better if we'd get T8 and T9 on more vehicles for a playable price.

gw technically has just increased S on specifc AT weaponry massive, vanquisher says hello...
T values could be increased to grant durability back to vehicles but would be also in need of a wound table reform... unless you think a lasgun/bolter should have the same to wound chance as a melta...

i do wonder what was wrong with the old to wound chart though because the new one as it stands has due to it's nature wierd break points where a certain treshold profits massively whilest others don't (f.e. 7-8 and 8-9 ) for specific S weapons. It would also curb the potentcy of +1 to wound stratagems or abilities .

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I'm honestly not sure how to nerf them without making them useless. Making them have baseline Marine durability is unfortunately off the tables because they're in Gravis armour and as such have to have the stupid Gravis profile, otherwise that's where I'd at least start.

They don't need to be nerfed. 2 Melta shots for 40 points isn't outside the norm.

Per 45ish Points a Landspeeder Tornado will have 1 MM, and 3 Assault Cannon Shots.

Per 40 points an attack bike has about 1 and a half MM shots, and 3 bolter shots.

Devs and Tactical Heavies are also just under 40 points for 2 MM Shots.

The most expensive per-Melta is probably the ATV everyone was flagellating themselves over because a Medic COULD heal it IF everything worked out exactly right at 1 Melta and 3 Bolter shots per just over 40.

Until Recently you were better with:

Scouts over Eliminators because you could take 10 scouts in a slot you already had to take something in - didn't "Cost" you more in any way.

Anything over vehicles. Still are. At least for the large ones.

Erads over Hellblasters (The changes to Hellblasters may change things on paper, but it's going to take a while for that to shake out given the waiting list on painting tables)

Erads aren't underpriced (at least not substantially so) but they're being taken because Hellblasters are slightly overpriced (in the configuration most of us have them in) and aren't in a point in the model release/build/buy fill-ins cycle to replace the ones we already have. If some full kit Hellbalsters (or ETB versions with Assautl or Heavy) showed up, we might start seeing Hellblasters again. Especially the Assault Versions. Some Assault versions in an Impulsor is really growing on me. 5 of them are 150-175 points, they're throwing down 15 S6 -4 D1 shots, add a cap to overcharge if you want to, but its still hard to OC 30-35 points into Instant Death.

Breton wrote:

They don't need to be nerfed.

I'm going to be honest buddy, I stopped reading your post right here. It told me that nothing you will say to me is worth reading.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Breton wrote:

They don't need to be nerfed.

I'm going to be honest buddy, I stopped reading your post right here. It told me that nothing you will say to me is worth reading.

I'm going to be honest, if you stopped reading before you got to the facts I laid out nothing you read is worth saying.