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.

The quality of discussion around here would definitely be improved by the removal of a couple extremely dedicated shot posters on here. But you’re right it’s all hidden under a veil of “my opinion” so yeah there’s no real validation for a ban.

SecondTime wrote:
I know necrons are more than happy to push warriors into guardsmen with meltas.

" But you give up the Objectives and VPs. Who here isn't willing to trade 45 points for 5 VP?"

Again, VV with storm shields take the objective and laugh at the melta guardsmen. That's just one obvious counter to this. Or triple redemptor build just murder ALL the guardsmen.

The Melta Guardsmen aren't ON the objective. They have Infantry squads for that. So again, your VV are now in 12 different places (6 Objectives, 6 Melta squads) munching 12 different units at once.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sternguard, Helblasters, Inceptors and Ravenwing Knights disagree

Realize he posted this AFTER I made the point about Hellblasters and their Assault Incinerator at least twice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Type40 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Just outright ban this Ultramarine fanboy guy, there's no point in arguing with a toxic troll that denies evidence for the sake of his argumentations

HE DISAGREES WITH ME! BAN HIM! BAN HIM!

*eye roll*

Theres a difference between disagreeing and arguing in bad faith.

LOL bad faith... that's,, like,,, your opinion, man.

No, no. Its fact. One of us is posting facts and reference material. The rest of us say Retributors don't count, without a reason. Now if only I knew what Bad Faith meant....

Breton wrote:
Now if only I knew what Bad Faith meant....

Yeah you definitely don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Were you trying to say earlier that the real meta is Guardsmen vs Tyranids and top players haven't caught on yet? Was hard to decipher the actual point you were trying to make when you started sighing that nobody was intelligent enough to have mentioned that Tyranids have higher volume of fire or something. Which isn't really even the case in the first place but w.e.

 Nitro Zeus wrote:

Breton wrote:
Now if only I knew what Bad Faith meant....

Yeah you definitely don't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Were you trying to say earlier that the real meta is Guardsmen vs Tyranids and top players haven't caught on yet? Was hard to decipher the actual point you were trying to make when you started sighing that nobody was intelligent enough to have mentioned that Tyranids have higher volume of fire or something. Which isn't really even the case in the first place but w.e.

No, I was pointing out that there are more matchups out there than Marines vs. And that something that is true in a Marines vs isn't necessarily true in a Not Marines vs. I was pointing out this was a glaringly obvious flaw in my first round of reasoning, and I was pointing out that anyone cares about more than nerfing marines probably would have pointed that out. And nobody did. I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

Thanks for asking, so I could say it agian, Big Guy.

Breton wrote:
No, no. Its fact. One of us is posting facts and reference material. The rest of us say Retributors don't count, without a reason. Now if only I knew what Bad Faith meant....

You're repeatedly lying and misrepresenting facts. You dodge questions. You make absolutely ridiculous points and expect to be taken seriously. You are either absolutely incompetent at math and statistics or blatantly misrepresenting them.

You are a routine bad faith actor on this board.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breton wrote:
I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

There's no conspiracy here. Marines are overpowered, the game would be more balanced if they were nerfed. I'm sorry that you're so insecure and such a poor sportsman that you need your favorite army to have an unfair advantage to feel safe playing 40k.

Couldn’t have written it better myself ^

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
No, no. Its fact. One of us is posting facts and reference material. The rest of us say Retributors don't count, without a reason. Now if only I knew what Bad Faith meant....

You're repeatedly lying and misrepresenting facts. You dodge questions. You make absolutely ridiculous points and expect to be taken seriously. You are either absolutely incompetent at math and statistics or blatantly misrepresenting them.

You are a routine bad faith actor on this board.

You're saying a MM AB isn't roughly 55 points?

Breton wrote:
You're saying a MM AB isn't roughly 55 points?

No, I'm saying that taking into account the product of durability and offensive output, trying to compare IG special weapon squads to Eradicators is such a stupid idea that it's insulting to the people you're having a discussion with to assume they'd fall for so boldfaced a lie.

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
You're saying a MM AB isn't roughly 55 points?

No, I'm saying that taking into account the product of durability and offensive output, trying to compare IG special weapon squads to Eradicators is such a stupid idea that it's insulting to the people you're having a discussion with to assume they'd fall for so boldfaced a lie.

Funny, I've been told overloading a target bucket adds to durability. Now it doesn't. Imagine my surprise.

@ Breton: As you repeatedly said, that retributors are ignored we might have this conversation.
As far as I see retributors cost 12/dudette, come in Squads of 5-10 and can take 4 MM per unit. Currently MM are at 20 points (even though I suspect they go up, when the 2 shots are implied). Note that I don't have the codex, that's what I found in the net, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. As Eradicators and Rets both have BS3+ I will compare shots, not hits.

That would leave retributors at 140 points for 8 x 24'' MM shots at BS 3+. As far as I know Eradicators with a MM are 130 points for 8 x 24'' MM shots at BS3+.
The defensive profile would then be: Rets 5 x T3, W1, 3+, Eradicators: 3 x T5, W3, 3+. So so far I would say the Rets are more expensive for the same number of shots and a worse defense profile. But they don't suffer -1 to hit for moving with their MM, are 1 '' faster and can take more transports.

Also you can take up to three armorium cherubs for a single doubleshot each, so for the sake of the argument:
After the first round: Rets have shot 14 times for 155 points (11 per shot), Erads 8 times for 130 (16 per shot)
After the second round: 22 shots (7/shot) vs. 16 (8/shot)
after the 3rd: 30 shots (5.2/shot) vs. 24 shots (5.4/shot)
So I give you that, up to 2 rounds of shooting (which seems to be realistic for a high profile unit), the rets with Armorium cherubs are more points efficient on the offense. But with their worse defensive profile they struggle more to keep shooting at full efficiency.

Last but not least one can mention the possibility of acts of faith which go for the rets.

Then again as far as I see Rets cap out at 3 units with 4 MM each for 24 MM shots max (+ 18 in the first round with Cherubs)
thats the output of 3 x 3 Eradicators (+ another 6 in the first round if we account for the Cherubs), so those can still bring much more shots and are more likely to shoot more than one round.

 Pyroalchi wrote:

The defensive profile would then be: Rets 5 x T3, W1, 3+, Eradicators: 3 x T5, W3, 3+. So so far I would say the Rets are more expensive for the same number of shots and a worse defense profile.

And yet again, we go from "they get too many shots too cheaply", to "They get too many shots AND".

And yet again we go from where I pointed out adding the MM to Erads DOES make the math wonky, to totally ignoring what I said and giving the Erads a MM to prove something I didn't say is "wrong".

Breton wrote:


The math DOES get a little wonky when they take a MM upgrade instead of their special rule being their MM upgrade.

But it sure is fun to see people say I'm the bad faith one.

@ Breton: I did not want to imply you argued in bad faith or prove you specifically wrong. My post was directed towards you mentioning that Retributors are ignored. So I tried to engage you in this aspect of the discussion

Breton wrote:
No, I was pointing out that there are more matchups out there than Marines vs. And that something that is true in a Marines vs isn't necessarily true in a Not Marines vs. I was pointing out this was a glaringly obvious flaw in my first round of reasoning, and I was pointing out that anyone cares about more than nerfing marines probably would have pointed that out. And nobody did. I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

Thanks for asking, so I could say it agian, Big Guy.

Sorry but why do we need to be Tyranids to kill 120 guardsmen?

Tyel wrote:

Breton wrote:
No, I was pointing out that there are more matchups out there than Marines vs. And that something that is true in a Marines vs isn't necessarily true in a Not Marines vs. I was pointing out this was a glaringly obvious flaw in my first round of reasoning, and I was pointing out that anyone cares about more than nerfing marines probably would have pointed that out. And nobody did. I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

Thanks for asking, so I could say it agian, Big Guy.

Sorry but why do we need to be Tyranids to kill 120 guardsmen?

Cause Tyranids are awesome?

BrianDavion wrote:
Cause Tyranids are awesome?

The models yes. The rules unfortunately not so much.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Breton: I did not want to imply you argued in bad faith or prove you specifically wrong. My post was directed towards you mentioning that Retributors are ignored. So I tried to engage you in this aspect of the discussion

Which is fine, but you see the points I was making on top of the replies that preceded you? The topic was originally about damage output per point. Start comparing it to other damage output which turns out to be the same, and everyone wants to change the paradigm - in a VERY limited way - as if that was always the full topic. Plus the Multimelta thing for Erads I already said wasn't the best idea.

After the first round: Rets have shot 14 times for 155 points (11 per shot), Erads 6 times for 120 (20 per shot)
After the second round: 22 shots (7/shot) vs. 12 (10/shot)
after the 3rd: 30 shots (5.2/shot) vs. 18 shots (6.667/shot)

I'm usually careful about adding vehicles because they usually have a bunch of different weapons but the Immolator only has two, like the ABs/Speeders

The Immolator has 1 Melta Shot, and most of a HB shot per 35 points. It's also got T7 and 10 wounds.

Looking at it another way, the Immolator is a unit with 2MM's and 1HB for 145 with 10 T7 wounds per unit.

Erads are a unit with (most of 3) Multi Meltas, No HB, with what 9 T5 wounds for 120?


The new Hammerstrike has three so we're getting even further out of the comparison breakdown - especially as the third is that Krakstorm launcher that is both new-ish and not individually costed often if at all:

It's got 3 Melta Shots, and 2 more that are most of a melta shot - arguably better in some ways - for 170. 5-ish Melta shots, plus two Krakstorms for 170 aint bad either. The Krakstorms were about 5, so 2 are about 10, leaving 160 for 5 Melta-ish shots on T6 10W, not bad once you add the movement range. The old speeder probably has the edge though. Especially in the idea of a SM Brigade I'm toying with in my head.

I've also got to say, Sisters need the other half of their army released. Nuns with Guns would absolutely have some snipers. And there's no shortage of historical female sniper figures to use for content. They need a lascannon type option - Maybe the Fusils from Eliminators and Sentry Turrets (Sure lascanon suck now, but every edition has their preferred element, its just a matter of time until it rolls back around to las)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyel wrote:

Breton wrote:
No, I was pointing out that there are more matchups out there than Marines vs. And that something that is true in a Marines vs isn't necessarily true in a Not Marines vs. I was pointing out this was a glaringly obvious flaw in my first round of reasoning, and I was pointing out that anyone cares about more than nerfing marines probably would have pointed that out. And nobody did. I was pointing out that just like 12 Infantry squads on 6 objectives and 6 little melta squads running around would make your opponent tip his hand on strategy and priorities, having everyone be so nerf marine centric while claiming to be about balance reveals their strategies and priorities.

Thanks for asking, so I could say it agian, Big Guy.

Sorry but why do we need to be Tyranids to kill 120 guardsmen?

You don't, but in a discussion of balance, people who aren't marine focused instead of balance focused probably would have noticed a limitation on marine response wouldn't necessarily be a limitation on Nid or Ork response.

Thanks for another opportunity.

Tyel wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Cause Tyranids are awesome?

The models yes. The rules unfortunately not so much.

sisters marines and necrons have all gotten solid codices so I have faith for everyone else this edition!

BrianDavion wrote:

Tyel wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
Cause Tyranids are awesome?

The models yes. The rules unfortunately not so much.

sisters marines and necrons have all gotten solid codices so I have faith for everyone else this edition!

The current rules for Nids are pretty bad - but its not so much a problem with Nids as the BRB making some sweeping changes that negatively impacted them more than Nids getting bad rules.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, from this thread (which is a bit of a trainwreck), it was said that Marines, as they are now, have basically every playstyle available to them, and not just "technically"-they can do it well.

I'm curious as to what everyone here thinks is a playstyle Marines CANNOT do-or at least, cannot do well.

They can't look look into their Father's eyes anymore without feeling shame.

Humble82 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, from this thread (which is a bit of a trainwreck), it was said that Marines, as they are now, have basically every playstyle available to them, and not just "technically"-they can do it well.

I'm curious as to what everyone here thinks is a playstyle Marines CANNOT do-or at least, cannot do well.

They can't look look into their Father's eyes anymore without feeling shame.

Play nicely together?

Share?

Thanks, Horus!

Breton 793392 10979099 wrote:

The current rules for Nids are pretty bad - but its not so much a problem with Nids as the BRB making some sweeping changes that negatively impacted them more than Nids getting bad rules.

Well that was always true, I feel. I mean lets knights to work in 9th, they either need many tiers higher resiliance and on top of it all they need more units.
The question is if we were suddenly to get something like, like a 250-260pts basic knight, would some armies suddenly feel to anti skewed.

Change to rules for smite or doubling on psychic powers, and armies full of casters could actualy get really scary, even with Abhore the Witch.

Harlis through no design of their own codex, I hope, are the top of the top armies in 9th. While other armies like GSC just have their books writen with very specific game play in mind, which doesn't exist in 9th. Can't have an army designed to work with area of terrain bunkers and long range shoting in mind, in an edition where going first and clearing up objectives at short to melee range is the most important thing.

"The Melta Guardsmen aren't ON the objective. They have Infantry squads for that. So again, your VV are now in 12 different places (6 Objectives, 6 Melta squads) munching 12 different units at once."

I never said they were. VV can obviously only take one objective at time. Point is they will massacre the relevant infantry squad, and you can't displace them with melta in a timely fashion.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sternguard, Helblasters, Inceptors and Ravenwing Knights disagree

Realize he posted this AFTER I made the point about Hellblasters and their Assault Incinerator at least twice.

Sorry, as I've explained to you some time ago, I put you on my ignore list for the same reasons outlined by quite a few posters on this thread. I usually don't read your stuff anymore unless someone wrote an interesting response to you, so I can't blame other people for doing the same.

Karol wrote:

Breton 793392 10979099 wrote:

The current rules for Nids are pretty bad - but its not so much a problem with Nids as the BRB making some sweeping changes that negatively impacted them more than Nids getting bad rules.

Well that was always true, I feel. I mean lets knights to work in 9th, they either need many tiers higher resiliance and on top of it all they need more units.
The question is if we were suddenly to get something like, like a 250-260pts basic knight, would some armies suddenly feel to anti skewed.

Change to rules for smite or doubling on psychic powers, and armies full of casters could actualy get really scary, even with Abhore the Witch.

Harlis through no design of their own codex, I hope, are the top of the top armies in 9th. While other armies like GSC just have their books writen with very specific game play in mind, which doesn't exist in 9th. Can't have an army designed to work with area of terrain bunkers and long range shoting in mind, in an edition where going first and clearing up objectives at short to melee range is the most important thing.

The problem I was referring to was moving bonus attacks from actions (i.e charging, two weapons) to the weapons (choppa, chainsword, etc) themselves and later to army wide rules (i.e Shock/Hateful assault). That just killed Hormugants. Hopefully soon GW will backtrack the XXXXXX-Assault rules, and come up with a world-wide replacement for Charging/etc instead of Army Specific.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jidmah wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Sternguard, Helblasters, Inceptors and Ravenwing Knights disagree

Realize he posted this AFTER I made the point about Hellblasters and their Assault Incinerator at least twice.

Sorry, as I've explained to you some time ago, I put you on my ignore list for the same reasons outlined by quite a few posters on this thread. I usually don't read your stuff anymore unless someone wrote an interesting response to you, so I can't blame other people for doing the same.

Yeah I quoted for the context not the directed reply

The problem I was referring to was moving bonus attacks from actions (i.e charging, two weapons) to the weapons (choppa, chainsword, etc) themselves and later to army wide rules (i.e Shock/Hateful assault). That just killed Hormugants. Hopefully soon GW will backtrack the XXXXXX-Assault rules, and come up with a world-wide replacement for Charging/etc instead of Army Specific.

I don't think that if GW has put down a rule set for multiple loyalist marine armies, it is wise to expect that the books after those are suddenly going to incorporate a big paradigma shift in design on a core rule level, for at least another 1-2 years. You can hope to get really powerful rules or combos, that can happen to any army, often without GW intention , but the stuff we see in the sm codex and the SW/DW supplements is the stuff to be expected in other books and supplements. It doesn't have to be the same quality of rules or the same power, but GW is not suddenly going to decide to switch. they are sooner, with lets say a new model kit, put out a totaly new unit with a separate set of rules. But who knows, maybe those guants are going to get an unexpected buff like DA termis.

Breton, you have yet to provide any explanation for why Eradicators are regularly showing up in tournament-winning lists while SWS, which you so strongly insist are just as good, don't.

Do you claim to know some secret truth that all the tournament players are missing?

Karol wrote:

The problem I was referring to was moving bonus attacks from actions (i.e charging, two weapons) to the weapons (choppa, chainsword, etc) themselves and later to army wide rules (i.e Shock/Hateful assault). That just killed Hormugants. Hopefully soon GW will backtrack the XXXXXX-Assault rules, and come up with a world-wide replacement for Charging/etc instead of Army Specific.

I don't think that if GW has put down a rule set for multiple loyalist marine armies, it is wise to expect that the books after those are suddenly going to incorporate a big paradigma shift in design on a core rule level, for at least another 1-2 years. You can hope to get really powerful rules or combos, that can happen to any army, often without GW intention , but the stuff we see in the sm codex and the SW/DW supplements is the stuff to be expected in other books and supplements. It doesn't have to be the same quality of rules or the same power, but GW is not suddenly going to decide to switch. they are sooner, with lets say a new model kit, put out a totaly new unit with a separate set of rules. But who knows, maybe those guants are going to get an unexpected buff like DA termis.

Oh I agree, we're far too early in 9th for it to be this edition. I'm hoping they fix it in 10th. "Soon" is relative I guess. But they need to roll back Shock/Hateful and tweak the units or the core rules to get Fight oriented units of all armies those attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
Breton, you have yet to provide any explanation for why Eradicators are regularly showing up in tournament-winning lists while SWS, which you so strongly insist are just as good, don't.

Do you claim to know some secret truth that all the tournament players are missing?

Because Marines regularly show up in Tournament lists and Guard doesn't? Because Guard have a better option? Because Marines and Guard have different build paradigms and priorities for different slots and such?

Breton wrote:
Funny, I've been told overloading a target bucket adds to durability. Now it doesn't. Imagine my surprise.

And I have no idea what a "target bucket" is. But you're probably misinterpreting the idea, all other things being equal.

Hecaton wrote:

Breton wrote:
Funny, I've been told overloading a target bucket adds to durability. Now it doesn't. Imagine my surprise.

And I have no idea what a "target bucket" is. But you're probably misinterpreting the idea, all other things being equal.

Having a bunch of the same stat line targets. I.e. Making the repulsor more durable by taking a bunch of them, or taking other T7/T8 Dreads and vehicles and such. But I totally didn't see you try and lace that personal attack while admitting you didn't know what the concept was.

Breton wrote:
Because Marines regularly show up in Tournament lists and Guard doesn't? Because Guard have a better option? Because Marines and Guard have different build paradigms and priorities for different slots and such?

In other words, because Eradicators are very powerful, and SWS are not.