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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Lightning Claws look ideal. +2 Attacks and rerolling to wound, if I'm not mistaken.

The problem with those is few units get to carry a lot of them and you lock into a melee presence, so if you're not WS / BT you will struggle to use them as effectively. Even WS will have trouble - normally their 5 VV could kill 8.6 Primaris on turn 3 ( 4.3 otherwise ). Against DG that is 2.6.

I would consider HOGC on Redemptors or Reapers or twin asscans if you're an old mariner.

Well I'm seeing that two VVs or Terminators with LCs deal about the same damage as the TL-Assault Cannons, and it looked like the context was trying to push them odd/defend objectives. Plus the LCs in combat can fight in the opponents turn. Presumably there's some Strat/Litany support that'll help there too.

I mean, it's 40K so why not use both options. . .

ccs wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

ccs wrote:
Like I said, if I can kill a DG, I can kill a SM.

It's less efficient...

Wouldn't you 1st need to know what I'm killing DG with before you claim that?

I would need examples from ~10 codexes. For Necrons it seems like a big difference.
Maybe you have random damage values.

 Bosskelot wrote:
People complaining about how inefficient your units become at killing DG is like, duh, no gak. That's the point.

Necrons and DG are armies that force you to overcommit in terms of points and resources into killing them. That's what being a durable army means. If you can trade evenly and win wars of attrition with armies like that then the design of the army has failed and it becomes non-functional.

Now, whether DG's weaknesses are enough to counterbalance this is another matter entirely. However, their lack of speed, lack of particularly great shooting outside of one specific unit and being a melee army with like 0 bonuses to charges, along with generally weak faction secondaries, do seem like a substantial detriment. Mortarion is a weird one too since I've had a few very good DG players believe he's a trap and think taking lists without him is stronger.

But is speed really a problem for DG, when they run 2-3 mini blenders, mortarion and teleport termintors on to objetives. I guess pox walkers and PMs are slow, specially if they don't have rhinos. But a lot of DG armies don't even bother with taking multiple units of plague marines.

And Mortarion maybe a trap for specific match ups in tournaments, but in store games, there is a bunch of armie that can't deal with him no matter what they take. So the fact that he can die if you play a specific list with a specific army doesn't help a lot of people. On top of that DG do have a mortarion less version of their list too, that is also a good list.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

ccs wrote:
Like I said, if I can kill a DG, I can kill a SM.

It's less efficient...

Wouldn't you 1st need to know what I'm killing DG with before you claim that?

I would need examples from ~10 codexes. For Necrons it seems like a big difference.
Maybe you have random damage values.

And yet you claimed it anyways.

Some random damage, not much (at least not aimed at infantry). For the most part my Necrons just throw whole lot of str.5/AP.-2 to -3 D1 shots at them.
With a little bit of melee to clean up as needed.
Same as I do against virtually any other foe. Works fine.

I claimed and still claim it because often times lots of D1 attacks has a drawback.
The Claw wraiths (S6 D2) and whip wraiths (S4 D1) is just one example of many. Cutting back on skorpekh destroyers is another one.
That does not mean D1 is not competitive/viable.

It has been said that Necrons are among the best suited to dealing with DG, which would explain ccs' confusion, but not the tone.

There might be other armies then Necrons who can handle DG and Marines with the same List. I would need more data.

1 example seems able-ist

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

Spoiler:

ccs wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Manchild 1984 wrote:

ccs wrote:
Like I said, if I can kill a DG, I can kill a SM.

It's less efficient...

Wouldn't you 1st need to know what I'm killing DG with before you claim that?

I would need examples from ~10 codexes. For Necrons it seems like a big difference.
Maybe you have random damage values.

And yet you claimed it anyways.

Some random damage, not much (at least not aimed at infantry). For the most part my Necrons just throw whole lot of str.5/AP.-2 to -3 D1 shots at them.
With a little bit of melee to clean up as needed.
Same as I do against virtually any other foe. Works fine.

I claimed and still claim it because often times lots of D1 attacks has a drawback.

Yeah, the drawback is that they aren't D2 or D3.
I suppose you could claim my reapers range 12" as a drawback.... But I rather think that's nicely offset by them being assault.2, S5, & AP-2.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
The Claw wraiths (S6 D2) and whip wraiths (S4 D1) is just one example of many.

The main disadvantage of the whips (other than being S4) is they're a PITA transport wise....

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
Cutting back on skorpekh destroyers is another one.

As I don't like melee in 40k. I don't build melee focused lists. So I don't see the drawback in cutting back on these. Or cutting them out.
Any unit of skorpehks I'd use would just eat into pts/elite slots better spent on any # of Elites that I do like.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
That does not mean D1 is not competitive/viable.

Yeah that's my point. But without even knowing what weapon or army I'm running you still claimed it was inefficient.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Thats more of an edition problem. Mortarion is one of, if not the most, durable single models in the game, is also a psycher, and a beatstick in melee, with a load of debuffing auras he can apply.

As a comparison, the Ares gunship is at a similar points level, is not any harder to kill (easier actually), is not a psycher, has no melee, cannot hold objectives, and only does reliable damage to models without an invunerable save. It does move faster, but only because it can only pivot 90 degrees before it moves.



Looking at the above, mortarion is obviously a much better unit to have in your army against almost any target. The ares can however one shot him.

Please stop comparing units from two entirely different armies based solely on points value. Mortarion is powerful, yes, possibly even too powerful, but the reason we have different armies in this game is so they can be good at different things. If someone showed me a 7-point Tau melee unit and started whining to me that it was worse than a Bloodletter, I would laugh at them. Mortarion can afford to be better at resilience and melee than the Ares, because that's literally the point of him being a Death Guard character with a giant scythe.

Also, I don't know the stats for the Ares, but I would imagine the big shooty gun on the front may be able to output a teensy bit more damage than Mortarion's pistol. So that's a win for the Legio Janitoris there.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Thats more of an edition problem. Mortarion is one of, if not the most, durable single models in the game, is also a psycher, and a beatstick in melee, with a load of debuffing auras he can apply.

As a comparison, the Ares gunship is at a similar points level, is not any harder to kill (easier actually), is not a psycher, has no melee, cannot hold objectives, and only does reliable damage to models without an invunerable save. It does move faster, but only because it can only pivot 90 degrees before it moves.



Looking at the above, mortarion is obviously a much better unit to have in your army against almost any target. The ares can however one shot him.

Call me crazy but I ran the math on a Ares vs. Morty back when morty first dropped and I almost quit. The ares needs a LOT to go right to one shot Morty. Like, all shots have to wound, all wounds have to fail their saves, and a majority of the unsaved wounds have to fail a 5+++. Also all damage is reduced, so yeah. It's like saying a BA intercessor SGT with TH CAN one shot a knight, but it requires a sliver of god luck, and a ton of CP.

In all honesty there really isn't anything that can one shot morty with his saves and auras. Even a Shadowsword needs two rounds with it's BS of 4+. And that has the stongest gun in the game, unless you count the Relic Shokk gun.

 Manchild 1984 wrote:
CEO Kasen got my drift. I will try to explain:

In the Necron codex: a D1 weapon with 2x attacks often time has a drawback to a D2 weapon with one attack.

So..
D1 is perfect against W1 and ok-ish for others (see wraiths)
D2 is bad-ish vs W1 and perfect vs W2 and bad vs DG
D3 is really bad against W1 and bad against W2 and perfect against DG.

So... are wraiths with claws better then whips?

From having gotten some games in with my DG I'm very sure that you are overlooking the first one. D1 weapons with good S6 or better, decent ROF and AP-1 or 2 are great against DG. Assault cannons or the gatling redemptor are a massive PITA for my DG as they reliably grind down my units and I don't have ton of models on the board to keep taking casualties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ArcaneHorror wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:Morty and PBC are OP. That is about it.

Mortarion is very powerful, but I've read that he can go down very quickly with dedicated firepower, dying in the first or second round.

Can confirm, while mines has not lived to see turn 3 even once. He does take a lot more conventional firepower to kill, but meltas, mortal wounds, or d3+3 damage guns go through him like butter. As more codices get updated to 9th, I'm fairly sure that these kind of guns will get more common.

Not really.

On average, it takes 77 Multi-Melta shots at half range (with no re-rolls) to kill Morty with Miasma. (or, in other words, 77 Multi-Melta shots to have a slightly larger than 50% to kill him, though variance could still go against them). 86 Multi-Melta-shots if you cannot fit them into that sweet half-range.

Most armies cannot take that many Melta / equivalents, simply due to the rule of 3 (never mind skewing so hard, that it just becomes a silly skew-list and no unable to take on other armies).

It's certainly doable to kill Morty, but similar to the old Castellan nor Broviathan, a single model distorting the meta so hard just isn't healthy.

On the topic of the ares... is that model actually considered to be decent?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Not really.

On average, it takes 77 Multi-Melta shots at half range (with no re-rolls) to kill Morty with Miasma. (or, in other words, 77 Multi-Melta shots to have a slightly larger than 50% to kill him, though variance could still go against them).

Variance is the thing. One shot gets through and sudden one third of his life is gone. Miasma is also rather unreliable, considering that you're almost always in deny range.
It's also worth noting that my math comes up to 40 MM shots to kill him on average. My experience says that an army with sufficient anti-tank usually manages to down him within two turns.

Most armies cannot take that many Melta / equivalents, simply due to the rule of 3 (never mind skewing so hard, that it just becomes a silly skew-list and no unable to take on other armies).

I'd argume that most armies cannot take those weapons because only 9th edition codices and some imperial factions have a lot of them.

It's certainly doable to kill Morty, but similar to the old Castellan nor Broviathan, a single model distorting the meta so hard just isn't healthy.

Many DG players aren't even running him, how is can he be that distorting?

Most armies cannot take that many Melta / equivalents, simply due to the rule of 3 (never mind skewing so hard, that it just becomes a silly skew-list and no unable to take on other armies).

It's certainly doable to kill Morty, but similar to the old Castellan nor Broviathan, a single model distorting the meta so hard just isn't healthy.

Most armies aren't even 9th edition compliant so they do not really count at this point. GW changed the game drastically in 9th and very few non-9th edition armies have a chance at anything. So the problem is more that GW's approach to release schedule of codices isn't healthy. Sadly it has been like that for the past 9 editions more or less and it ain't going to change anytime soon I think. You have to take into account that a lot of armies are getting their multi-damage weapons boosted(like Dark Lances going to 3+d3 damage) and that is the future going forward.

Many DG players aren't even running him, how is can he be that distorting?

A lot of people are mathhammering and not getting any games so my guess is that a lot of people are having unrealistic ideas about him. Only time will tell and after a lot of games will we be able to assess how powerful he really is.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Not really.

It's certainly doable to kill Morty, but similar to the old Castellan nor Broviathan, a single model distorting the meta so hard just isn't healthy.

Indeed, and would add that the 4++ save is a problem when the DG spikes good on the invul rolls, in terms of "feel bad" moments, especially for new players who who don't necessarily know the drill (the drill being that GW will nerf the problematic unit, in this case Morty, pretty soon, or give him a 100 point increase like the castellan got back in the days).

I play DA, and I think the temrinators will also get the nerf bat treatment in a not too distant future (or just a nerf to the "sit on the objective all day" secondary, or just a nerf to the super apothecary). Saturday I just felt really bad for the sista player shooting at my dudes on killing two, one getting back up every turn with super apothecary. These levels of durability are not very healthy for the game right now. Perhaps if an arms/durabilty race starts off these levels of durability will not seem very problematic, but that means the rest will just get evaporated, and we will have another problem

You think so? Whenever I play my DG against DA the "sit on objective" secondary is one of the main reasons why they lose. You just need to contest once to reduce it to 4VP.

 Flipsiders wrote:

Spoiler:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Thats more of an edition problem. Mortarion is one of, if not the most, durable single models in the game, is also a psycher, and a beatstick in melee, with a load of debuffing auras he can apply.

As a comparison, the Ares gunship is at a similar points level, is not any harder to kill (easier actually), is not a psycher, has no melee, cannot hold objectives, and only does reliable damage to models without an invunerable save. It does move faster, but only because it can only pivot 90 degrees before it moves.



Looking at the above, mortarion is obviously a much better unit to have in your army against almost any target. The ares can however one shot him.

Please stop comparing units from two entirely different armies based solely on points value. Mortarion is powerful, yes, possibly even too powerful, but the reason we have different armies in this game is so they can be good at different things. If someone showed me a 7-point Tau melee unit and started whining to me that it was worse than a Bloodletter, I would laugh at them. Mortarion can afford to be better at resilience and melee than the Ares, because that's literally the point of him being a Death Guard character with a giant scythe.

Also, I don't know the stats for the Ares, but I would imagine the big shooty gun on the front may be able to output a teensy bit more damage than Mortarion's pistol. So that's a win for the Legio Janitoris there.

Why would you not compare 2 units that have similar points cost when by doing so you can tell they obviously are not equal to each other in power on the table?

Does being part of the Death Guard codex put Mortarion on such a low floor that he has to outpreform a similarily priced unit from the Custodes Codex?

Yes Imperium has more available gimmicks than the Death Guard codex, but that does nothing to disprove the fact that Mortarion is more than 33% more durable than the ares, and is useable in EVERY phase of the game instead of just one.

If you feel mortarion is appropriatly costed (and he might be), then it seems that the ares is a bit overcosted atm. Deathguard is also almost a 100% hardcounter to custodes though so mabey im just salty.

 Eihnlazer wrote:

Spoiler:

 Flipsiders wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Thats more of an edition problem. Mortarion is one of, if not the most, durable single models in the game, is also a psycher, and a beatstick in melee, with a load of debuffing auras he can apply.

As a comparison, the Ares gunship is at a similar points level, is not any harder to kill (easier actually), is not a psycher, has no melee, cannot hold objectives, and only does reliable damage to models without an invunerable save. It does move faster, but only because it can only pivot 90 degrees before it moves.



Looking at the above, mortarion is obviously a much better unit to have in your army against almost any target. The ares can however one shot him.

Please stop comparing units from two entirely different armies based solely on points value. Mortarion is powerful, yes, possibly even too powerful, but the reason we have different armies in this game is so they can be good at different things. If someone showed me a 7-point Tau melee unit and started whining to me that it was worse than a Bloodletter, I would laugh at them. Mortarion can afford to be better at resilience and melee than the Ares, because that's literally the point of him being a Death Guard character with a giant scythe.

Also, I don't know the stats for the Ares, but I would imagine the big shooty gun on the front may be able to output a teensy bit more damage than Mortarion's pistol. So that's a win for the Legio Janitoris there.

Why would you not compare 2 units that have similar points cost when by doing so you can tell they obviously are not equal to each other in power on the table?

Does being part of the Death Guard codex put Mortarion on such a low floor that he has to outpreform a similarily priced unit from the Custodes Codex?

Yes Imperium has more available gimmicks than the Death Guard codex, but that does nothing to disprove the fact that Mortarion is more than 33% more durable than the ares, and is useable in EVERY phase of the game instead of just one.

If you feel mortarion is appropriatly costed (and he might be), then it seems that the ares is a bit overcosted atm. Deathguard is also almost a 100% hardcounter to custodes though so mabey im just salty.

I would accept the idea that the Ares is probably overcosted, given what you've said about it already. It's certainly overpriced. On the other side, Mortarion may require some work in updates as well to make him less annoying, although I'm unconvinced. My only real issue is that comparing the Ares to Mortarion doesn't prove either of these points, since the two units serve entirely different roles in armies that only somewhat play the same in the first place. I would at least rather compare Mortarion to another psyker, or the Ares to a vehicle. DG units should be more durable than Custodes units, at least when comparing units with equivalent roles. Even then, though, this comparison doesn't help, because (again, from what I understand of the Ares), Mortarion is a build-around AOE character who buffs your guys and debuffs the other ones, while the Ares is a big flying damage-dealer which points at specific models and makes them disappear. They simply serve different roles.

Again, I agree with your underlying point, but these sorts of comparisons fly around Dakka constantly and frankly I'm a bit sick of them.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Why would you not compare 2 units that have similar points cost when by doing so you can tell they obviously are not equal to each other in power on the table?

One is a 9th edition army, one is an 8th edition army.
One is a codex entry, one is from the FW book which has most of its contents at a barley playable level.
One is a named supreme commander LoW, the other a flyer aircraft.
One is a melee beatstick, the other is mobile long range ordnance.

Yes Imperium has more available gimmicks than the Death Guard codex, but that does nothing to disprove the fact that Mortarion is more than 33% more durable than the ares, and is useable in EVERY phase of the game instead of just one.

The ares can kill units turn one, Mortarion cannot. The ares moves 50", Mortarion 12". The areas does not have to roll to gain -1 to hit. The ares can have its damage and durability improved by various stratagems and auras, Mortarion has a single stratagem that increases his melee damage by up to 3 mortal wounds. The ares can use shield host stratagems, Mortarion cannot use plague fleet stratagems. The ares The ares cannot be charged by most units. The ares can drop bombs.

That's not even in the ballpark of apples to oranges anymore. You are literally complaining about your screwdriver being bad at hammering in nails.

 Jidmah wrote:
You think so? Whenever I play my DG against DA the "sit on objective" secondary is one of the main reasons why they lose. You just need to contest once to reduce it to 4VP.

Stubborn defiance gives 2 VP for 2 consec turns (consec command phases to be precise), 3 VP for 3 consec t, 5 for 4 consec t, and finally 5 for 5.

To "reduce it to 4 vp" as you said means that the DG player interrupted the sequence after two consec command phases, then the DA player recaptured the objective with the same unit... A highly unlikely scenario... Jid, I don't mean to question you grasp on 40k rules, which I know from previous threads is pretty tight, probably even more so than my grasp on 40k rules, but you sure your opponent played it right ?

I don't think DG is great for shooting 5 ob sec DWing termies off the objective (especially with the ancient who can buff their resistance with the -1 damage, and the super apoc who can also pitch in). I don't think many (any ?) "meta" armies can do this. Harlequins perhaps ? Ad mech can shoot hard, Tau also, but hard enough ?

I might be wrong on this, but as far as I know, it works like this:

He starts on the objective, so first command phase it's his.
Second turn he scores 2VP for it for holding it 2 command phases.
Third turn is usually when my terminators/DP/mortarion reach that objective and I go all out on shooting and stratagems to make sure I at least contest it. So 0VP.
In turn 4 he he often than not has taken it back, 0VP
If in turn 5 there is still something standing on the objective (there usually is), that's two consecutive turns for 2VP again.

Edit: Ok, googled for an image of the rule - it has to be one and the same unit with obsec holding that objective. My opponent has been playing it wrong.

That does make it even worse though, doesn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 addnid wrote:
I don't think DG is great for shooting 5 ob sec DWing termies off the objective (especially with the ancient who can buff their resistance with the -1 damage, and the super apoc who can also pitch in). I don't think many (any ?) "meta" armies can do this. Harlequins perhaps ? Ad mech can shoot hard, Tau also, but hard enough ?

You can fight them off, and there are quite a few things that can put a bunch of mortal wounds on them, my favorite ones are the biologus putrifier and curse of the leper combined with gift of nurgle. Exploding poxwalkers also do a number on them.

Compared to what hoops orks need to jump through against them, killing DA terminators is a trivial matter for DG.

Why would you not compare 2 units that have similar points cost when by doing so you can tell they obviously are not equal to each other in power on the table?

Mostly because Mortarion and the Ares are like the latest models being incomparable in a long line of model not having 1-to-1 comparison.

There are ton of 5 points models that are not equal to each other, just as there are ton of 6 point models not being equal to each other, and so on and so on.

We also have a ton of things that are overcosted that usually just means the unit gets disregarded by players until it gets updated. Stompas ain't being played much, but nobody is going around arguing that all the units in the game are overpowered because Stompas are honestly gak. So the problem is more likely that the Ares gunship is overcosted and a bad datasheet and needs a revisit.

Regarding Mortarion being overpowered I'd rather see real life data from actual matches than comparing two different datasheets from two completely different armies. If Mortarion becomes the dominant force of evil in the meta then he needs to cost more and so on and so on.

Then there is also the fact that 8th edition codexes are at a huge disadvantage to 9th edition codices, so if you are having issues with Mortarion just wait until you encounter Codex: Space Marines.

I don't think DG is great for shooting 5 ob sec DWing termies off the objective (especially with the ancient who can buff their resistance with the -1 damage, and the super apoc who can also pitch in). I don't think many (any ?) "meta" armies can do this. Harlequins perhaps ? Ad mech can shoot hard, Tau also, but hard enough ?

Maybe not shooting, but exploding poxwalkers will make mincemeat of most things.

Exploding poxwalkers can be made to fight on only one rank with the DA strat, but deathsrouds putting out MW on 6s to wound (with biologus putrifier) can really do a number on DA termis (on anything really).
Curse of the leper combined with gift of nurgle is 3 or 4 MWs, yeah that is ok but not anything completely earth shattering.

Perhaps playing a chaplain with the 5+++ against mortal wounds bubble has some play (I know we have 6 inch 6+++ bubbles with RW apoth and Dw apoth)

Mortarion is a very powerful model (as he should be at 500 points +1 CP + various opportunity costs), but he can be countered.

I have seen him going down turn 1 against TAC lists without any kind of skew, just because the DG player putted him too forward. Maybe that he could use a cost increase, but it is too early to tell.

Also, why exactly is it bad that a model that costs as much as him doesn't one round him at range? A model to be killed at range requires between 3 and 4 times his cost in shooters. To kill Mortarion you require between 3.1 and 3.8 are shooting at it, depending on miasma. Seems fair.

Spoletta wrote:
Mortarion is a very powerful model (as he should be at 500 points +1 CP + various opportunity costs), but he can be countered.

I have seen him going down turn 1 against TAC lists without any kind of skew, just because the DG player putted him too forward. Maybe that he could use a cost increase, but it is too early to tell.

Also, why exactly is it bad that a model that costs as much as him doesn't one round him at range? A model to be killed at range requires between 3 and 4 times his cost in shooters. To kill Mortarion you require between 3.1 and 3.8 are shooting at it, depending on miasma. Seems fair.

Slavic chicken says "proofs please".

What's a turn 1 TAC list that can whomp him in 1 turn? And where do you get the 3.1-3.8 numbers? I mean, if that was true I would be a fan of it (and in general, I'm a fan of reducing lethality in the game). But strong shooting is typically getting much better efficiency than that today. Mortarion should be tough and I'm glad he's tough, but he's kind of in a league of his own (not in the Broviathan sense or anything, just that he's far more durable; and the Ares comparisons are silly, it is nowhere near as durable as he is in any meaningful sense.)

Mortarion is 18 Wounds at T8 3+/4++/5+++ and -1 Damage.

So it takes...

11 wounds at d6 damage to kill him.
6 wounds at d6+2 damage to kill him.
7 wounds at d3+3 damage to kill him.
27 wounds at D1 or D2 to kill him.

In other words, it takes, at BS3+...

66 Krak Missiles or Melta (outside half range) shots.
50 Lascannon shots.
36 Melta shots in half range.
42 Dark Lance shots.

Increase those numbers by one third to account for Miasma.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Mortarion is a very powerful model (as he should be at 500 points +1 CP + various opportunity costs), but he can be countered.

I have seen him going down turn 1 against TAC lists without any kind of skew, just because the DG player putted him too forward. Maybe that he could use a cost increase, but it is too early to tell.

Also, why exactly is it bad that a model that costs as much as him doesn't one round him at range? A model to be killed at range requires between 3 and 4 times his cost in shooters. To kill Mortarion you require between 3.1 and 3.8 are shooting at it, depending on miasma. Seems fair.

Slavic chicken says "proofs please".

What's a turn 1 TAC list that can whomp him in 1 turn? And where do you get the 3.1-3.8 numbers? I mean, if that was true I would be a fan of it (and in general, I'm a fan of reducing lethality in the game). But strong shooting is typically getting much better efficiency than that today. Mortarion should be tough and I'm glad he's tough, but he's kind of in a league of his own (not in the Broviathan sense or anything, just that he's far more durable; and the Ares comparisons are silly, it is nowhere near as durable as he is in any meaningful sense.)

The one I saw was a DA list. Mortarion got nailed by a combination of PlasmaCeptors, Psy mortal Wounds, Smashchaplain and a couple of termie units shooting/assaulting.

That DA list was as TAC as you can get, but if you really expose a model to the full brunt of shooting, psy and melee phases of an entire army, you are going to bite the dust. Sure, if you play a monophase shooting army... sorry for your loss.

3.1 or 3.8 Ares are just the mathammer results of the averages.

I think the main issue with them is just that the game launched with D2 being very important and then quickly pivoted to it be kind of worthless.

 LunarSol wrote:
I think the main issue with them is just that the game launched with D2 being very important and then quickly pivoted to it be kind of worthless.

No, it's just not as effective against DG, that's all.

Spoletta 796596 11070024 wrote:

The one I saw was a DA list. Mortarion got nailed by a combination of PlasmaCeptors, Psy mortal Wounds, Smashchaplain and a couple of termie units shooting/assaulting.

That DA list was as TAC as you can get, but if you really expose a model to the full brunt of shooting, psy and melee phases of an entire army, you are going to bite the dust. Sure, if you play a monophase shooting army... sorry for your loss.

3.1 or 3.8 Ares are just the mathammer results of the averages.

Well the thing is that not all armies have a genius melee, psychic and shoting phase at the same time. Plus nailing him with MW is not that easy, he can dispel like two incoming powers, and his +4 FnP really does a number on regular weapons.