Switch Theme:

Prediction Time  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




for what its worth (i.e. not much) as a former IG footslogger player, ork footslogger player and nid hungry horde buffet player I really welcomed the removal of blast templates..

yes in theory my poor gribbles took more hits from "d6" hits over a circular disc but by gods the game got faster both to resolve shooting but because there was now no need to worry too much how the models inside a blob were positioned

also on the elite/non elite bit.. keep in mind you can have a model thats elite or a unit thats elite, and frankly if the moons align and the point values work out they are equal

for me "elite" should be more "this unit has more options as to how it can act" where as non-elite should be more limited in what it can do - i.e. sort of make it reflect training and flexibility
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




leopard wrote:
for what its worth (i.e. not much) as a former IG footslogger player, ork footslogger player and nid hungry horde buffet player I really welcomed the removal of blast templates..

yes in theory my poor gribbles took more hits from "d6" hits over a circular disc but by gods the game got faster both to resolve shooting but because there was now no need to worry too much how the models inside a blob were positioned

also on the elite/non elite bit.. keep in mind you can have a model thats elite or a unit thats elite, and frankly if the moons align and the point values work out they are equal

for me "elite" should be more "this unit has more options as to how it can act" where as non-elite should be more limited in what it can do - i.e. sort of make it reflect training and flexibility


That sums it up for me in far fewer words, thank you.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




tneva82 wrote:
So iron hands atm 2nd wr % with 55.. Dark angels 53. Rest below 50. Combined marines 45. Lowest wr with blood angels.

Yep. All those free guns sure broke the game.

From last weekend on Goonhammer's Page.

CROSS-SWORDS GT:
1: Dark Angels
2: Space Wolves
3: Drukhari
4: Salamanders

Bastion Games Ulster Warlords 2.0: Wrath of Angels GT:
1:Chaos Marines
2: Space Marines
3: GSC
4: Death Guard

Torneo The Guild León GT:
1: Iron Hands
2: Chaos Knights
3: Imperial Knights
4: Imperial Knights

2 1st place finishes out of 3, 2 2nd place finishes out of 3.

From the weekend prior (used this website: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/10pxeec/meta_monday_13023_arks_of_omen_eventsthe_new_meta/)
Bembel Clash 6: DA got 4th place
Da Bolton Waaagh 2023: Grey Knights, Space Wolves and Iron Hands took first-third. Another IH player got 5th.
DZTV 40K GT Dark Angels got 2nd and Grey Knights 3rd, another DA player came in 5th.
Oxford Onslaught Custards and 2 grey knights lists took 3rd - 5th
UCG’s Galaxy In Grasp V: Iron Hands took 1st.
Zlobr GT 2023: IH took 4th
Winter War 2.0 DA took 1st

The worst Marines did in ANY event they listed was 4th place. But yeah, Marines definitely aren't doing well and aren't starting to run away with tournaments just like I predicted they would. Lets just focus on W/L rate because that is a better metric for how broken a factions top lists can be.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Nobody was taking them when Manlet Marines only had W1, so the notion about W2 changing anything is wrong.


...Umm...Orkz were running horde armies of 120-180 Boyz in 8th. Our best build in 7th was Greentide of 100-300 Boyz. 4th-6th the adage was "Boyz before Toyz". So wtf are you actually talking about? Orkz literally just stopped taking boyz in 9th because the rules for them are trash and the math is bad against our most common opponent...SM. Even with the "buff" to 8ppm Ork boyz instead of 9ppm the math still doesn't pan out edition to edition. The cost to kill a Marine in CC went up from 18pts killing 15pts to 32pts to kill 18pts. So those Ork boyz lost 40%+ of their combat effectiveness against Marines, that is why they fell off in popularity.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

make damage spread like in AoS and then marines will feel tougher maybe?

a damage 2 shot would kill one marine but two guardsmen, instead of 1 of each for example


Congrats, D3+3 weapons just became some of the best anti-horde/infantry weapons in the game. Hey, why are players spamming plasma/Lascannons/Melta more than ever? Oh, its because its better at everything than every other type of weapon.

No thanks.



 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in gb
Ridin' on a Snotling Pump Wagon






Just needs a keyword.

   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just needs a keyword.


yeah, with the rumors of toughness being gone except for heavily armored stuff, a keyword seems like a no brainer

"anti-tank : damage from this weapon does not spread but it is able to wound heavily armored units" or something
   
Made in fr
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot




 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just needs a keyword.


Classic GW: make a rule that works badly, then make some additional rules to modify the basic rule for all the many situations where it needs to be changed. That's how you know the rumor is probably true.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Aecus Decimus wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just needs a keyword.


Classic GW: make a rule that works badly, then make some additional rules to modify the basic rule for all the many situations where it needs to be changed. That's how you know the rumor is probably true.


Nah, adding keywords to the game would actually help tremendously. Make dedicated anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons, that way you don't get lasguns wounding tanks and meltas being the best TAC weapon types
   
Made in fr
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot




 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Aecus Decimus wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just needs a keyword.


Classic GW: make a rule that works badly, then make some additional rules to modify the basic rule for all the many situations where it needs to be changed. That's how you know the rumor is probably true.


Nah, adding keywords to the game would actually help tremendously. Make dedicated anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons, that way you don't get lasguns wounding tanks and meltas being the best TAC weapon types


You don't need keywords and special rules for that, you just go back to the original to-wound table.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







I do think adding some keywords to weapons (and relic versions of weapons) would be of benefit, if only to streamline certain special rules that could reference them.

BOLT, for instance, or LAS or HOT-SHOT, just to think of examples from the SM or IG books - I'm sure people can think of others.

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Dysartes wrote:
I do think adding some keywords to weapons (and relic versions of weapons) would be of benefit, if only to streamline certain special rules that could reference them.

BOLT, for instance, or LAS or HOT-SHOT, just to think of examples from the SM or IG books - I'm sure people can think of others.


Bolt
Flamer
Melta
Assault
Sniper
Blast
Shuriken
Poison
Plague
Malefic

are all "keywords" in the game right now off the top of my head
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Can't speak for Shuriken, Poison or Malefic, as they're in books I don't own (Eldar, Dark Eldar, and CSM respectively, right?)

Using the latest IG book's reference table, there's no sign of a keyword for Bolt, Flamer, Melta or Sniper. Page 144 goes so far as to explain what counts as a Las or Hot-Shot weapon, rather than just simply give them a damn keyword.

Plague Weapon sort of works, too, though I'm amused that in the Death Guard book there's a paragraph saying, if you'll allow me to paraphrase, "When we refer to Plague Weapons, we mean any weapon with the Plague Weapon ability."

Assault and Blast might qualify, to be fair, though Assault being a type muddies the waters a bit.

All I'm saying is that we have the space in weapon profiles to have a Keyword column. Blast and Plague Weapon could migrate there easily enough, Bolt/Las/Hot-Shot/Flamer/Melta/Plasma can all sit in there too, etc.

You don't then need the paragraphs of copy explaining when a weapon is a certain type in some of the books - in the rules that reference them you can just say "a weapon (or Relic) with the XXXX keyword" instead, and it is a lot tidier.

We're using Keywords (and Faction Keywords) for units - why not use them for weapons, too?

I'm 50/50 on whether I'd want to shunt more special rules to sit behind keywords - I can see advantages and disadvantages either way.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/08 17:21:23


2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






 Dysartes wrote:
Can't speak for Shuriken, Poison or Malefic, as they're in books I don't own (Eldar, Dark Eldar, and CSM respectively, right?)

Using the latest IG book's reference table, there's no sign of a keyword for Bolt, Flamer, Melta or Sniper. Page 144 goes so far as to explain what counts as a Las or Hot-Shot weapon, rather than just simply give them a damn keyword.

Plague Weapon sort of works, too, though I'm amused that in the Death Guard book there's a paragraph saying, if you'll allow me to paraphrase, "When we refer to Plague Weapons, we mean any weapon with the Plague Weapon ability."

Assault and Blast might qualify, to be fair, though Assault being a type muddies the waters a bit.

All I'm saying is that we have the space in weapon profiles to have a Keyword column. Blast and Plague Weapon could migrate there easily enough, Bolt/Las/Hot-Shot/Flamer/Melta/Plasma can all sit in there too, etc.

You don't then need the paragraphs of copy explaining when a weapon is a certain type in some of the books - in the rules that reference them you can just say "a weapon (or Relic) with the XXXX keyword" instead, and it is a lot tidier.

We're using Keywords (and Faction Keywords) for units - why not use them for weapons, too?

I'm 50/50 on whether I'd want to shunt more special rules to sit behind keywords - I can see advantages and disadvantages either way.


you misunderstood what i meant, theyre not keywords but they already behave like them

(well, shuriken, blast, poison, plague, malefic are keywords but are treated as abilities, so same difference really)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/08 17:49:39


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






leopard wrote:

for me "elite" should be more "this unit has more options as to how it can act" where as non-elite should be more limited in what it can do - i.e. sort of make it reflect training and flexibility

^^^THIS too!

In pre 8th (well, pre 7th for an important bit of this), my Marines had a few more options available to them. The Sweeping Advance mechanic after breaking a unit in combat meant that they could take on lesser troops of much greater numbers by engaging favorably in Assault and then wiping them out for big gains. Additionally, every Marine could use their Krak Grenades in CC with Vehicles, meaning a squad of Marines could do some excellent AT work if I got them there. Both of those options made them feel like absolute badasses. Just 5 Bolter Marines could make a serious impact if they were in the right place and rolling decent.

Also, just pinning things in CC was immensely valuable, and Marines with ATSKNF did that very well.

No Strats, no fancy gear, none of that. Just 5, run-of-the-mill, basic Marines.

On top of that, the Flamer was actually great against hordes back then too, so you could be further equipped for anti-horde in an effective way.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/08 19:49:39


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in de
Morally-Flexible Malleus Hearing Whispers




leopard wrote:
for me "elite" should be more "this unit has more options as to how it can act" where as non-elite should be more limited in what it can do - i.e. sort of make it reflect training and flexibility


Brilliant!
   
Made in mx
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan




Mexico

The issue is how to make that into something that isn't just "kill more" or "I ignore core rules".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/08 21:44:55


 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





Dudeface wrote:

So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.


Is an 8 point model equal to an 18 point model? You seriously asked that question and want to stick to the pendantic reading to cherry pick the inequalities as opossed to a squad of equal points Guardians and Marines? I see you're still looking for the "spirit of discussion".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Nah, adding keywords to the game would actually help tremendously. Make dedicated anti-tank and anti-infantry weapons, that way you don't get lasguns wounding tanks and meltas being the best TAC weapon types


I'd use the Aircraft approach as a guide. Coexisting on the same board but rarely interacting. Add a second stat band for tanks/vehicles T11-20 for example. Add a Size (or whatever you want to call it stat) to weapons and models. Size 3 (MultiMelta) vs Size 3 (Chaos Landraider) hits on normals. Size 3 (Multi-melta) vs Size 2 hits on less. Say cumulative -2 to hit or only hits on 5's - just as an example actual effect needs testing and more thought - Size 3 vs Size 1 only hits on 6's Meanwhile the Bolter is Size 1, S4 and can't scratch the paint on T20. Pistols and Melee get two profiles, vs Infantry and vs Vehicles sort of. Make the big guns incredibly ineffective vs man sized - this makes tough man sized still tough because anti-tank can't be repurposed against them - and make the man sized guns ineffective against vehicles - this makes vehicles tougher because only the anti-tank stuff really has a shot at them, while preserving their vulnerability to up close sabotage and big guns. As mentioned Close Combat, pistols and some of the hybrid weapons (Missile launchers with dual profile, Grav Cannon and a few others from each faction that can be fluffed as dual purpose) should get rules and/or dual profiles towards versatility/backups.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/09 08:15:05


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Breton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.


Is an 8 point model equal to an 18 point model? You seriously asked that question and want to stick to the pendantic reading to cherry pick the inequalities as opossed to a squad of equal points Guardians and Marines? I see you're still looking for the "spirit of discussion".

It wasn't a question. It's perfectly obvious they're not the same, stop trying to argue they are the same.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Breton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.


Is an 8 point model equal to an 18 point model? You seriously asked that question and want to stick to the pendantic reading to cherry pick the inequalities as opossed to a squad of equal points Guardians and Marines? I see you're still looking for the "spirit of discussion".

The reason they asked is because it seems like you don't understand the discussion. This entire strand is about eliteness, so the relative power of one model versus another is precisely the point, which you seem to be unable to grasp. I don't know why you keep focusing on equal points as that has nothing to do with what's being discussed.
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 vict0988 wrote:
Breton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.


Is an 8 point model equal to an 18 point model? You seriously asked that question and want to stick to the pendantic reading to cherry pick the inequalities as opossed to a squad of equal points Guardians and Marines? I see you're still looking for the "spirit of discussion".

It wasn't a question. It's perfectly obvious they're not the same, stop trying to argue they are the same.


Its also perfectly obvious people don't generally run one Guardian vs one Tactical Marine, that those models are taken in units with a points/power system, and a unit of Guardians vs a roughly equal points unit of Marines are in fact somewhat equivalent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slipspace wrote:
Breton wrote:
Dudeface wrote:

So... no then, a guardian isn't the equal of a marine.


Is an 8 point model equal to an 18 point model? You seriously asked that question and want to stick to the pendantic reading to cherry pick the inequalities as opossed to a squad of equal points Guardians and Marines? I see you're still looking for the "spirit of discussion".

The reason they asked is because it seems like you don't understand the discussion. This entire strand is about eliteness, so the relative power of one model versus another is precisely the point, which you seem to be unable to grasp. I don't know why you keep focusing on equal points as that has nothing to do with what's being discussed.


The relative power of one model that isn't taken as one model? Does the Datasheet say 1-10? Do armies take X number of models or X number of points worth of models? Sure, if the Marine player takes 30 Intercessors and a Captain so the Ork player is limited to 30 boys and a Warboss the Marines will feel and even BE elite, but that's not the same points level is it? Even if you follow the same restrictions of troops + 1 HQ, the Ork player is going to have closer to 60 boys won't he? What's to grasp here? People want Space Marines to play as elite in a scenario they're not supposed to, then use a scenario we don't play to show that they.. actually are elite in the scenario we don't play?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/10 03:57:25


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

If you need three models to equal one other model, and the one model is three times the points of the three, they're balanced.
But the one model is more elite.

Eliteness is not a measure of how overpowered or underpowered a unit is.

Edit: Thread for the tangent.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/10 04:51:55


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Guardian Defenders and Tactical Marines are equivalent in that they are both infantry with firearms. In every other way they are different. Using points efficiency as a measure of eliteness is completely bogus. Points shouldn't even feature into the discussion since a unit can have an unfairly high or low pts cost because of a typing error or a fairly low or high cost because of a design choice (maybe you want Space Marines to run transports or you want Space Marines not to spam FW units).

SM have 2 wounds T4 3+ Sv each and 2 S4 attacks on the charge as well as WS/BS 3+. That's all the proof you need to show they are elite compared to a 1 wound T3 Sv 4+/5+ unit with 1 S3 attack.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/10 07:22:23


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Stud or Snotling 2023: Marines finished 1, 5 and 6.

Northern Wastes VIII: Marines finished 2nd

Beachhead Brawl 2023: Marines finished 1st and 3rd.


Out of 5 reported events (So far) from last weekend Marines took 1st in 2 of them.



 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





 vict0988 wrote:
Guardian Defenders and Tactical Marines are equivalent in that they are both infantry with firearms.
And the inconic troops unit, and obsec, and a host of other things they have in commmon.

In every other way they are different. Using points efficiency as a measure of eliteness is completely bogus. Points shouldn't even feature into the discussion since a unit can have an unfairly high or low pts cost because of a typing error or a fairly low or high cost because of a design choice (maybe you want Space Marines to run transports or you want Space Marines not to spam FW units).
I don't make the points so what I want isn't relevant - meanwhile points are, because without them you're not getting either model on the table. You're both hiding and basing your Evalution on points efficiency. It Marines were 40 points a model, nobody would call them elite. That low or high cost can also affect the Marine - thus why I point out equivalent Points values and why theoretical discussions include the theoretical "world" not the hypothetical one. In theory everything is balanced against each other on a razor's edge. In a hypothetical world the units that disprove your theory don't count.

SM have 2 wounds T4 3+ Sv each and 2 S4 attacks on the charge as well as WS/BS 3+. That's all the proof you need to show they are elite compared to a 1 wound T3 Sv 4+/5+ unit with 1 S3 attack.

And for roughly the same points you get two wounds of (assorted) Eldar Guardians, one that shoots about as well, and one that chops even better.

Let me try this a different way - the models in the game are abstracts. Even a given unit isn't necessarily an accurate representation of the faction has a whole. Poxwalkers for example aren't very beefy, but Deathguard as a faction are. To decide if a faction is elite you have to look at the entire abstract. Meaning you have to look at the Poxwalkers and the Deathshroud Terminators (or what have you). You have to look at the force multiplication heroes, and the beat sticks, and so on. (assuming it was legal) An army of just Captains is pretty beefy. Apothecaries wouldn't be very strong, but an army of Apothecaries, Aggressors and Eradicators would be. They added CORE mechanics because the "weakest" Primarch in a 1v1 Brother-vs-Brother match was upsetting the apple cart when he had his mates around him. One model in isolation is frequently not a measure of the faction as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
SemperMortis wrote:
Stud or Snotling 2023: Marines finished 1, 5 and 6.

Northern Wastes VIII: Marines finished 2nd

Beachhead Brawl 2023: Marines finished 1st and 3rd.


Out of 5 reported events (So far) from last weekend Marines took 1st in 2 of them.




What I'm hearing is the faction estimated as 40-50% of the players won 40% of the events.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/14 04:31:34


My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Wikipedia on abstract art wrote:Strictly speaking, abstract art refers to art unconcerned with the literal depiction of things from the visible world—it can, however, refer to an object or image which has been distilled from the real world, or indeed, another work of art. Artwork that reshapes the natural world for expressive purposes is called abstract; that which derives from, but does not imitate a recognizable subject is called nonobjective abstraction.


If we use art terminology 40k rules are abstract but they should not be nonobjective abstraction, 40k rules should be derived from the fluff of 40k and the miniatures produced by GW. That means that a Guardian Defender and a Tactical Marine should not have the same rules, for example if you were to try to represent your Space Marine army using the Eldar codex you'd have a hard time because the stat lines aren't based on the fluff and miniatures Space Marines have. When Space Marines have 2 wounds it's representing them having 2 hearts and being huge, it's an abstract way of doing so because a single lasgun shot to the eyesocket could probably kill a Space Marine in the fluff and the model isn't large enough to demand having multiple wounds, but it's representing the miniatures and the fluff of Space Marines abstractly. Using the rules of Guardian Defenders to represent Tacticals wouldn't work because 1W T3 5+ Sv does not fit the fluff of Space Marines, so even if the points efficiency of the two units where the same, the experience of playing them is different because they have different strengths and weaknesses.

We are not talking about which factions are elite or which army lists are unique, that's you derailing the conversation. You are never going to convince anyone that a Grot is elite or that a green tide is an elite list, because what people are looking at is stats for individual models and number of models for lists, not win rate or points efficiency, increasing the points costs of Space Marines would make them more elite in some people's eyes because armies with them would contain fewer models. The only person who would consider a competitive 7th edition SM list with 100 Marines + 10 vehicles more elite than a casual 9th edition list with 40 gravis Marines is you.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







Any chance y'all can keep the "elite" discussion in that other thread, and let this one be kept for results and/or discussion of the results.

Semper - how large were those events, and what proportion of players in each event were playing a Codex: Space Marines army?

2021-4 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My Pile of Potential - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...

tneva82 wrote:
You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something... 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




 Dysartes wrote:
Any chance y'all can keep the "elite" discussion in that other thread, and let this one be kept for results and/or discussion of the results.

Semper - how large were those events, and what proportion of players in each event were playing a Codex: Space Marines army?


It ran out of steam after evidence was requested and none provided, so they've come back here to peddle the same crap.
   
Made in us
Resolute Ultramarine Honor Guard





Dudeface wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
Any chance y'all can keep the "elite" discussion in that other thread, and let this one be kept for results and/or discussion of the results.

Semper - how large were those events, and what proportion of players in each event were playing a Codex: Space Marines army?


It ran out of steam after evidence was requested and none provided, so they've come back here to peddle the same crap.


You keep lying about what other people are doing. Bodes well for the strength of your arguments. New Post, I saw two new ones to reply to, which is why there are two different quote replies there.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in gb
Crazed Spirit of the Defiler




SemperMortis wrote:
Spoiler:
Stud or Snotling 2023: Marines finished 1, 5 and 6.

Northern Wastes VIII: Marines finished 2nd

Beachhead Brawl 2023: Marines finished 1st and 3rd.


Out of 5 reported events (So far) from last weekend Marines took 1st in 2 of them.



Well played on the early Space Marine prediction. Are you worried about World Eaters? They seem really strong to me into other melee factions. Attack one unit, it fights on death. Attack two, they fight on death one, interrupt with the other. Their secondaries seem a bit too "just doing what you were going to do" as well.
   
Made in fi
Locked in the Tower of Amareo





So codex sm 47%. Woo. Mighty broken.

2024 painted/bought: 109/109 
   
Made in gb
Gore-Drenched Khorne Chaos Lord




Extra kick there for Semper, paraphrasing slightly as I cba to skip backwards: "Orks should be able to build a fun niche shooty list but it shouldn't be their strongest or go-to option, we want them in there bashing people with a choppa. If Ork shooting is considered the way forwards then we've done it wrong." - 40k design team
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: