Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dire avengers got a point reduction in their codex. And gardians got a lot of strategem support and special rules. Tacitcals have now been elevated to worst unit in the game.

Pretty sure power armor GKs are worse.

not at all man - they are one of the best power armor units in the game. The come with a storm bolter and a force weapon for 21 points. And they deep strike for free.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dire avengers got a point reduction in their codex. And gardians got a lot of strategem support and special rules. Tacitcals have now been elevated to worst unit in the game.

Pretty sure power armor GKs are worse.

not at all man - they are one of the best power armor units in the game. The come with a storm bolter and a force weapon for 21 points. And they deep strike for free.

Not setting the bar very high, but they are OK. Top ranking GK lists have more astra militarum units than power armor units.

Our codex is a 1 trick pony, of: Deep strike 10 pagk, use the stratagem & psychic powers, and fire 40x strength 5, ap-1 shots, ignoring cover and LOS, with some rerolls. Outside of this gimmick you get little out of GK that you can't get in another codex with another army.

21 pts for a unit that has to get close? I'll pass. You're still 1 W, T4, 3+. You just give up 8 more points when the wyverns lay waste to your unit.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tactical marines are identical to devestators. Devs can just take more heavies. They don't have to take 4 and it's much more common to take 2. In a competitive list. It's even better with just 1 heavy weapon because for free you get a signum which makes it bs 2+ and a 5 point upgrade lets you shoot it twice (one time use) with cherub. There is 0 reason to take tactical squads in marine lists. Even less reason to take them when you have guilliman spotting you the command points from a battalion.

They don't have obsec and don't generate as many CP as tacs.

Obj sec doesn't matter vs horde lists. CP can be useful, though, for sure.

Bharring wrote:
Sylagistically, appeal to authority is not provably true. Hence the 'Logical Fallacy' aspect.

For evidence, as opposed to proofs, it is relevant data.

This means, when you're trying to show something it's valid. When you're trying to prove something, it's not.

If a doctor tells you "Don't take medicine X. It will kill you", it doesn't *prove* that medicine X will kill you. But it does provide sufficient evidence for most cases that medicine X will kill you.

The difference between proofs and evidence is both huge and critical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer,
This toxicity is what kills communities. I spent (second half of) 6th and all of 7th saying Eldar OP. But I didn't agree with some of the crazier positions

Things like a termie with an AC being weaker than a jetbike with a scatter laser, model-for-model).

Or CWE Rangers being midelessly broken.

Or Banshees being OP because their pistols having pseudorending.

(All actual conversations that went on).

I did say Eldar were OP. I was very direct about it. But if you label everyone who disagrees on the more extreme points as an Eldar Apologist, you can't have a rational discussion. You can't refine just how OP they are, or which units are actually broken.

If you truly believe anyone that thought that 6th ed Banshees weren't OP on their own can't have a valid opinion, it's going to be hard to have a constructive conversation.

Nobody said that Banshees were broken or OP, but that their shooting made them more effective vs targets they shouldn't even want to charge, which math showed was the case against Terminators, a 2+ armor save unit. That was even with using Black Templar Chapter Tactics too so I gave them all Counter Attack. As well, Assault Cannon Terminators are weaker per model because that's 60 points compared to 27.
I don't know what happened with Rangers so I cannot comment.

Also only one doctor telling you that a medicine will kill you might sound like a correct metaphor, but I've got two that'll knock your socks off.
This is more comparable to dentists instead. Remember that marketing campaign that said 9/10 dentists say chewing Trident Gum helps fight plaque buildup after a meal? While that was more a marketing strategy, studies DID show that chewing sugarless gum after a meal did do this. Those 9 dentists have multiple sets of data that provide proof of this. It's a reliable method. What we have with this winning list is the one dentist that disagrees and maybe did one study to back his/her claim, and then another study will be conducted showing theyre wrong.
If you want a more specific example relating to actual doctors, I got you covered as well. Everyone knows that the whole anti-vaccine movement was the work of a quack doctor that wanted to sell his own home remedies and make money, but did you know we still have studies that "pop up" now and then that try to support his claim? These are refuted for a reason.

That's why I go by large amounts of data. This happens once in a while, and sometimes even twice. It's just an off piece of data though. Nothing more and nothing less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dire avengers got a point reduction in their codex. And gardians got a lot of strategem support and special rules. Tacitcals have now been elevated to worst unit in the game.

Pretty sure power armor GKs are worse.

not at all man - they are one of the best power armor units in the game. The come with a storm bolter and a force weapon for 21 points. And they deep strike for free.

They're good. Nothing spectacular but decent mostly because of the Deep Strike off setting any initial mobility issues, as well the fact they can switch into Falcions to give you what is basically a 2 attack Marine with a Storm Bolter and better melee abilities. A real great example of a glass cannon.

 koooaei wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tactical marines are identical to devestators. Devs can just take more heavies. They don't have to take 4 and it's much more common to take 2. In a competitive list. It's even better with just 1 heavy weapon because for free you get a signum which makes it bs 2+ and a 5 point upgrade lets you shoot it twice (one time use) with cherub. There is 0 reason to take tactical squads in marine lists. Even less reason to take them when you have guilliman spotting you the command points from a battalion.

They don't have obsec and don't generate as many CP as tacs.

I havnt had a game in 8th come down to victory points - probably about 20 games now. I hear stories about it though. It's just not very important. More las cannons is more dead stuff. The more of the enemy you kill the less they can kill you/claim objectives. Marines with bolters don't do this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I never said they were the best unit - just one of the best in power armor.

Martel732 wrote:
21 pts for a unit that has to get close? I'll pass. You're still 1 W, T4, 3+. You just give up 8 more points when the wyverns lay waste to your unit.

Yes you're right, mono-Grey Knights are not competitive in the slightest bit. The codex did basically nothing to help GK compete as a stand-alone army. Sprinkle some GK in, with Astra Militarum, and you'll do OK.

I am pretty much at the point of giving up on Grey Knights. We got our codex, and we still can't cut it. We won't see any new models, abilities, powers, etc, until 9th edition. This has been hugely disappointing.

Yes, I understand the temptation to say that power armor GK are better than tacs, but in practice, I don't think the stormbolter and power weapon are worth it. Every 10 cleared wounds are costing you over 200 pts, and you don't have the option to cower in cover.

Fun fact: a Tac Marine killed the same number of Termies as a Banshee inside 12", per model. Twice the shots vs twice as deadly per shot. More if they had SS/TH. You probably were either not part of that conversation, or not remembering it. Same thing for the AC Termie conversation, which was per-model: it was proposed rules where they were the same points per-model.

As for the dentists, you're conflaiting proof with evidence again. Studies provide evidence, not proof. Reliable evidence, done well.

Consuming large amounts of data requires time and expertise. Hence why I ask a doctor for any medical question. This appeal to authority is more in line with that than panels and studies: people are making claims, and other people are pointing to those with a greater record of knowing what they're talking about (tourny winners) making a counterclaim.

Tourny winners aren't a proper board of experts for debating the merits for large amount of data. But they are a set of people who, most likely, understand what they should take to a tourny better than the average forum poster.

If one person runs numbers on (non rigerous) data (and isn't peer reviewed), but his conclusions don't match those of people who have had success "in the field", you don't discount either theory, you investigate further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marines with Bolters don't kill things off objectives as fast as other things. Marines with specials clear most things off objectives about as fast as many glass-cannon troops, but that's half the quesiton.

The other half, which you seem to miss, is that Marines with Bolters are harder to clear off objectives than the average troop. And, while being cleared off, don't lose much firepower until the last 1-3 guys.

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, I understand the temptation to say that power armor GK are better than tacs, but in practice, I don't think the stormbolter and power weapon are worth it. Every 10 cleared wounds are costing you over 200 pts, and you don't have the option to cower in cover.

No they are worth it - if you have a choice between tacs and PAGK youd take a PAGK everytime. For 2 points you also get a heavy 6 str 4 d3 damage gun too - so there is that. Again I am not saying greyknights are good. GW made sure were wern't good by over-costing out stratagems and making immediate erratas to our stuff that was considered good. The army suffers from the core rules not allowing the whole army to strike as one...you know - kind of like an army would ALWAYS be doing in a real tactical situation. It's totally okay for your whole army to be shooting over mountains on turn 1 though without line of site. It's just another bias as fck edition.

Well, given how fast my power armor units die, I respectfully disagree. I'll cower in cover with my lascannon.

Bharring wrote:

The other half, which you seem to miss, is that Marines with Bolters are harder to clear off objectives than the average troop.

You got on this giant rant about samples, and nonsense, and then make a statement like this.

1. Establish what an average troop statline is.

2. Demonstrate mathematically that they're harder to clear, or to outnumber (as outnumbering troop for troop will get them off of the objective).

I can think of several troop choices in the meta that are far more effective at what you've described than tactical marines.

"Marines with specials clear most things off objectives about as fast as many glass-cannon troops, but that's half the quesiton. "

They also cost a prohibitive amount of points.

"The other half, which you seem to miss, is that Marines with Bolters are harder to clear off objectives than the average troop."

Not for their cost. Just call in basilisks/wyverns. Problem solved.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm also saying that this kind of list is not accessible to BA or SW, and probably will never be. So those factions get to line up and die like little bitches because they can't plow through the 200 geq bodies without being manticored off the table.

Just wait for Sanguinus and Leman Russ.

We Xenos, don't have nor are we gonna have something equivalent to a Primarch

 Galas wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm also saying that this kind of list is not accessible to BA or SW, and probably will never be. So those factions get to line up and die like little bitches because they can't plow through the 200 geq bodies without being manticored off the table.

Just wait for Sanguinus and Leman Russ.

We Xenos, don't have nor are we gonna have something equivalent to a Primarch

I guarantee Sanguinius gives CC buffs, which will be T-totally useless in 8th. Chopping conscripts harder doesn't help.

the part i seem to miss is why would i even shoot at a unit as worthless as 5 tacticals with a single las cannon. its damage per point is pathietc. I think I'll shoot the strom raven first and then start focusing on your razorbacks. which are also fairly easy to kill with the right weapons...you know...the weapons I'm talking about - not bolters.

That's why I went with average, instead of most. I think Tacs are better than most troops, but only better than average at being cleared off.

Some gimmes:
Definitely Harder to clear off:
Conscripts
Guards
Necron Warriors

Definitely easier:
Kroot
Dire Avengers
Wyches
Harlequins
Scouts, sans-Cloak
Rangers
PAGK
Kalabites
Genestealers

There are some debatable/close troops (Fire Warriors, scouts in cover with cloaks, etc), but I'm confident the second list is longer than the first.

You don't shoot at them. They're just there to stop people dumb enough to try to do melee and push deepstrikers away from the Bobby G bullet party. Their main feature is that they die half as fast against wyverns and other AP 0 stuff. Without cover, this scheme loses a lot of appeal.

"Genestealers "

Not if you're getting shot with plasma.

Martel732 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm also saying that this kind of list is not accessible to BA or SW, and probably will never be. So those factions get to line up and die like little bitches because they can't plow through the 200 geq bodies without being manticored off the table.

Just wait for Sanguinus and Leman Russ.

We Xenos, don't have nor are we gonna have something equivalent to a Primarch

I guarantee Sanguinius gives CC buffs, which will be T-totally useless in 8th. Chopping conscripts harder doesn't help.

I assume hes going to be a mega beast...just like russ is going to be. You will have a reroll to hits aura I am sure and maybe a 12 inch reroll charge aura. Will be better than Bobby G in CC though. Which is kinda scary to think off.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm also saying that this kind of list is not accessible to BA or SW, and probably will never be. So those factions get to line up and die like little bitches because they can't plow through the 200 geq bodies without being manticored off the table.

Just wait for Sanguinus and Leman Russ.

We Xenos, don't have nor are we gonna have something equivalent to a Primarch

I guarantee Sanguinius gives CC buffs, which will be T-totally useless in 8th. Chopping conscripts harder doesn't help.

I assume hes going to be a mega beast...just like russ is going to be. You will have a reroll to hits aura I am sure and maybe a 12 inch reroll charge aura. Will be better than Bobby G in CC though. Which is kinda scary to think off.

As I said, useless.

I'm still shocked that people say marines in cover are "cowering" instead of, you know, the actual correct attitude, that marines in cover are showing good tactical sense-- even if you're wearing armor, you present as little of yourself to the enemy as possible any way in order to maximize survival, while trying to ensure the enemy cannot do the same thing.

But I guess people think Marines are fething idiots who just walk up and present their faces to be shot. That does explain a lot of peoples' sucking with marines, though.

@Martel
Which troops are better (per point) than the appropriately-kitted Tac squad at clearing things off objectives?

Fire Warriors will do better at clearing out T4 not-great-armor-saves, typically, than the Tac version (with flamers), I think.

Guardians do a little better vs 2+ saves with high T, but they die much, much faster per point, and do precisely 0 outside 12".

PG/Combi does better than Kalabites or DAs at clearing Termies or other heavy infantry, though.

Melta/Combi will do better at popping vehicles than Conscripts/Guardsmen/FW/etc.

Xenos,
If you had a bunch of lasguns, or other small arms, would you really choose hard targets like Razorbacks over the suggested Dev Squads? Marines are durable, but not *that* durable (to small arms).

Compared to Orks, gaunts, guardsmen, and conscripts that can walk across the board with impunity, yeah, it's cowering. Especially for a chapter like BA, who are supposedly aggressive. Even though they haven't been viable since 5th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
@Martel
Which troops are better (per point) than the appropriately-kitted Tac squad at clearing things off objectives?

Fire Warriors will do better at clearing out T4 not-great-armor-saves, typically, than the Tac version (with flamers), I think.

Guardians do a little better vs 2+ saves with high T, but they die much, much faster per point, and do precisely 0 outside 12".

PG/Combi does better than Kalabites or DAs at clearing Termies or other heavy infantry, though.

Melta/Combi will do better at popping vehicles than Conscripts/Guardsmen/FW/etc.

Xenos,
If you had a bunch of lasguns, or other small arms, would you really choose hard targets like Razorbacks over the suggested Dev Squads? Marines are durable, but not *that* durable (to small arms).

Firewarriors for sure, because they don't have to move as far and cost far less. They also get to cower in cover, more than likely.

I'm not that familiar with this "clearing objective" capability, because my marines are dead before they really get to do much clearing. After seeing this winning list, I understand now what I've been doing wrong.

The special/combi duo ends up making your 5 marines cost so many points is the problem. And they get laid waste to after firing, what, once?

 Melissia wrote:
I'm still shocked that people say marines in cover are "cowering" instead of, you know, the actual correct attitude, that marines in cover are showing good tactical sense-- even if you're wearing armor, you present as little of yourself to the enemy as possible any way in order to maximize survival, while trying to ensure the enemy cannot do the same thing.

But I guess people think Marines are fething idiots who just walk up and present their faces to be shot. That does explain a lot of peoples' sucking with marines, though.

I was picturing more chest bumps, high fives, and keg stands myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To the people who are saying that the only way the list worked was because of Rowbootay Gillaman, what do you they credit him with doing that is so irreplaceable?

This might sound like a stupid question, but you guys obviously know marines better than I do, so I'm trying to make sure I understand.

Bharring wrote:
That's why I went with average, instead of most. I think Tacs are better than most troops, but only better than average at being cleared off.

Some gimmes:
Definitely Harder to clear off:
Conscripts
Guards
Necron Warriors

Definitely easier:
Kroot
Dire Avengers
Wyches
Harlequins
Scouts, sans-Cloak
Rangers
PAGK
Kalabites
Genestealers

There are some debatable/close troops (Fire Warriors, scouts in cover with cloaks, etc), but I'm confident the second list is longer than the first.

Hummm...nope. This is a vacum example. Harelquins are going to be -1 to wound because of a spiritseer and they have 4+ saves - they also are exceptionally killy and might pay for themselves during the game. Genstealers are going to have catalysts for 5++5++ save - they are also cheap and have 4 attacks each with rending in close combat - they pay for themselves the first turn they come on the board usually (and they would never hold an objective anyways - they are just going to keep charging units) Rangers are straight up harder to remove than tacticals...they all have long range weapons and are suited to camp ojectives (they still suck though) kabalites are going to be in a venom - it's -1 to hit and has invo save...its hard to kill. Scouts also suck but they can infiltrate and when necessary can cost less to do the same job poorly. Witches are terrible but if they are locked in CC with a unit on an objective (which is their design) they are much harder to clear than a tactical squad because you can't shoot them. Kroot are bad I'll give you that - their plight isn't nearly as bad because firewarriros a pretty decent and they have great synergy with their HQ. Kroot are actually worse than tactical marines it seems.

Martel - I said per point.
The combi/special does cost points, but it tends to boost the killing power. So you can choose between more survivability (more bodies) and more killiness (more guns).

The math last edition was combi/pg 5man cost the same as 7 DAs. Now combi/pg 5man costs the same as 5 DAs, combis are better, plasma is better, melta is better in some ways, and split weapons are better.

Try clearing Tac Marines off an objective with Kalabites sometime. I don't think it'll work out the way you think it will.

No one where I play is using Kalabites. They are using mass IG artillery. Or bobby G, but with not as many screening crap units, which might be why they aren't quite as good. There is one guy with Bobby G/conscripts though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Martel - I said per point.
The combi/special does cost points, but it tends to boost the killing power. So you can choose between more survivability (more bodies) and more killiness (more guns).

The math last edition was combi/pg 5man cost the same as 7 DAs. Now combi/pg 5man costs the same as 5 DAs, combis are better, plasma is better, melta is better in some ways, and split weapons are better.

Try clearing Tac Marines off an objective with Kalabites sometime. I don't think it'll work out the way you think it will.

I don't care about Eldar troops. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about cheap bodies that basically don't give up any points when they die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'm still shocked that people say marines in cover are "cowering" instead of, you know, the actual correct attitude, that marines in cover are showing good tactical sense-- even if you're wearing armor, you present as little of yourself to the enemy as possible any way in order to maximize survival, while trying to ensure the enemy cannot do the same thing.

But I guess people think Marines are fething idiots who just walk up and present their faces to be shot. That does explain a lot of peoples' sucking with marines, though.

I was picturing more chest bumps, high fives, and keg stands myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To the people who are saying that the only way the list worked was because of Rowbootay Gillaman, what do you they credit him with doing that is so irreplaceable?

This might sound like a stupid question, but you guys obviously know marines better than I do, so I'm trying to make sure I understand.

No, it also worked because stormravens are really good, and so are asscannon razors. Lascannons are good, too, but this list didn't really have that many of those. Bobby G is the ultimate sheriff; hey babysits all the guns, allowing them to reroll everything and if something does it close enough to assault, he murders it instantly. Marines can obviously roll with the captain/lieutenant combo, which is about half as good for about half the cost. I guess I'm gonna base future lists off this, although I don't own a single asscannon razor. I'l probably use preds instead.

Rangers? Harder to remove than Tacs? In cover, they might approach it per-model (remember: T3 and poor save). Out of cover, nowhere close. But they cost a hell of a lot more, per model, than Marines.

Harlequin ShadowSeers aren't free. Further, a 4++ is nice against Lascannons and such, but until you have a -2 or -3 (in cover) on every shot, Marines are still much more survivable per model. Even with a ShadowSeer, Harlequins will typically be less durable than Marines. And, again, Marines are cheaper.

Of course Harlequins and Genestealers are better in CC. It's what they were made for. The immediate discussion was about being called out for claiming marines were better than *average* at not being cleared off an objective. Both are much, much worse. Overall, I'd put Harlequins in about the same league as Tac Marines. But not for ability to stay on an objective.

why are we talking about troops ability to clear things off of objectives...why are we talking about objecitves - they are almost irrelevent in 8th. the games are over in 3 turns.

2 things in this game matter. Damage per point and defense per point. Number of wounds and number of shots are the most valueable things in the game because the force multiply the best.

Like imagine if guilliman was an AM unit...realistically...gaurd armies would kill you in 2 turns almost automatically. Put that in a marine list though and it takes 3-4 turns.

I use CWE as examples the most, because I'm most familiar with the numbers.

I'm quite confident that a PG/Combi Tac squad will outperform Guardsmen at clearing Tacs off an objective.

Bharring wrote:
Rangers? Harder to remove than Tacs? In cover, they might approach it per-model (remember: T3 and poor save). Out of cover, nowhere close. But they cost a hell of a lot more, per model, than Marines.

Harlequin ShadowSeers aren't free. Further, a 4++ is nice against Lascannons and such, but until you have a -2 or -3 (in cover) on every shot, Marines are still much more survivable per model. Even with a ShadowSeer, Harlequins will typically be less durable than Marines. And, again, Marines are cheaper.

Of course Harlequins and Genestealers are better in CC. It's what they were made for. The immediate discussion was about being called out for claiming marines were better than *average* at not being cleared off an objective. Both are much, much worse. Overall, I'd put Harlequins in about the same league as Tac Marines. But not for ability to stay on an objective.

rangers are -1 to hit and have +2 cover save...i mean...why would anyone shoot at that. You conceal them and they are -2 to hit. That's how you hold a freaking objective man.

@Xeno,
The one match I know the results of from the top list in the tourny, the winner did table an AM player. But the troops (lascannons) were an incredible part of that.

Does anyone know the frequency at GTs with which games end with a tabling?

Bharring wrote:
I use CWE as examples the most, because I'm most familiar with the numbers.

I'm quite confident that a PG/Combi Tac squad will outperform Guardsmen at clearing Tacs off an objective.

Not if they're dead. Guardsmen aren't there to clear anything. They're there to buy time for the big guns to table you. Troops in general are there to buy time. So which troops give you the best coverage and buy you the most time? Not marines. They are good enough in this case because 72 asscannon shots rerolling everything removes the opposition really fast.

You keep trying to have marines DO things. That's not how 8th works. That's why marines are just expensive liabilities. Liabilities you can mitigate by cowering in cover and using 48" standoff weapons. Combis and plasmas and meltas don't matter. They never will in 8th. A melta just makes your guy give up more points when he dies.

So lets shoot at some Rangers and some Marines. In cover.

Everyone's favorite Boltgun!

vs rangers: (1/2) hit x (2/3) wound x (1/3) failed saves
: 1 die per 9 shots

vs Marines: (2/3) hit x (1/2) wound x (1/6) failed saves
: half a guy dies per 9 shots.

So best case, to small arms, Rangers die TWICE as fast. But that's ok. They cost less than *twice as much*.

You can add a Warlock, but that's 35 points, and can't Conceal anything else on the board. And they still die faster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guardsmen and Conscripts are troops that meatshield, and that's about it.

If you can't get Tacs to do things, use AM, Necrons, or Tyranids. Others have found ways to make Tacs do things.

Bharring wrote:
@Xeno,
The one match I know the results of from the top list in the tourny, the winner did table an AM player. But the troops (lascannons) were an incredible part of that.

Does anyone know the frequency at GTs with which games end with a tabling?

Well - these are time limited games so it's going to happen a lot less frequently than it happens when my friends play. We play the same missions though. So it's got to be something like 50% of games are ended by table or time limit. The real question that you should be asking is - how many games a decided by an objective secured unit?

 Marmatag wrote:

Are you for real with this? That list is 100% dependent on Guilliman. Only Ultramarines can run an army anything like this. Are you suggesting that Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and any other successor chapter can get the same mileage out of tactical marines as Ultramarines can, with Guilliman?

Quit being disingenuous for 5 seconds and really think about it.

Any chapter using Codex Space Marines can get a Chapter Master and Lieutenant for fewer than 160 points. For the cost of Guilliman, you can get Chapter Master, Lieutennant, and two more Razorbacks. Doing that, you even knock off the requirement of buying further HQs to get your Battalion, if that's what you're going for. If you're using the Salamanders Tactics, your Tactical Squads get the Guilliman buff for their Lascannons for free.

So yeah. It's a book with a crapload of options, and thinking that this is the only viable build would be really, really unimaginative.

"Well - these are time limited games so it's going to happen a lot less frequently than it happens when my friends play. We play the same missions though. So it's got to be something like 50% of games are ended by table or time limit. The real question that you should be asking is - how many games a decided by an objective secured unit?"

I know how two games ended in that tourny, but only two games:
-In one, Tac Lascannons did the bulk of the damage to 3 Baneblades, which resulted in a T4 tabling. So an ObSec unit won the game.
-In the other, an ObSec unit grabbed the relic early and brought it back to their side. So an ObSec unit won the game.

"If you can't get Tacs to do things, use AM, Necrons, or Tyranids. Others have found ways to make Tacs do things."

I don't let other people's tacs do things to me,either. This is not a phenomenon limited to just me in my experience. I regularly tabled tac heavy lists until they got gladius, and of course, lists like this in 8th.

I don't think tacs do anything remotely like what you claim against savvy and knowledgeable opponents. Scrubs, sure, They'll let you melta tacs walk right up to the shiny Russ and smoke it. Good players aren't even going to let your guys get to 12". They will physically prevent it from being a move you can legally make. You have no choice in the matter. Their movement phase dictated how it plays out.

This is why the lascannon tacs are the best in 8th Your opponent can't take the lascannon out of the equation by just moving. The shield of bodies doesn't matter when you are shooting past it. Now they have to at least move to get their mooks in double tap range.

And it's easier to prevent most of the other troops in the game from getting in range than it is to prevent Tacs.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Are you for real with this? That list is 100% dependent on Guilliman. Only Ultramarines can run an army anything like this. Are you suggesting that Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and any other successor chapter can get the same mileage out of tactical marines as Ultramarines can, with Guilliman?

Quit being disingenuous for 5 seconds and really think about it.

Any chapter using Codex Space Marines can get a Chapter Master and Lieutenant for fewer than 160 points. For the cost of Guilliman, you can get Chapter Master, Lieutennant, and two more Razorbacks. Doing that, you even knock off the requirement of buying further HQs to get your Battalion, if that's what you're going for. If you're using the Salamanders Tactics, your Tactical Squads get the Guilliman buff for their Lascannons for free.

So yeah. It's a book with a crapload of options, and thinking that this is the only viable build would be really, really unimaginative.

I think it's a template for one of the few viable builds. Weapons other than lascannons for tacs are either a) too short in range b) don't kill big stuff hard enough. The fire base is going some reroll aura thing buffing the most cost effective option. I don't own asscannon razors, so I am basically hosed. I realize this now. But don't act like there a lot of viable options for marines in 8th.

Bharring wrote:
So lets shoot at some Rangers and some Marines. In cover.

Everyone's favorite Boltgun!

vs rangers: (1/2) hit x (2/3) wound x (1/3) failed saves
: 1 die per 9 shots

vs Marines: (2/3) hit x (1/2) wound x (1/6) failed saves
: half a guy dies per 9 shots.

So best case, to small arms, Rangers die TWICE as fast. But that's ok. They cost less than *twice as much*.

You can add a Warlock, but that's 35 points, and can't Conceal anything else on the board. And they still die faster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Guardsmen and Conscripts are troops that meatshield, and that's about it.

If you can't get Tacs to do things, use AM, Necrons, or Tyranids. Others have found ways to make Tacs do things.

your math is wrong - should be 1/3 failed saves for the rangers because they have a 3+ save in cover. conceal is also a bubble so if I so desired I could have some dark reapers hanging behind sharing that -1 to hit bubble. I agree that rangers suck - but they also serve a purpose - which gives them the edge over tacticals. It will also be interesting to see the itaolic rangers because they are going to have a -1 to hit army trait.

Bharring wrote:
And it's easier to prevent most of the other troops in the game from getting in range than it is to prevent Tacs.

But they don't need to get in range. They are just buying time for the big guns to table the marines. Conscripts can do their job with NO WEAPON AT ALL. Yes, Eldar troops suck at being troops in 8th. Sorry. Your codex will probably fix this. Coming soon: 5 pt Dire avengers.

Martel732 wrote:

No, it also worked because stormravens are really good, and so are asscannon razors. Lascannons are good, too, but this list didn't really have that many of those. Bobby G is the ultimate sheriff; hey babysits all the guns, allowing them to reroll everything and if something does it close enough to assault, he murders it instantly. Marines can obviously roll with the captain/lieutenant combo, which is about half as good for about half the cost. I guess I'm gonna base future lists off this, although I don't own a single asscannon razor. I'l probably use preds instead.

Okay. What about the chapter master/lieutennant combo? That's even closer to identical. Only thing it lacks is the murderness of Bobbute, and you could probably still make him mean enough to hurt in a pinch.

 daedalus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

No, it also worked because stormravens are really good, and so are asscannon razors. Lascannons are good, too, but this list didn't really have that many of those. Bobby G is the ultimate sheriff; hey babysits all the guns, allowing them to reroll everything and if something does it close enough to assault, he murders it instantly. Marines can obviously roll with the captain/lieutenant combo, which is about half as good for about half the cost. I guess I'm gonna base future lists off this, although I don't own a single asscannon razor. I'l probably use preds instead.

Okay. What about the chapter master/lieutennant combo? That's even closer to identical. Only thing it lacks is the murderness of Bobbute, and you could probably still make him mean enough to hurt in a pinch.

I forgot about that, because I don't get those. I only get Dante, who is super overcosted. Yeah, so marines can mimic it better than BA. Go figure. Also, Bobby G is a faster than a regular captain, so if you do need to move, the bobby g party moves faster.

 daedalus wrote:

To the people who are saying that the only way the list worked was because of Rowbootay Gillaman, what do you they credit him with doing that is so irreplaceable?

This might sound like a stupid question, but you guys obviously know marines better than I do, so I'm trying to make sure I understand.

It's hard to replace re-rolls to wound. However, IMO it's not hard to make up for it with 360 points of more stuff.

Guilliman is also a combat monster, although I'm not sure how much that played into this tournament. It would be interesting to find out.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Are you for real with this? That list is 100% dependent on Guilliman. Only Ultramarines can run an army anything like this. Are you suggesting that Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and any other successor chapter can get the same mileage out of tactical marines as Ultramarines can, with Guilliman?

Quit being disingenuous for 5 seconds and really think about it.

Any chapter using Codex Space Marines can get a Chapter Master and Lieutenant for fewer than 160 points. For the cost of Guilliman, you can get Chapter Master, Lieutennant, and two more Razorbacks. Doing that, you even knock off the requirement of buying further HQs to get your Battalion, if that's what you're going for. If you're using the Salamanders Tactics, your Tactical Squads get the Guilliman buff for their Lascannons for free.

So yeah. It's a book with a crapload of options, and thinking that this is the only viable build would be really, really unimaginative.

Clearly Guilliman is the most powerful build but salamanders, and imerial fists can make a pretty potent army too.

@Xenos,
With Conceal and in cover, Rangers are as hard to remove as Tac Marines. But cost a lot more. Even before paying for the Warlock.

For the edge over the tacticals, you could give them a lascannon (nb4 "Nobody does that!"). Then they do more damage to most targets, from longer range, with better survivability. You pay more points than naked, but still fewer points than Rangers, per model.

So they're still harder to shift, but have greater purpose. Alaitoc rangers with warlocks would be more survivable. If only they'd give Raven Guard the same thing, I suppose?

So even the case you most blatantly called BS on, Tacs are harder to shift than Rangers.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

To the people who are saying that the only way the list worked was because of Rowbootay Gillaman, what do you they credit him with doing that is so irreplaceable?

This might sound like a stupid question, but you guys obviously know marines better than I do, so I'm trying to make sure I understand.

It's hard to replace re-rolls to wound. However, IMO it's not hard to make up for it with 360 points of more stuff.

Guilliman is also a combat monster, although I'm not sure how much that played into this tournament. It would be interesting to find out.

In the 10 or so games I have played he has made close combat once. Almost twice - but the unit of hellblasters he was buffing in rapid fire range kill the IK all on their own. His close combat ability is almost a non factor for ultra marines.

Bharring wrote:
Rangers? Harder to remove than Tacs? In cover, they might approach it per-model (remember: T3 and poor save).

The math agrees.


Marines in cover vs boltguns fired at 3+ to hit: 66.7% of shots hit. 33.3% of shots wound. 5.6% of shots kill.
Rangers in cover vs boltguns fired at 3+ to hit: 50% of shots hit. 33.3% of shots wound. 11.1% of shots kill.
Marines not in cover vs boltguns fired at 3+ to hit: 66.7% of shots hit. 33.3% of shots wound. 11.1% of shots kill.
Rangers not in cover vs boltguns fired at 3+ to hit: 50% of shots hit. 33.3% of shots wound. 22.2% of shots kill.

Given equivalent cover, Rangers will take twice as many wounds from basic bolter shock as marines will. Rangers in cover are equivalent to marines out of cover, but more expensive (20ppm vs 13ppm) and with less weapon options.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Are you for real with this? That list is 100% dependent on Guilliman. Only Ultramarines can run an army anything like this. Are you suggesting that Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and any other successor chapter can get the same mileage out of tactical marines as Ultramarines can, with Guilliman?

Quit being disingenuous for 5 seconds and really think about it.

Any chapter using Codex Space Marines can get a Chapter Master and Lieutenant for fewer than 160 points. For the cost of Guilliman, you can get Chapter Master, Lieutennant, and two more Razorbacks. Doing that, you even knock off the requirement of buying further HQs to get your Battalion, if that's what you're going for. If you're using the Salamanders Tactics, your Tactical Squads get the Guilliman buff for their Lascannons for free.

So yeah. It's a book with a crapload of options, and thinking that this is the only viable build would be really, really unimaginative.

I think it's a template for one of the few viable builds. Weapons other than lascannons for tacs are either a) too short in range b) don't kill big stuff hard enough. The fire base is going some reroll aura thing buffing the most cost effective option. I don't own asscannon razors, so I am basically hosed. I realize this now. But don't act like there a lot of viable options for marines in 8th.

Grav-Cannons hurt vehicles better than Lascannons, murder elites like crazy, and outclass a Heavy Bolter against GEQs, with a range that matches the TLAC on the Razors. Something to think about.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Are you for real with this? That list is 100% dependent on Guilliman. Only Ultramarines can run an army anything like this. Are you suggesting that Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and any other successor chapter can get the same mileage out of tactical marines as Ultramarines can, with Guilliman?

Quit being disingenuous for 5 seconds and really think about it.

Any chapter using Codex Space Marines can get a Chapter Master and Lieutenant for fewer than 160 points. For the cost of Guilliman, you can get Chapter Master, Lieutennant, and two more Razorbacks. Doing that, you even knock off the requirement of buying further HQs to get your Battalion, if that's what you're going for. If you're using the Salamanders Tactics, your Tactical Squads get the Guilliman buff for their Lascannons for free.

So yeah. It's a book with a crapload of options, and thinking that this is the only viable build would be really, really unimaginative.

I think it's a template for one of the few viable builds. Weapons other than lascannons for tacs are either a) too short in range b) don't kill big stuff hard enough. The fire base is going some reroll aura thing buffing the most cost effective option. I don't own asscannon razors, so I am basically hosed. I realize this now. But don't act like there a lot of viable options for marines in 8th.

Grav-Cannons hurt vehicles better than Lascannons, murder elites like crazy, and outclass a Heavy Bolter against GEQs, with a range that matches the TLAC on the Razors. Something to think about.

But their range sucks. They can't reach the IG units that you need to kill. You'll never kill enough geqs to matter with marines, so that fact, while interesting, is largely moot.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Grav-Cannons hurt vehicles better than Lascannons, murder elites like crazy, and outclass a Heavy Bolter against GEQs, with a range that matches the TLAC on the Razors. Something to think about.

24" is my preferred murderzone as guard. You'd have to catch me on a flank, and I'm pretty good about that. For other armies it might work okay.

I'm digging the winner's list with a subbed in CM + Lieutenant the more I think about it. Probably throw jump packs on both of them to keep them maneuverable. That gives you, like, another 190 to play with. Could shoehorn a predator in there, but that would screw up target priority. I guess another razorback and maybe spend some points on the two HQs then. The guard player in me thinks that'd be a mean generic marine compatible list. Those razorbacks are removing 38.5 GEQ/turn on average, and then you have the heavy firepower to degrade 2-3 vehicle profiles in a turn, before you take into account rerolls even.

I wish GK had lieutenants.

 daedalus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Grav-Cannons hurt vehicles better than Lascannons, murder elites like crazy, and outclass a Heavy Bolter against GEQs, with a range that matches the TLAC on the Razors. Something to think about.

24" is my preferred murderzone as guard. You'd have to catch me on a flank, and I'm pretty good about that. For other armies it might work okay.

I'm digging the winner's list with a subbed in CM + Lieutenant the more I think about it. Probably throw jump packs on both of them to keep them maneuverable. That gives you, like, another 190 to play with. Could shoehorn a predator in there, but that would screw up target priority. I guess another razorback and maybe spend some points on the two HQs then. The guard player in me thinks that'd be a mean generic marine compatible list. Those razorbacks are removing 38.5 GEQ/turn on average, and then you have the heavy firepower to degrade 2-3 vehicle profiles in a turn, before you take into account rerolls even.

I wish GK had lieutenants.

The grav cannons would be good against other meq lists for sure. Esp GK.

Martel732 wrote:

The grav cannons would be good against other meq lists for sure. Esp GK.

I won't argue that, but typically the thing I hear everyone worrying about is Guard. If you want to have a chance against an index-era IG netlist, you're going to have to plan to degrade those profiles your first turn. Nice thing about the lascannon setup is that you can do that from across the table. When they hit you in response, you soak damage with your ablative wounds, and then you keep firing at the same effective firepower you started with, while the razorbacks roll up and worry about the close range stuff. Only thing you really gotta worry about then is scions.

Anyone remember what was in that 120 conscript tournament netlist from a month or two ago?

Again, though, i don't have the razors. Maybe baal pred gets a price drop?

I probably don't either. Might have enough chassis between the SM and GK, but I'd have to kajigger some more turrets for sure, though I guess I do have all those unused vortimer pattern razorback tops...

 daedalus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Grav-Cannons hurt vehicles better than Lascannons, murder elites like crazy, and outclass a Heavy Bolter against GEQs, with a range that matches the TLAC on the Razors. Something to think about.

24" is my preferred murderzone as guard. You'd have to catch me on a flank, and I'm pretty good about that. For other armies it might work okay.

I feel ya. Personally, I use a mix. I've also been trying out Heavy Plasmas, which have functioned better than I was prepared for, honestly. In the end I think those three weapons are pretty well balanced. As our local Guard players ratchet it up a bit I suspect I'll wind up with more Lascannons again, but we'll see.

Martel732 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Grav-Cannons hurt vehicles better than Lascannons, murder elites like crazy, and outclass a Heavy Bolter against GEQs, with a range that matches the TLAC on the Razors. Something to think about.

24" is my preferred murderzone as guard. You'd have to catch me on a flank, and I'm pretty good about that. For other armies it might work okay.

I'm digging the winner's list with a subbed in CM + Lieutenant the more I think about it. Probably throw jump packs on both of them to keep them maneuverable. That gives you, like, another 190 to play with. Could shoehorn a predator in there, but that would screw up target priority. I guess another razorback and maybe spend some points on the two HQs then. The guard player in me thinks that'd be a mean generic marine compatible list. Those razorbacks are removing 38.5 GEQ/turn on average, and then you have the heavy firepower to degrade 2-3 vehicle profiles in a turn, before you take into account rerolls even.

I wish GK had lieutenants.

The grav cannons would be good against other meq lists for sure. Esp GK.

If you can kill MEQ you can kill GK, you will just be even more points efficient since the minimal troop unit is 21PPM.

If there was a realistic way for assault based armies to get into melee and stay there, both GK and BA would be solid. The problem is that if you make it easier for these two, you'll inadvertently make it easier for Harlequins, Genestealers, and other armies that are fundamentally more threatening in melee, and already have an easier time getting there.

Seriously though, if this edition didn't feature incredibly cheap screen units, it'd be a fairly balanced product, even if TAC marines are crap outside of Guilliman lists.

Hillariously, if Boltguns and other small arms were more common, Harlies and Genestealers would be worse off and GK/BA/ASM would be better off.

Does noone find that funny?

No.

Martel732 wrote:
No.

Congrats on 21k posts!

I mean, I probably would have celebrated with a post with more than 2 letters, but hey, to each their own.

Bharring wrote:
Fun fact: a Tac Marine killed the same number of Termies as a Banshee inside 12", per model. Twice the shots vs twice as deadly per shot. More if they had SS/TH. You probably were either not part of that conversation, or not remembering it. Same thing for the AC Termie conversation, which was per-model: it was proposed rules where they were the same points per-model.

As for the dentists, you're conflaiting proof with evidence again. Studies provide evidence, not proof. Reliable evidence, done well.

Consuming large amounts of data requires time and expertise. Hence why I ask a doctor for any medical question. This appeal to authority is more in line with that than panels and studies: people are making claims, and other people are pointing to those with a greater record of knowing what they're talking about (tourny winners) making a counterclaim.

Tourny winners aren't a proper board of experts for debating the merits for large amount of data. But they are a set of people who, most likely, understand what they should take to a tourny better than the average forum poster.

If one person runs numbers on (non rigerous) data (and isn't peer reviewed), but his conclusions don't match those of people who have had success "in the field", you don't discount either theory, you investigate further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marines with Bolters don't kill things off objectives as fast as other things. Marines with specials clear most things off objectives about as fast as many glass-cannon troops, but that's half the quesiton.

The other half, which you seem to miss, is that Marines with Bolters are harder to clear off objectives than the average troop. And, while being cleared off, don't lose much firepower until the last 1-3 guys.

1. You're saying a shooty unit inside rapid fire range killed as many Terminators as a melee unit not designed for shooting nor designed for charging Terminators. And you don't think there's something a little off about that? Terminators weren't even good 6th/7th edition, but that thread was more about the point that even bad Eldar units functioned mildly better than the mediocre to good units of other Codices. So yeah I remember those threads, like the one where you created an illegal loadout for Chaos Marines and they barely won a firefight vs Dire Avengers not using Battle Focus (when done and actually using the legal loadout for Chaos Marines they lost handily). So yeah forgive me if I don't take kindly to Eldar apologists. Next.

That said, the thing about Scatterbikes that was probably Martel. He had every right to be butthurt about Scatterbikes but he was not costing them correctly.

2. Studies do provide proof and evidence at the same time. Hence why there's proof of evolution not just evidence.
So yes you can ignore the doctors that say they have proof or evidence that vaccines cause autism, or the dentists that say they have proof of sugarless gum causing even more cavities. That is because you have so much to ignore them if you're being realistic. It isn't even worth the time to acknowledge them, even though they're supposedly experts.

3. 1 special/heavy and a Combi-Weapon is not offensively powerful. If it were, Crusader squads would actually be considered good and you'd see lists with Helbrecht + an Lt for a Rowboat aura for significantly less cost. Less CP, but not a lot of the Marine Strategems are that good so not much is lost.
For the same list, a better idea would be minimum Devastators squads with 2 Lascannons and the Cherub. You have to kill 3 dudes instead of 4, but the damage output is MUCH better that the Anti-Infantry tanks will likely be dead.

1)
If by "illegal loadout", you mean I didn't know CSM had to pay 10 points for a sarge, so ran 140 points of CSM vs 130 points of DA, yeah, my bad. And by 'Didn't use battlefocus' you meant used battlefocus every round, otherwise the DAs got wiped out fast. And by the corrected values meant the Chaos lost handily you meant it would take only 10 full rounds for the DAs to finish off the CSM model-for-model... I really have to question your memory.

Everyone had every right to be butthurt about scatterbikes. That was just wrong.

2)
Cogni ergo sum. Anything else isn't actually proven. Read up on mathematical proofs, scientific methods, and confidence levels.

You can ignore one doctor telling you medicine X will kill you if you want. I wouldn't ignore them because some random poster on the internet said otherwise. But if most doctors said otherwise - which isn't the case here - then I'd revisit it.

3)
So you say. If I had to choose to trust a random poster without solid logic to base it upon, or people who win GTs, I know who I'm more likely to believe.

As I said, I'd have been more likely to bring some devs over more Tac squads, but I didn't win a GT.

Fact remains, most troops do worse than Tacs with 1 special/heavy and/or combi. So either almost all troops are garbage, or Tacs aren't garbage.

To be fair, after 10k posts you really don't have a reason to keep track.

Bharring wrote:

2)
Cogni ergo sum. Anything else isn't actually proven. Read up on mathematical proofs, scientific methods, and confidence levels.

You can ignore one doctor telling you medicine X will kill you if you want. I wouldn't ignore them because some random poster on the internet said otherwise. But if most doctors said otherwise - which isn't the case here - then I'd revisit it.

There is a copious amount of tournament data out there, if you would just look for it. This tournament specifically is more of an outlier than anything else, as AM has been dominating for some time across a wide variety of events, and event sizes.

Telling someone to read a mathbook doesn't really do anything for your argument.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:

Fact remains, most troops do worse than Tacs with 1 special/heavy and/or combi. So either almost all troops are garbage, or Tacs aren't garbage.

You simply have not proven this. And your conclusion is just ridiculous.

 Marmatag wrote:


There is a copious amount of tournament data out there, if you would just look for it. This tournament specifically is more of an outlier than anything else, as AM has been dominating for some time across a wide variety of events, and event sizes.

You've made this claim in the IG thread too without providing any actual sources, or you know, data.

Blood of Kittens data on 8th edition tournaments has Marines tied with Guard.

So if IG is dominating, then surely you admit that Marines are equally dominating, right?

That last comment was intellectually lazy of me; I apologize.

The subject I"m asking him to read up on in *specifically* interplay between logical proofs, logical fallacies, data-based evidence, and the scientific process. He continually states that the data "proves" something, while also "disproving" appeal to authority as a logical fallacy. There are some fallacies in that, and I'm hoping he can read up on what he's talking about.

I haven't followed many tournaments. The title of the thread was 'First Warhammer40 GT'. I (apparently wrongly) inferred that we were just starting to get relevant GT data.

As for 'Tacs are garbage' and 'Most troops do worse than troops' - claims I have supported, but not overwhelmingly - I think that those statements are accurate. If AM have been dominating as you suggest, that suggests Tacs don't perform as well as most AM units. But do most of the other dozen + armies out there also regularly outperform Tac-backed armies? Does the tourny data show kalabites as superior? Fire Warriors? Kroot? Gaunts? I actually haven't seen the data, so don't know.

Gotta jet for a few mins - but i was starting to assemble as requested.

here's the top rated for each faction, for the best players in the world in 2017.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

There is a lot more data out there.

 Marmatag wrote:
Gotta jet for a few mins - but i was starting to assemble as requested.

here's the top rated for each faction, for the best players in the world in 2017.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/frontline-gamings-independent-tournament-circuit/itc-2015-rankings/

There is a lot more data out there.

Thanks for the link. Didn't know ITC was that thorough.

I can't see a way to sort by faction, unfortunately. Manually clicking through the top 10 only shows 3 predominantly IG players (some players seem to switch often or back and forth), with one or two generic Imperium 'soup' lists and some Chaos (with one dedicated Sisters player).

I'll keep sorting through, but it doesn't seem like IG are some towering monstrosity of dominating every single tournament, and that Chaos and Marines are doing just as fine.

*Edit* Top 20 players shows a bunch more Eldar and Chaos, no additional Guard.

Here's the list that won the NOVA GT.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/09/goatboys-40k-nova-open-winner-andrew-gonyos-killer-list.html

Good luck beating this one.

And that is already sorted for you. You can see the top performers by faction.... with AM head and shoulders above the field. Ultramarines like i said do well because of Guilliman. BA are rated high because this still includes pre-ravenspam nerf results.

And what do you have to say for armies that have a top placed scorer below 400? Just sod off because <insert here?> Admech and GK have a codex and still suck righteously.

I brought that specific article because we were talking about "experts." And the best way to see how the best of the best fare is with that link...

I mean for real though if your head isn't buried in the sand you've seen the non stop barrage of AM slaughterfests rolling in tourny after tourny... I can't remember the last GT where AM finished 1,2,3 and 5 or something ridiculous.

So I definitely missed the section for faction rankings and was going individually by player. Bit of a facepalm, but still relevant data. Seems like the best individual players aren't running a lot of IG.

 Blacksails wrote:
So I definitely missed the section for faction rankings and was going individually by player. Bit of a facepalm, but still relevant data. Seems like the best individual players aren't running a lot of IG.

Not sure how you drew that conclusion since it's absolutely the opposite of what's actually happening but sure.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
So I definitely missed the section for faction rankings and was going individually by player. Bit of a facepalm, but still relevant data. Seems like the best individual players aren't running a lot of IG.

Not sure how you drew that conclusion since it's absolutely the opposite of what's actually happening but sure.

I drew that conclusion by looking at the top 30 players and the factions they ran.

Most did not run IG.

And if we're going by the faction rankings, are we using total points, average points, or a best three...or? Because it doesn't seem like IG are leagues beyond the likes of Marines and Chaos.

 Marmatag wrote:
Here's the list that won the NOVA GT.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/09/goatboys-40k-nova-open-winner-andrew-gonyos-killer-list.html

Good luck beating this one.

That was the one I was looking for earlier. Guess it's invalid now on account of the max size change on conscripts.

 daedalus wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Here's the list that won the NOVA GT.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/09/goatboys-40k-nova-open-winner-andrew-gonyos-killer-list.html

Good luck beating this one.

That was the one I was looking for earlier. Guess it's invalid now on account of the max size change on conscripts.

I wouldnt call it 'invalid' when there is little difference between 3 squads of 40 or 4 squads of 30.

Ordana wrote:

I wouldnt call it 'invalid' when there is little difference between 3 squads of 40 or 4 squads of 30.

Fine. But we can't pretend that it doesn't have some significant drawbacks:

- Increases max number of conscripts lost per round by 33%.
- Decreases the number of conscripts available for the "magic tail".
- Creed can't order all the conscripts anymore.
- Adds an additional squad to have to cover with only two commissars.

Also, it's going to be 36 points over if FW plasma ever gets a FAQ.

I feel like if people want marines to be true to the fluff, where they slaughter 100 men solo, then they need to cost the price of 100 men.

How's 400pts per model sound? A squad of five should be able to table your list because they're Space Marines.

Wow. This thread is shocking to read.

I... don't even have words. The sheer amount of doublethink, talking past people, and unthinking unbending conviction - it is like watching a friend argue with an antivaxxer.

text removed
Reds8n

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thank you for your insight into the hard truth that all marine players are just too stupid to win with their army, guy who thought it was funny to put 69 in his username.

Do yourself a favor and don't get too worked up about the day old sockpuppet account whose entire three post history here involves try-harding against marine players.

Not worth it. Just ignore and get on with life.

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thank you for your insight into the hard truth that all marine players are just too stupid to win with their army, guy who thought it was funny to put 69 in his username.

Do yourself a favor and don't get too worked up about the day old sockpuppet account whose entire three post history here involves try-harding against marine players.

Not worth it. Just ignore and get on with life.

The fact anyone feels the need to create a sockpuppet account here is crazy. Discussions about Tacticals should not rise to that level where someone feels the need to mask their identity.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The fact anyone feels the need to create a sockpuppet account here is crazy. Discussions about Tacticals should not rise to that level where someone feels the need to mask their identity.

I mean, I COULD be wrong. Matches behavior I've seen moderating other places though.

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thank you for your insight into the hard truth that all marine players are just too stupid to win with their army, guy who thought it was funny to put 69 in his username.

Do yourself a favor and don't get too worked up about the day old sockpuppet account whose entire three post history here involves try-harding against marine players.

Not worth it. Just ignore and get on with life.

Oh don't worry, I'm not. This particular sockpuppet account was just so on the nose I felt I had to point it out.

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thank you for your insight into the hard truth that all marine players are just too stupid to win with their army, guy who thought it was funny to put 69 in his username.

Do yourself a favor and don't get too worked up about the day old sockpuppet account whose entire three post history here involves try-harding against marine players.

Not worth it. Just ignore and get on with life.

If you think they are a sockpuppet account, report them. Sockpuppeting is a bannable offense.

 Melissia wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Thank you for your insight into the hard truth that all marine players are just too stupid to win with their army, guy who thought it was funny to put 69 in his username.

Do yourself a favor and don't get too worked up about the day old sockpuppet account whose entire three post history here involves try-harding against marine players.

Not worth it. Just ignore and get on with life.

If you think they are a sockpuppet account, report them. Sockpuppeting is a bannable offense.

The only creatures lower than sockpuppets are Mods. Don't see why the community needs protection from this person.

Anyone who feels a need to hide his / her identity to discuss plastic toys has problems beyond what a Mod could address. As a community, we need to be encouraging that person to find help from a trained professional.

OTOH, if the sockpuppet turns out to be Tom Kirby, this requires a solution beyond what any Mod could do.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
So I definitely missed the section for faction rankings and was going individually by player. Bit of a facepalm, but still relevant data. Seems like the best individual players aren't running a lot of IG.

Not sure how you drew that conclusion since it's absolutely the opposite of what's actually happening but sure.

I drew that conclusion by looking at the top 30 players and the factions they ran.

Most did not run IG.

And if we're going by the faction rankings, are we using total points, average points, or a best three...or? Because it doesn't seem like IG are leagues beyond the likes of Marines and Chaos.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the ITC lists matches in 2017; not all of them were 8th edition tourneys.

Anyone know what the 3rd place Daemon list was?

Kdash wrote:


Can’t give the exactly details but it was –

Primaris Captain + Primarch Librarian
3 (I think) units of 5 Intercessors
1 unit of 5 bolter Aggressors
2 Contemptor Dreads (1 CC weapon)
1 Contemptor Mortis Dread
1 Mortis Dread
1 Stormtalon with Lascannons.
1 unit of Hellblasters (at least)

Can’t remember anything else off the top of my head for now, but I can always check later.

I really appreciate it. I am happy to see the Primaris marines did decent. Been really enjoying playing them lately, hoping this trend continues.

Took a look at the 2017 list. About half of 2017 was 7th ed. About a quarter of 2017 hasn't happened yet. Wouldn't that mean about two thirds of that 2017 list would be 7th ed?

Looked at Blood of Kittens, and it showed a similar story to what's been talked about in this thread:
-SM lists are common in the top 5, and tend to be headed by something broken (Robout or Dante + StormRavens)
-IG is up there, but not always dominating the scene
-Demons showed up more than I expected
-Eldar is on the list a couple times - mostly Ynari

Seems a little more diverse than 7th. Not a huge fan of super-special characters (Primarchs, mostly) defining so many lists. But at least it's not leafblower spam (whether that be AM or CWE or anyone else).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
The other comment I missed: Most factions don't even show up on that list at all. Like, probably 80% of factions aren't on the list (didn't crunch the numbers).

So sucks to be GK. Or BA. Or DE. Or Harlies. Or Tau. Or Orks. Or ...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow. This thread is shocking to read.

I... don't even have words. The sheer amount of doublethink, talking past people, and unthinking unbending conviction - it is like watching a friend argue with an antivaxxer.

What do you expect when talking about an absolutely boring winning list.
I like the Primaris list floating around much better.

 daedalus wrote:

Ordana wrote:

I wouldnt call it 'invalid' when there is little difference between 3 squads of 40 or 4 squads of 30.

Fine. But we can't pretend that it doesn't have some significant drawbacks:

- Increases max number of conscripts lost per round by 33%.
- Decreases the number of conscripts available for the "magic tail".
- Creed can't order all the conscripts anymore.
- Adds an additional squad to have to cover with only two commissars.

Also, it's going to be 36 points over if FW plasma ever gets a FAQ.

It doesn't have drawbacks....the units is better with army traits...and lots of units got cheaper and got army traits. The army is all around better. Even the units the got nerfed got better. Except scions didn't get better but they are still OP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MadMaverick76 wrote:

Kdash wrote:


Can’t give the exactly details but it was –

Primaris Captain + Primarch Librarian
3 (I think) units of 5 Intercessors
1 unit of 5 bolter Aggressors
2 Contemptor Dreads (1 CC weapon)
1 Contemptor Mortis Dread
1 Mortis Dread
1 Stormtalon with Lascannons.
1 unit of Hellblasters (at least)

Can’t remember anything else off the top of my head for now, but I can always check later.

I really appreciate it. I am happy to see the Primaris marines did decent. Been really enjoying playing them lately, hoping this trend continues.

This isn't really a primaris list. It's not even a particularly good list.
Agressors are really bad. Contemptor dreads are proabably the worst space marine armor unit. Stormtalon is also terrible. Kind of wierd he wouldn't bring a relic leviathan...considering how good it is too. These list...they aren't optimized. Like...the winning lists must factor in sportsmanship and painting or something because this is just a bad bad list.

Guy gets second at a event - His list is still bad, everything in it is bad, he is bad and actually the whole event was a spoof just to piss people off.

People on the internet never cease to astound me. Hilarous!

 AaronWilson wrote:
Guy gets second at a event - His list is still bad, everything in it is bad, he is bad and actually the whole event was a spoof just to piss people off.

People on the internet never cease to astound me. Hilarous!

Makes for an enjoyable read though, eh?

Keep an eye for Xenomancers crushing every GT they attend.

 Blacksails wrote:

 AaronWilson wrote:
Guy gets second at a event - His list is still bad, everything in it is bad, he is bad and actually the whole event was a spoof just to piss people off.

People on the internet never cease to astound me. Hilarous!

Makes for an enjoyable read though, eh?

Keep an eye for Xenomancers crushing every GT they attend.

It's genuinely a good laugh.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Wow. This thread is shocking to read.

I... don't even have words. The sheer amount of doublethink, talking past people, and unthinking unbending conviction - it is like watching a friend argue with an antivaxxer.

What do you expect when talking about an absolutely boring winning list.
I like the Primaris list floating around much better.

I think the comment is more about the nature of the discourse than the nature of any list.

@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

Bharring wrote:
1)
If by "illegal loadout", you mean I didn't know CSM had to pay 10 points for a sarge, so ran 140 points of CSM vs 130 points of DA, yeah, my bad. And by 'Didn't use battlefocus' you meant used battlefocus every round, otherwise the DAs got wiped out fast. And by the corrected values meant the Chaos lost handily you meant it would take only 10 full rounds for the DAs to finish off the CSM model-for-model... I really have to question your memory.

Everyone had every right to be butthurt about scatterbikes. That was just wrong.

2)
Cogni ergo sum. Anything else isn't actually proven. Read up on mathematical proofs, scientific methods, and confidence levels.

You can ignore one doctor telling you medicine X will kill you if you want. I wouldn't ignore them because some random poster on the internet said otherwise. But if most doctors said otherwise - which isn't the case here - then I'd revisit it.

3)
So you say. If I had to choose to trust a random poster without solid logic to base it upon, or people who win GTs, I know who I'm more likely to believe.

As I said, I'd have been more likely to bring some devs over more Tac squads, but I didn't win a GT.

Fact remains, most troops do worse than Tacs with 1 special/heavy and/or combi. So either almost all troops are garbage, or Tacs aren't garbage.

1. There was that and giving the less-than-10-dudes two Plasma Guns and a Combi, where they would've had the one plasma gun and Combi max. You had to have multiple people tell you that. Do I need to go find it?

2. I have taken statistics courses and work for a nursing building in the business office section. So I think I know a little about math and doctors, thanks. Also insurance stuff as well but that doesn't apply here.

3. Which "lots of troops"? It clearly can't be Guard or Orks, as their troops function correctly. It can't be Dire Avengers again, because they're getting a significant price cut with the new codex. It can't be Immortals or Warriors, as they're not the issue with Necrons doing poorly. It definitely can't be Kalabites as this is the best they've functioned in years.
What are these lots of troops you're talking about?

 techsoldaten wrote:
@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

It would be a lot less painful if those people took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that everyone else is wrong.

Bharring wrote:
That last comment was intellectually lazy of me; I apologize.

The subject I"m asking him to read up on in *specifically* interplay between logical proofs, logical fallacies, data-based evidence, and the scientific process. He continually states that the data "proves" something, while also "disproving" appeal to authority as a logical fallacy. There are some fallacies in that, and I'm hoping he can read up on what he's talking about.

I haven't followed many tournaments. The title of the thread was 'First Warhammer40 GT'. I (apparently wrongly) inferred that we were just starting to get relevant GT data.

As for 'Tacs are garbage' and 'Most troops do worse than troops' - claims I have supported, but not overwhelmingly - I think that those statements are accurate. If AM have been dominating as you suggest, that suggests Tacs don't perform as well as most AM units. But do most of the other dozen + armies out there also regularly outperform Tac-backed armies? Does the tourny data show kalabites as superior? Fire Warriors? Kroot? Gaunts? I actually haven't seen the data, so don't know.

If you don't follow tournament results, that's your own fault. All this data has been available to you to use for your arguments like it has mine. Difference is I'm using that data and you're not. When I say it's an off list, I mean it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

It would be a lot less painful if those people took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that everyone else is wrong.

Tactical Marines and Rubric Marines have done this rarely in the past. Why should it challenge anything now?

 AaronWilson wrote:
Guy gets second at a event - His list is still bad, everything in it is bad, he is bad and actually the whole event was a spoof just to piss people off.

People on the internet never cease to astound me. Hilarous!

It's not a spoff to piss people off. I have now confirmed through the warhammer world website that the scoring of the event includes painting and sportsmanship to determine ranking. Not even saying that is a bad thing. People in this thread "people on the internet" as you so eloquently put it - have been trying to use the results of this tournament make obviously untrue statements. Things like "tactical marines are good units" and "AM aren't OP". This is just crazy talk. The results of this tournament are hugely skewed by painting skills and having a good attitude and such - This speaks very little of army balance in the end because of that.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

It would be a lot less painful if those people took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that everyone else is wrong.

Yeah, I'm reflecting that BA are probably screwed in 8th and that tacticals are functional if armed with lascannons and cower in cover to get the free 2+. Tacticals go back to their normal status if you try to play a normal game with them; ie taking objectives against fire, taking more faction-appropriate weapons like melta or flamer, etc. Tacticals will never do enough damage to justify stuffing them in a 75 pt rhino, so what's to be done? What this guy did, and precious little else. I consider myself corrected, internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AaronWilson wrote:
Guy gets second at a event - His list is still bad, everything in it is bad, he is bad and actually the whole event was a spoof just to piss people off.

People on the internet never cease to astound me. Hilarous!

I'm a believer on the winning list. With primaris, I'm gonna need to see more until I take them out of garbage tier.

The 'completely bad' Primaris list that ended up 2nd was undefeated going into the final round (6 lists were).

That was before painting or sportsmanship was added and purely off of game results.
But go on, keep trying to find excuses for why 'bad build x' managed to perform well.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It doesn't have drawbacks....the units is better with army traits...and lots of units got cheaper and got army traits. The army is all around better. Even the units the got nerfed got better. Except scions didn't get better but they are still OP.

First of all, summing positive and negative quallities into a net sum and screeching about it from the rooftops is not a winning strategy. It's worthwhile to enumerate changes so that you understand the dynamic of how they're changing, and can perhaps exploit those differences, as opposed to pointing at something and squealing "good" or "bad". The alternative is that is believing that a top tier competitive player took the >25% of his points in the form of the biggest handicap he could (tactical marines) and still won against a bunch of similar people doing similar things, except without the handicap. I could see that belief causing a large amount of discomfort in people though.

Second of all, yes, some units got cheaper. I don't think that affects his list, which would in fact be invalid point-wise if/when Elysian plasma gets the point adjustment that it should.

Third, okay, army traits. That's the positive change. Lets talk about that then. Which one do you think would have helped the list most? Which one do you think he would have chosen? Why? How do you think you would try to deal with that?

Fourth, he didn't use scions. I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in response to my comment on the list, other than the fact that you're omnidirectionally radiating anger..

1. Oh, the time where we readjusted to Loyalist SM PG/Combi 5-man vs 7-man DA units (same cost)? The Loyalists did better damage, but it became clear that they had drawbacks because (1) Combis were 1-time-use, (2) the s7 profile could kill the user via Gets Hot, and (3) you could possibly lose the PG or Combi before the bolter dudes. Imagine if those drawbacks changed? Or if the PG/Combi 5-man cost the same as 5 DAs?

I made some mistakes. Things got corrected. But some of the revised assumptions were more than a bit off. I factored those corrections in moving forward. We all make mistakes.

2. There are two meanings of Proof, really. The formal one is logical proofs that, barring a flaw in the logic, are 100% true. The informal one is "We've shown enough evidence." Logical fallacies destroy the first meaning, not the second. For example, if 100% of people, who took medicine X died within 5 minutes, saying that medicine X kills people who take it is based on a post hoc fallacy. It's probably true. And with enough data fits the informal definition of "proof". But as a post hoc, it wouldn't be a formal "proof". Stats and logical fallacies have a bit more complex relationship than you might think.

3.

It can be DAs, at least until the new Dex comes out. Not sure if it still will be then. But there are plenty of others.

Some rough ranking:
Conscripts
Necron Warriors
Guardsmen
Ork Boyz?
Tacs
Harlequins
Scouts
Fire Warriors
Guardians
Genestealers
Kalabites?
Neophytes
Immortals
Wracks
Rangers
Wyches
PAGK
Corsairs
Kroot
Dire Avengers
Storm Guardians

Some of those might be a bit out of order. But that's not a lot of troops I'd list as better than Tacs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer,
That's why I asked for peoples' data. One set, the one that seems to refute me, is mostly 7E data. The other set is mostly 8E data, but backs what I've been saying.

I didn't have the breadth of data that you did going into this thread, so I asked for it. And it turns out that the majority of that data is *not this edition*.

I shot you
No you didn't
Yes I did
Nu'uh
Did to
Did not

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It doesn't have drawbacks....the units is better with army traits...and lots of units got cheaper and got army traits. The army is all around better. Even the units the got nerfed got better. Except scions didn't get better but they are still OP.

First of all, summing positive and negative quallities into a net sum and screeching about it from the rooftops is not a winning strategy. It's worthwhile to enumerate changes so that you understand the dynamic of how they're changing, and can perhaps exploit those differences, as opposed to pointing at something and squealing "good" or "bad". The alternative is that is believing that a top tier competitive player took the >25% of his points in the form of the biggest handicap he could (tactical marines) and still won against a bunch of similar people doing similar things, except without the handicap. I could see that belief causing a large amount of discomfort in people though.

Second of all, yes, some units got cheaper. I don't think that affects his list, which would in fact be invalid point-wise if/when Elysian plasma gets the point adjustment that it should.

Third, okay, army traits. That's the positive change. Lets talk about that then. Which one do you think would have helped the list most? Which one do you think he would have chosen? Why? How do you think you would try to deal with that?

Fourth, he didn't use scions. I'm not sure why you're bringing them up in response to my comment on the list, other than the fact that you're omnidirectionally radiating anger..

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

 daedalus wrote:
Third, okay, army traits. That's the positive change. Lets talk about that then. Which one do you think would have helped the list most? Which one do you think he would have chosen? Why? How do you think you would try to deal with that?

See this type of question is the ones I want people to be asking. How did he win? why? what were the motiviations behind his choices? These are the questions we should be asking, since the answers could be genuinely useful tactical info that could help us further our own lists and tactics.

Instead we just have a bunch of people jumping to their own conclusions with very biased views (not to mention internet "experts" who clearly know more than the guy who actually piloted the list).

Ordana wrote:
The 'completely bad' Primaris list that ended up 2nd was undefeated going into the final round (6 lists were).

That was before painting or sportsmanship was added and purely off of game results.
But go on, keep trying to find excuses for why 'bad build x' managed to perform well.

I don't know why, but until i see it being reproducible, i still list them as garbage tier.

The thing is, I think I know one reason why he'd pick tacticals over devastators.

Ablative wounds.

Yes, paying for ablative wounds means you have slightly less lascannons. But it means the ones you have are harder to remove.

That these ablative wounds also provide anti-infantry firepower helps, and in a pinch they can help you assault an objective.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

I actually agree, but 13 pt ablative wounds just seem supet inefficient in the big picture. The point of contention is just how viable tac marine anti-infantry and assaulting is.

Martel732 wrote:

Ordana wrote:
The 'completely bad' Primaris list that ended up 2nd was undefeated going into the final round (6 lists were).

That was before painting or sportsmanship was added and purely off of game results.
But go on, keep trying to find excuses for why 'bad build x' managed to perform well.

I don't know why, but until i see it being reproducible, i still list them as garbage tier.

It's not even a primaris list. It has some primaris units and HQ's. The theme of the list is dreadnoughts though and it doesn't even have a primaris dreadnought. It has 3 contemptors...which are terrible units (redemptors are still a poor choice but better than contemptors). Supposedly the list went 5-1...

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

It would be a lot less painful if those people took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that everyone else is wrong.

"Those people?"

Here's some self reflection. There's a great American philosopher I am fond of, C.S. Pierce. He was a pragmatist, wrote a lot of interesting things about the tenacity of belief, how beliefs are necessary and bring comfort while necessarily causing us to ignore viewpoints that clash with it. People in general hold onto beliefs past the point they are useful, letting go of an idea that leads to action is harder than just ignoring challenges to it.

I always find it odd when someone sees themself belonging to a group of enlightened thinkers who claim this observation about the basic state of human consciousness doesn't apply, that "others" have some fault in their ability to process information about the world around them. It's a very backhanded form of marginalization, classifying people engaged in discussion into an inferior category because the level of conversation cannot be rationalized to meet some abstract standard. And it's very judgmental.

The entire purpose of the dialectic is to discover some truth through conversation. There is no truth to be had on Dakka, everyone has their own framework for how they play the game. Of course it will come into conflict, and no amount of self-reflection is going to lead to resolution. Of course people are going to ignore what other people have to say, much of what gets said is complete garbage to begin with.

Thinking specifically about Slayerfan here. I find reasons to disagree with much of what he has to say, and how he says it. I also feel very grateful for him taking the time to share, because it does get me thinking. I don't need to respond to his points a certain way in order to find value in the conversation.

The list that won the GT is either the worst list ever or utterly brilliant depending on what you think about the game before you look at it. Expecting people to... what, find some new truth in the discussion? agree? exercise joyous civility in their interaction?... is reaching. Saying people discussing the topic are inferior, discourteous, or harming you for not meeting some standard is absolutely cruel.

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Don't worry, i play ba. I'm dead inside at this point. Derision from dakkaites means nothing.

Melissia wrote:The thing is, I think I know one reason why he'd pick tacticals over devastators.

Ablative wounds.

Yes, paying for ablative wounds means you have slightly less lascannons. But it means the ones you have are harder to remove.

That these ablative wounds also provide anti-infantry firepower helps, and in a pinch they can help you assault an objective.

I don't have my codex but I remember you can field devastator squads with 1 lascannon or with some abalative wounds with just a larger squad. Which is why I find interesting on his choice of units since it feels like ObSec might have been a genuine consideration for this.

techsoldaten wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:
@wuestenfux - the winning list challenged a lot of people's beliefs about 40k (which can mostly be summed up as 'Tacticals are bad.') People cling to their beliefs when challenged, they don't really engage in respectful dialog so much as try to restore their own world view. There's nothing wrong with that, we're not all supposed to agree.

It would be a lot less painful if those people took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that everyone else is wrong.

"Those people?"

Here's some self reflection. There's a great American philosopher I am fond of, C.S. Pierce. He was a pragmatist, wrote a lot of interesting things about the tenacity of belief, how beliefs are necessary and bring comfort while necessarily causing us to ignore viewpoints that clash with it. People in general hold onto beliefs past the point they are useful, letting go of an idea that leads to action is harder than just ignoring challenges to it.

I always find it odd when someone sees themself belonging to a group of enlightened thinkers who claim this observation about the basic state of human consciousness doesn't apply, that "others" have some fault in their ability to process information about the world around them. It's a very backhanded form of marginalization, classifying people engaged in discussion into an inferior category because the level of conversation cannot be rationalized to meet some abstract standard. And it's very judgmental.

The entire purpose of the dialectic is to discover some truth through conversation. There is no truth to be had on Dakka, everyone has their own framework for how they play the game. Of course it will come into conflict, and no amount of self-reflection is going to lead to resolution. Of course people are going to ignore what other people have to say, much of what gets said is complete garbage to begin with.

Thinking specifically about Slayerfan here. I find reasons to disagree with much of what he has to say, and how he says it. I also feel very grateful for him taking the time to share, because it does get me thinking. I don't need to respond to his points a certain way in order to find value in the conversation.

The list that won the GT is either the worst list ever or utterly brilliant depending on what you think about the game before you look at it. Expecting people to... what, find some new truth in the discussion? agree? exercise joyous civility in their interaction?... is reaching. Saying people discussing the topic are inferior, discourteous, or harming you for not meeting some standard is absolutely cruel.

To each their own. But for me when I find people constantly ignore the actual facts and just keep moving the goalpost, there is no meaningful discussion to be had. As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. When someone's reaction to something that breaks their worldview is to vehemently deny it, then there's not much I could gleam from that.

I don't believe I'm part of some elite group of enlightened thinkers, in fact I've been humbled a few times here on dakka (mostly by Ghaz). But when the same person repeats the same point five times in a row with increasingly less friendly language, that's the point to call it in. Plus, "finger in ear, shouting everyone else is wrong" is almost quite literally what people are doing (i.e: ignoring others to go on their own rant about the evils of others). And not just on one side either (which is why it's painful to watch).

Martel732 wrote:
Don't worry, i play ba. I'm dead inside at this point. Derision from dakkaites means nothing.

You can always play red ultra marines. I hear their tacticals are good too and win tournaments.

Martel732 wrote:
Don't worry, i play ba. I'm dead inside at this point. Derision from dakkaites means nothing.

I mean at least you can hold onto hope. I've already got my codex and my GK suck something awful. I have no hope until 9th with this army.

I honestly hope they release Angron. Angron is me made manifest towards GW right now for the state of GK in 8th. I will happily switch armies to play Angron.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


To each their own. But for me when I find people constantly ignore the actual facts and just keep moving the goalpost, there is no meaningful discussion to be had. As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. When someone's reaction to something that breaks their worldview is to vehemently deny it, then there's not much I could gleam from that.

I don't believe I'm part of some elite group of enlightened thinkers, in fact I've been humbled a few times here on dakka (mostly by Ghaz). But when the same person repeats the same point five times in a row with increasingly less friendly language, that's the point to call it in. Plus, "finger in ear, shouting everyone else is wrong" is almost quite literally what people are doing (i.e: ignoring others to go on their own rant about the evils of others). And not just on one side either (which is why it's painful to watch).

When you start talking about "those people," you absolutely are claiming other people are inferior to you. When you deny it, you are doing the same thing you accuse other people of.

Unless you are, in fact, superior. Which is why I know he can't be talking about me!

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Melissia wrote:The thing is, I think I know one reason why he'd pick tacticals over devastators.

Ablative wounds.

Yes, paying for ablative wounds means you have slightly less lascannons. But it means the ones you have are harder to remove.

That these ablative wounds also provide anti-infantry firepower helps, and in a pinch they can help you assault an objective.

I don't have my codex but I remember you can field devastator squads with 1 lascannon or with some abalative wounds with just a larger squad. Which is why I find interesting on his choice of units since it feels like ObSec might have been a genuine consideration for this.

ObSec is one reason, chapter tactics are another. If he's using his marines to shield from assaults he might want to be able to fall back and still shoot.

It was a conscious choice.

And if you're playing Eternal War, you want a lot of ObSec, because eternal war is the literal most bland gameplay experience imaginable. The philosophy hasn't changed from Gladius. Sit on the objectives and live as best you can. ObSec greatly helps for this. If there is sufficient cover/LOS block, removing 6 razorbacks is nontrivial, unless you've got massed artillery, and it seems like he didn't encounter that.

The list that got second took advantage of the raven guard chapter tactics to auto-win when the game mode was the relic, as they can deploy literally on top of the relic.

In a straight kill points fight, i'm not convinced either of those armies do as well as they did. But, I play space marines so i'm automatically stupid and don't know what i'm talking about.

Not as stupid as I; I play BA. Power armor melee is just fine; I just don't know how to do it!

 techsoldaten wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


To each their own. But for me when I find people constantly ignore the actual facts and just keep moving the goalpost, there is no meaningful discussion to be had. As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. When someone's reaction to something that breaks their worldview is to vehemently deny it, then there's not much I could gleam from that.

I don't believe I'm part of some elite group of enlightened thinkers, in fact I've been humbled a few times here on dakka (mostly by Ghaz). But when the same person repeats the same point five times in a row with increasingly less friendly language, that's the point to call it in. Plus, "finger in ear, shouting everyone else is wrong" is almost quite literally what people are doing (i.e: ignoring others to go on their own rant about the evils of others). And not just on one side either (which is why it's painful to watch).

When you start talking about "those people," you absolutely are claiming other people are inferior to you. When you deny it, you are doing the same thing you accuse other people of.

So you're accusing me of being condescending to people by being condescending to me, all because I said two words in a context you fabricated.

Yeah I'm not biting this one. Think what you want of me. You obviously already made up your mind.

 Marmatag wrote:
In a straight kill points fight, i'm not convinced either of those armies do as well as they did. But, I play space marines so i'm automatically stupid and don't know what i'm talking about.

I can see there might be some optimisation to the list if you devalue Obsec, but why do you reckon this wouldn't do well in a pure kill points game?
Unless you can snipe RG out (which is going to be difficult) its a very damaging list.

I can probably agree on the Raven Guard list.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:


To each their own. But for me when I find people constantly ignore the actual facts and just keep moving the goalpost, there is no meaningful discussion to be had. As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. When someone's reaction to something that breaks their worldview is to vehemently deny it, then there's not much I could gleam from that.

I don't believe I'm part of some elite group of enlightened thinkers, in fact I've been humbled a few times here on dakka (mostly by Ghaz). But when the same person repeats the same point five times in a row with increasingly less friendly language, that's the point to call it in. Plus, "finger in ear, shouting everyone else is wrong" is almost quite literally what people are doing (i.e: ignoring others to go on their own rant about the evils of others). And not just on one side either (which is why it's painful to watch).

When you start talking about "those people," you absolutely are claiming other people are inferior to you. When you deny it, you are doing the same thing you accuse other people of.

So you're accusing me of being condescending to people by being condescending to me, all because I said two words in a context you fabricated.

Yeah I'm not biting this one. Think what you want of me. You obviously already made up your mind.

It would be a lot less painful if you took this as a chance for self reflection, rather than just continuing, finger in ear, shouting that I'm wrong.

Martel732 wrote:
Not as stupid as I; I play BA. Power armor melee is just fine; I just don't know how to do it!

Yeah, I have to echo this sentiment.

It's really my fault for picking an army that isn't designed to be a full army. GK are designed to be sprinkled in with better factions, that are supposed to be complete.

Perhaps they'll change that design philosophy when 9th edition comes out. Until then I'm fethed I guess.

Here's a fun game:
Name one thing Grey Knights do better than AM/IG.

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Not as stupid as I; I play BA. Power armor melee is just fine; I just don't know how to do it!

Yeah, I have to echo this sentiment.

It's really my fault for picking an army that isn't designed to be a full army. GK are designed to be sprinkled in with better factions, that are supposed to be complete.

Perhaps they'll change that design philosophy when 9th edition comes out. Until then I'm fethed I guess.

Here's a fun game:
Name one thing Grey Knights do better than AM/IG.

I am genuinely not trying to be sarcastic here but, SmiteSpam?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Not as stupid as I; I play BA. Power armor melee is just fine; I just don't know how to do it!

Yeah, I have to echo this sentiment.

It's really my fault for picking an army that isn't designed to be a full army. GK are designed to be sprinkled in with better factions, that are supposed to be complete.

Perhaps they'll change that design philosophy when 9th edition comes out. Until then I'm fethed I guess.

Here's a fun game:
Name one thing Grey Knights do better than AM/IG.

I am genuinely not trying to be sarcastic here but, SmiteSpam?

No, it's a fair question.

Grey Knights can pay 105 points for a troop choice (minimum possible points) to deal 1 mortal wound.

Astra Militarum can field much cheaper, fully effective smites, that have D3/D6 wounds and 18" as opposed to 1 wound at 12".

So no, the answer is: Astra Militarum has better smite spam.

Shock Assault, presumably.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I am genuinely not trying to be sarcastic here but, SmiteSpam?

That's what I was going to say. Plus their HQs can be bigger.

I'd actually like to see how well the Wyrdvane psykers do in a list, although admittedly I forgot they existed.

On the other hand, what about teleportation?

Bharring wrote:
1. Oh, the time where we readjusted to Loyalist SM PG/Combi 5-man vs 7-man DA units (same cost)? The Loyalists did better damage, but it became clear that they had drawbacks because (1) Combis were 1-time-use, (2) the s7 profile could kill the user via Gets Hot, and (3) you could possibly lose the PG or Combi before the bolter dudes. Imagine if those drawbacks changed? Or if the PG/Combi 5-man cost the same as 5 DAs?

I made some mistakes. Things got corrected. But some of the revised assumptions were more than a bit off. I factored those corrections in moving forward. We all make mistakes.

2. There are two meanings of Proof, really. The formal one is logical proofs that, barring a flaw in the logic, are 100% true. The informal one is "We've shown enough evidence." Logical fallacies destroy the first meaning, not the second. For example, if 100% of people, who took medicine X died within 5 minutes, saying that medicine X kills people who take it is based on a post hoc fallacy. It's probably true. And with enough data fits the informal definition of "proof". But as a post hoc, it wouldn't be a formal "proof". Stats and logical fallacies have a bit more complex relationship than you might think.

3.

It can be DAs, at least until the new Dex comes out. Not sure if it still will be then. But there are plenty of others.

Some rough ranking:
Conscripts
Necron Warriors
Guardsmen
Ork Boyz?
Tacs
Harlequins
Scouts
Fire Warriors
Guardians
Genestealers
Kalabites?
Neophytes
Immortals
Wracks
Rangers
Wyches
PAGK
Corsairs
Kroot
Dire Avengers
Storm Guardians

Some of those might be a bit out of order. But that's not a lot of troops I'd list as better than Tacs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer,
That's why I asked for peoples' data. One set, the one that seems to refute me, is mostly 7E data. The other set is mostly 8E data, but backs what I've been saying.

I didn't have the breadth of data that you did going into this thread, so I asked for it. And it turns out that the majority of that data is *not this edition*.

1. Except they didn't cost the same. You added two Plasma Guns and a Combi Plasma to a squad, which means you didn't bother to learn the loadout for the unit. I make mistakes too but not drastic ones like that. Sometimes I might be off by a couple of percentages because I can't use a calculator all the time.
2. If 100% is like 3 people, I would question the study. You need numbers. That's how medicine works. If it killed 100/100 People you'd have a point. This list is like the one person that does because they were allergic compared to the other 99 people. Pass.
3. You'll probably want to leave the Eldar units off for now until the the codex drops, but there's definitely a LOT wrong with your ranking system. Off the top of my head:
A. Grey Knights have the internal Deep Strike, Storm Bolters, two attacks at AP-2, and crummy Smite along with the Psilencer as a weapon for honestly not many more points (was it 6 or 7?). They are a glass cannon compared to the Tactical Marine glass. If your argument is that Tactical Marines can carry Lascannons...I can get Lascannons anywhere else.
B. Kalabites are actually functional this edition. If you didn't include Raiders or Venoms they'd be bad, but all Dark Eldar are basically had without their transports. Plus there's no fear of flame weapons doing anything to the Open Topped transports because flame weapons are mostly bad this edition!
C. You need to switch around Immortals and Warriors. That's how I know you either don't follow tournaments or go into the Necron Tactica, or both.
D. I've never heard anyone complain about Genestealers being mediocre as a troop this edition so I don't know why you're ranking them so low. This one needs further elaboration on your end.
E. How can you even list Neophytes when they're part of the Crusader Squad itself? That also reminds me that you didn't list Chaos Marines (and Noise and Berserker Marines too for their Legions) and Crusader Squads. Nor did you list Infantry for Guard as well.

So not only are you missing a bunch of choices, but your rankings actually don't make much sense. I could make a similar list but nobody would care.

What about teleportation? If you are talking Deepstike, there are Scions who give better alpha strike per point still.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I am genuinely not trying to be sarcastic here but, SmiteSpam?

That's what I was going to say. Plus their HQs can be bigger.

So, i've already addressed that. AM has far better smite spam. It has been featured in a lot of good lists. 40 points for a fully effective 18" smite.

Bigger HQs? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Yeah you can pay 300 points for a Grand Master Nemesis Dreadknight, but he'll have less firepower than Pask, and he's getting 5 attacks in melee, and can be targeted since he has more than 9 wounds.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Not as stupid as I; I play BA. Power armor melee is just fine; I just don't know how to do it!

Yeah, I have to echo this sentiment.

It's really my fault for picking an army that isn't designed to be a full army. GK are designed to be sprinkled in with better factions, that are supposed to be complete.

Perhaps they'll change that design philosophy when 9th edition comes out. Until then I'm fethed I guess.

Here's a fun game:
Name one thing Grey Knights do better than AM/IG.

I am genuinely not trying to be sarcastic here but, SmiteSpam?

Their actual Librarians don't even have regular Smite.

 Quickjager wrote:
What about teleportation? If you are talking Deepstike, there are Scions who give better alpha strike per point still.

Far better actually, and also since AM have cheap effective units that don't need to deep strike, your alpha footprint is actually bigger with AM than it is with GK. And you don't depend on it first turn, you can beta strike if the situation calls for it. if GK don't arrive turn 1 you'll get tabled hardcore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Not as stupid as I; I play BA. Power armor melee is just fine; I just don't know how to do it!

Yeah, I have to echo this sentiment.

It's really my fault for picking an army that isn't designed to be a full army. GK are designed to be sprinkled in with better factions, that are supposed to be complete.

Perhaps they'll change that design philosophy when 9th edition comes out. Until then I'm fethed I guess.

Here's a fun game:
Name one thing Grey Knights do better than AM/IG.

I am genuinely not trying to be sarcastic here but, SmiteSpam?

Their actual Librarians don't even have regular Smite.

This is correct. With the codex librarians have "Rites of Banishment." It was a big nerf.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
What about teleportation? If you are talking Deepstike, there are Scions who give better alpha strike per point still.

Far better actually, and also since AM have cheap effective units that don't need to deep strike, your alpha footprint is actually bigger with AM than it is with GK. And you don't depend on it first turn, you can beta strike if the situation calls for it. if GK don't arrive turn 1 you'll get tabled hardcore.

Fair enough. I'm still gonna try and find a way to make GKs scary.

 Melissia wrote:
The thing is, I think I know one reason why he'd pick tacticals over devastators.

Ablative wounds.

Yes, paying for ablative wounds means you have slightly less lascannons. But it means the ones you have are harder to remove.

That these ablative wounds also provide anti-infantry firepower helps, and in a pinch they can help you assault an objective.

That's because you guys are running Devastators incorrectly for this scenario.

What you would do is two Lascannons and a Cherub. You lose only two command points (which doesn't matter in this list because Rowboat gives you three for existing) and Objective Secured, and in return you get a BS2+ Lascannon and the ability to fire one of the Lascannons twice. With four squads that's four extra Lascannons firing at BS2+ per game for only 5 points per Cherub! If you count that in the aura, the offensive output is more than worth losing that useless OS rule.

There are two ways to make GK alright, not scary.

One is GKNDK monster mash, sprinkle with Stormravens to your point limit.

It's meh, I don't think anyone would play it for fun, pretty boring. Shunt being taken away from DK make them much more horrible.

The other is GKSS spam, which... isn't really good. Because half have to be on the board you end up investing in Rhinos, but you don't have the points to really reach that saturation level.

 Marmatag wrote:

Here's a fun game:
Name one thing Grey Knights do better than AM/IG.

Being Shiny

GGEZ

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Here's a fun game:
Name one thing Grey Knights do better than AM/IG.

Being Shiny

GGEZ

Also, they're better at being worse than IG than IG.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
What about teleportation? If you are talking Deepstike, there are Scions who give better alpha strike per point still.

Far better actually, and also since AM have cheap effective units that don't need to deep strike, your alpha footprint is actually bigger with AM than it is with GK. And you don't depend on it first turn, you can beta strike if the situation calls for it. if GK don't arrive turn 1 you'll get tabled hardcore.

Fair enough. I'm still gonna try and find a way to make GKs scary.

I can short circuit that process if you like.

Draigo + Double Storm Raven. Deep strike Draigo between the ravens giving them full rerolls. You can run them with meltas and assault cannons, fly right up to your opponent, drop Draigo between them, and have wicked rerolls. They can also fly away because he can Gate of Infinity to keep up and provide rerolls as they terrorize the table. I've been at the final table in a few tournaments doing exactly this.

Of course you can do this cheaper with a chapter master jump pack and ravens, and have a better overall non-GK army, but you can't gate to keep up with the ravens, and draigo is gnarly in melee.

This is the way i've been successful.

But if you're looking at running a GK force that isn't mono-GK, there aren't many options. Your best bet is to have a patrol of GK with a grand master, some strikes, and the rest AM.


But seriously anyone else care to try? I consider myself a competitive player and would be happy to discuss GK vs AM. Help me get better.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Here's a fun game:
Name one thing Grey Knights do better than AM/IG.

Being Shiny

GGEZ

Also, they're better at being worse than IG than IG.

Nailed it. Exalted

 Desubot wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Here's a fun game:
Name one thing Grey Knights do better than AM/IG.

Being Shiny

GGEZ

I dunno if Lord Solar Macharius gets a updated model we might get beat out on that.

 Marmatag wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
What about teleportation? If you are talking Deepstike, there are Scions who give better alpha strike per point still.

Far better actually, and also since AM have cheap effective units that don't need to deep strike, your alpha footprint is actually bigger with AM than it is with GK. And you don't depend on it first turn, you can beta strike if the situation calls for it. if GK don't arrive turn 1 you'll get tabled hardcore.

Fair enough. I'm still gonna try and find a way to make GKs scary.

I can short circuit that process if you like.

Draigo + Double Storm Raven. Deep strike Draigo between the ravens giving them full rerolls. You can run them with meltas and assault cannons, fly right up to your opponent, drop Draigo between them, and have wicked rerolls. They can also fly away because he can Gate of Infinity to keep up and provide rerolls as they terrorize the table. I've been at the final table in a few tournaments doing exactly this.

Of course you can do this cheaper with a chapter master jump pack and ravens, and have a better overall non-GK army, but you can't gate to keep up with the ravens, and draigo is gnarly in melee.

This is the way i've been successful.

But if you're looking at running a GK force that isn't mono-GK, there aren't many options. Your best bet is to have a patrol of GK with a grand master, some strikes, and the rest AM.

I'm actually thinking of using PAGKs. Call me crazy but I still remember when I was young and they were the coolest things ever. That and the Daemonhunter codex basically dared me to prove them wrong.

 Marmatag wrote:
Bigger HQs? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Yeah you can pay 300 points for a Grand Master Nemesis Dreadknight, but he'll have less firepower than Pask, and he's getting 5 attacks in melee, and can be targeted since he has more than 9 wounds.

Don't forget Terminator armor for better saves. Yeah, the Dreadknight is bigger than Pask and being taller about one of the few things GK do better than IG.

I forgot about that list Marmatag, I think I first saw it on Winters Seo channel. I kind of put it on the backburner with the changes to flying units, because of how few boots on the ground GK can have I was too worried about being tabled.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Bigger HQs? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Yeah you can pay 300 points for a Grand Master Nemesis Dreadknight, but he'll have less firepower than Pask, and he's getting 5 attacks in melee, and can be targeted since he has more than 9 wounds.

Don't forget Terminator armor for better saves. Yeah, the Dreadknight is bigger than Pask and being taller about one of the few things GK do better than IG.

Except he's T6, can't receive orders, and being bigger means he's more easy to see and shoot. Any gun, seriously, any gun you'd target at a 12 wound Warlord had better have some AP on it. I mean seriously. Wouldn't it be problematic if you could effectively down the warlord of an army with small arms fire? This guy gets blasted off the table in seconds against meta armies, because he's going to be screened by little die-fast GKs, not the invincible conscript wall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
What about teleportation? If you are talking Deepstike, there are Scions who give better alpha strike per point still.

Far better actually, and also since AM have cheap effective units that don't need to deep strike, your alpha footprint is actually bigger with AM than it is with GK. And you don't depend on it first turn, you can beta strike if the situation calls for it. if GK don't arrive turn 1 you'll get tabled hardcore.

Fair enough. I'm still gonna try and find a way to make GKs scary.

I can short circuit that process if you like.

Draigo + Double Storm Raven. Deep strike Draigo between the ravens giving them full rerolls. You can run them with meltas and assault cannons, fly right up to your opponent, drop Draigo between them, and have wicked rerolls. They can also fly away because he can Gate of Infinity to keep up and provide rerolls as they terrorize the table. I've been at the final table in a few tournaments doing exactly this.

Of course you can do this cheaper with a chapter master jump pack and ravens, and have a better overall non-GK army, but you can't gate to keep up with the ravens, and draigo is gnarly in melee.

This is the way i've been successful.

But if you're looking at running a GK force that isn't mono-GK, there aren't many options. Your best bet is to have a patrol of GK with a grand master, some strikes, and the rest AM.

I'm actually thinking of using PAGKs. Call me crazy but I still remember when I was young and they were the coolest things ever. That and the Daemonhunter codex basically dared me to prove them wrong.

I mean, look, PAGK are the only option. Terminators are brutally overcosted and paladins gain really no survivability or improvement on the core use case of GK which is storm bolters and psychics. We rarely see melee outside of HQs which is why PAGK are the best option here.

On that note, you'll find that it gets depressing real quick. You're paying a boatload of point for units that die incredibly fast, and simply don't deal damage. Their saving grace is they can deep strike and spit out volumes of dice, that can be improved with stratagems. The problem is, that doesn't scale with the army as a whole. So you really only need 1 or maybe 2 squads of 10x PAGK in the entire list, and after that it becomes wholly redundant, because your stratagems and psychic powers don't scale. And as you start adding more and more PAGK, you'll realize you have no answer at all to T7+

Hence why Ravens in a GK list, because the actual GKs themselves simply do not scale.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

 Gunzhard wrote:
So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Are you arguing IG were better in 7th than in 8th? Because in order for that to skew the data in the direction you're suggesting, that would have to be the case...

 Marmatag wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Bigger HQs? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Yeah you can pay 300 points for a Grand Master Nemesis Dreadknight, but he'll have less firepower than Pask, and he's getting 5 attacks in melee, and can be targeted since he has more than 9 wounds.

Don't forget Terminator armor for better saves. Yeah, the Dreadknight is bigger than Pask and being taller about one of the few things GK do better than IG.

Except he's T6, can't receive orders, and being bigger means he's more easy to see and shoot. Any gun, seriously, any gun you'd target at a 12 wound Warlord had better have some AP on it. I mean seriously. Wouldn't it be problematic if you could effectively down the warlord of an army with small arms fire? This guy gets blasted off the table in seconds against meta armies, because he's going to be screened by little die-fast GKs, not the invincible conscript wall.

Yes to all those points. This is what Gray Knights does better than IG.

I'm still willing to give it a shot, since my takeaway from this tournament's results is that there is a way to make anything work.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Are you arguing IG were better in 7th than in 8th? Because in order for that to skew the data in the direction you're suggesting, that would have to be the case...

No not at all - just that the data is meaningless for the sake of proving "OP" or not at this point... just as meaningless as a 'Dakka Poll' as "evidence".

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I'm still willing to give it a shot, since my takeaway from this tournament's results is that there is a way to make anything work.

Good luck.

I would very much strongly advise that you include a detachment other than GK to keep your on-table footprint alive and well, and expand your deep strike footprint.

Saint Celestine fits very well into a GK list, because she can move 24" turn 1 and assault. She's only 150 points and far superior to anything we can field for a comparable cost.

Taurox Primes are solid too


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Are you arguing IG were better in 7th than in 8th? Because in order for that to skew the data in the direction you're suggesting, that would have to be the case...

No not at all - just that the data is meaningless for the sake of proving "OP" or not at this point... just as meaningless as a 'Dakka Poll' as "evidence".

pfft lol. AM head and shoulders above the competition in formal data collected across all ITC events, which weights major GTs far greater that RTTs... yeah.... ok.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Imperial soup got worse because there's no reason to keep that 10% non-imperial guard in your soup. Just put in all guard, with Celestine.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Here's the thing, it isn't really though - a "mathematical fact". Your data is no data at all, your "math" is purely assumption and nerd-panic. Imperial Soup is not even "90% guard" and it did get worse. The mathematical fact is - you have NO data on the new codex, that is indisputable.

Further I'd add that Celestine has nothing to do with the IG Codex... she has the Imperium keyword and could be listed as an "OP or nerf" for EVERY Imperium army... if being able to include Celestine is your proof for OP, again, you have no argument - still in the new Codex they at least changed how the interaction will affect the greater list.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Imperial soup got worse because there's no reason to keep that 10% non-imperial guard in your soup. Just put in all guard, with Celestine.

Haha - right. You can't argue imperial soup got worse in defense of AM not being OP though. Imperial soup isn't needed anymore because AM got even more OP units. Celestine still technically makes it a soup list though. I see 0 reason to include her for both bragging rights of crushing people with mono build and also - Lemon russes and shadowswords are just that good

Slayer,
1.
5 SM + PG/Combi cost the same as 7 DAs when that discussion happens. Points were considered. Hence the 5 vs 7. That they now cost as much as 5 DAs is funny, but about to be changed.

The PG/Combi 5man vs 7 DAs was the more common comparision. There was a lot of 10 naked CSM vs 10 naked DAs - that's where I didn't know CSM were required to pay 10 pts for the champion. In both cases, I payed attention to points. In the second, a mistake made it 140pts : 130pts. I didn't know CSM loadouts, true. Easily adjusted for, and didn't really change much.

Please get over the long-discarded arguments. If you want to continue to argue 7e Tacs vs DAs, sure, but stick to what I'm arguing, not one-offs that were corrected.

2.
Certainly, you need numbers for statistical evidence. But that point was to illustrate a logical fallacy - post hoc - is still valid as statistical evidence. This branch was about if Appeal to Authority was evidence, or should just be dismissed as a logical fallacy. Bigger, valid numbers are better (valid is important - the bulk of the data provided here was 7E numbers). But we don't have those. Hence why people point to the top players, not just the top lists.

3.
A. GKs are 21ppm per people up-thread. They have some nice upgrades, but die just as fast as 13ppm Tacs. I can see where they have their uses, but they lose many of the Tacs' strengths.
B. Saying Kalabites can only be considered in optimized Raider/Venom Spam lists is awfully similar to saying Tacs can only be considered in Robout G. lists. It's worth considering Raiders/Venoms, but it's not everything.
C. I confess, I'm not that familiar with Necrons right now
D. I wouldn't call Genestealers mediocre. I haven't seen reason to rank them above Tacs. Care to elaborate?
E. Should have called the Crusader Squad
E. pt 2 - I didnt feel like listing CSM and SW flavors of Tacs seperately. I think both would be just below vanilla Tacs. SW above CSM. But I could be convinced to shuffle those 3.
E. pt 3 - Cult troops (Plague, Noise, Berzerker, Rubric) I wasn't familiar enough to rank. I know there are some shenanigans you can pull with Berzerkers now, but I doubt all 4 rank above Tacs. So leaving them off didn't impact the "Are Tacs average?" question.

E. pt 4 - Infantry for Guard? There are several flavors. Conscripts and Guardsmen are listed. Vets I spaced. I also didn't break out Pulse rifle vs carbine vs breacher troops either.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Imperial soup got worse because there's no reason to keep that 10% non-imperial guard in your soup. Just put in all guard, with Celestine.

Haha - right. You can't argue imperial soup got worse in defense of AM not being OP though. Imperial soup isn't needed anymore because AM got even more OP units. Celestine still technically makes it a soup list though. I see 0 reason to include her for both bragging rights of crushing people with mono build and also - Lemon russes and shadowswords are just that good

Let's just say IG doesn't need Imperial Soup to win anymore - it still doesn't change the FACT that the interaction with "Soup" has changed the greater list building for IG; it's absolutely not as advantageous... and again Celestine is NOT in the IG codex, she just an "Imperium" unit, she doesn't have the Astra Militarum keyword and can't be assigned to a regiment.

Further if what you say is correct, where is your mathematical proof? ...oh right, you have NONE.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Here's the thing, it isn't really though - a "mathematical fact". Your data is no data at all, your "math" is purely assumption and nerd-panic. Imperial Soup is not even "90% guard" and it did get worse. The mathematical fact is - you have NO data on the new codex, that is indisputable.

I don't need data on the new codex. It's simple logic. When you add rules and point cost reductions to things the get better. So any data that shows AM index winning also shows that AM codex would have won it even easier. It's pretty hard to argue with that logic - you can try if you want though. You will first need to show me how Lemon russ/manticores/basalisks got worse with the addition of army traits that let them reroll the number of shots they take and russes even getting double shots...and reducing in points at the same time. Youll also need to prove that conscripts got worse when they cost 3 points and can have multiple orders on them at the same time...The codex is a huge improvement on the index which was already such a good rule set that MOST imperial armies include more AM in them than their actual army. I understand why you assume nerd panic - probably because thats what you always assume. I can tell you - this time it's different. I've never seen such blatant disregard for balance - except in forge world.

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Here's the thing, it isn't really though - a "mathematical fact". Your data is no data at all, your "math" is purely assumption and nerd-panic. Imperial Soup is not even "90% guard" and it did get worse. The mathematical fact is - you have NO data on the new codex, that is indisputable.

I don't need data on the new codex. It's simple logic. When you add rules and point cost reductions to things the get better. So any data that shows AM index winning also shows that AM codex would have won it even easier. It's pretty hard to argue with that logic - you can try if you want though. You will first need to show me how Lemon russ/manticores/basalisks got worse with the addition of army traits that let them reroll the number of shots they take and russes even getting double shots...and reducing in points at the same time. Youll also need to prove that conscripts got worse when they cost 3 points and can have multiple orders on them at the same time...The codex is a huge improvement on the index which was already such a good rule set that MOST imperial armies include more AM in them than their actual army. I understand why you assume nerd panic - probably because thats what you always assume. I can tell you - this time it's different. I've never seen such blatant disregard for balance - except in forge world.

For the record, I cannot say the new IG Codex is 'OP or not' with any certainty - but I know with indisputable fact that you have NO DATA, and your claims are total BS. You claimed "mathematical fact" ...that statement is just pure B.S.. Now you're saying Logic but again there is nothing to back up your loose theory...

Show me this data of "AM index winning" with the Imperial Soup parsed out... thing is, you can't do it. Show at least that same data versus more current Codex... thing is, you can't do it. Show that same data using just the NEW IG Codex... thing is, you can't do it.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've never seen such blatant disregard for balance

Given GW's loooooooooooooooooooooong history of terrible balance, if this is the worst balanced book you've ever seen, how much did you play previous editions?. Are we going to say that the current IG codex is definitively less balanced than something like say...damn near the entirety of 7E as a whole (between Eldar & Necrons, Gladius, 2++ rerollable invisible deathstars, etc)? 4E Eldar and 3.5E CSM? 5E Space Wolves & GK's? 2E Eldar & Space Wolves? 6E Eldar & Tau? There's a very long list of broken books, I don't think anything has quite hit the levels of balance absurdity 7th peaked at.

IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

I'm also projecting out what they're going to get based off the actual marine codex. It's not looking good. Lots of strategems to try to punch people = autofail in 8th.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

...What about my Codex.

You are proving my point for me. You attribute soup success to the units married with AM codex/index. While AM comprise 80-90% of the list in most cases. And you don't see players just replacing the AM elements with space marines or whatever other imperial faction you wish. It is always AM. Case and point. AM are OP.

I don't know what proofs you want? I can prove a lemon russ is more efficient than a preditor - that conscripts are more efficient than tactical marines. I can prove that a shadowsword has more firepower than a space marine falchion which is supposed to have 2 volcano cannons compared to one AND chapter traits can make it EVEN BETTER.

There is practically unlimited proof unless you are being willfully blind to it.

Martel732 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

I'm also projecting out what they're going to get based off the actual marine codex. It's not looking good. Lots of strategems to try to punch people = autofail in 8th.

I haven't seen any rumors but I wouldn't be surprised... until then though - you could always take Celestine! ...she's as much a Blood Angel as she is an Astra Militarum.

From the BA strat thread:

"BA have nice options than flyers spam. "

"I've found death company have performed fairly well, as long as they're not over-equipped. They can be equipped as ASM with boltguns and more attacks, and they're fairly good at being that."

"I love my inferno pistols. They do so much work for me."

"'ve been really happy with using the following:

The Sanguinor (6" +1A Bubble)
Chaplain (Reroll failed hits in Fight Phase)
Brother Corbulo (+1 S, on to hit rolls of 6 you generate another Attack) "

Yeah, people disagree, Gunzhard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

I'm also projecting out what they're going to get based off the actual marine codex. It's not looking good. Lots of strategems to try to punch people = autofail in 8th.

I haven't seen any rumors but I wouldn't be surprised... until then though - you could always take Celestine! ...she's as much a Blood Angel as she is an Astra Militarum.

I honestly don't see how she helps at all. She's not very killy, and she can't lock anything in CC. What I need are wyches I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

...What about my Codex.

Yeah, it sucks. I'm actually feeling bad for GK, and after 5th, I NEVER thought I'd say that.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are proving my point for me. You attribute soup success to the units married with AM codex/index. While AM comprise 80-90% of the list in most cases. And you don't see players just replacing the AM elements with space marines or whatever other imperial faction you wish. It is always AM. Case and point. AM are OP.

I don't know what proofs you want? I can prove a lemon russ is more efficient than a preditor - that conscripts are more efficient than tactical marines. I can prove that a shadowsword has more firepower than a space marine falchion which is supposed to have 2 volcano cannons compared to one AND chapter traits can make it EVEN BETTER.

There is practically unlimited proof unless you are being willfully blind to it.

Let's get this out of the way - you may be right about the Codex's power level eventually - but you clearly have no idea what the words "mathematical" and "fact" mean.

Where are you getting these numbers now, 80-90% of mostly AM? ...where are you getting the "data" on what people are replacing units with other units on? You cannot prove ANYTHING you are saying hah.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've never seen such blatant disregard for balance

Given GW's loooooooooooooooooooooong history of terrible balance, if this is the worst balanced book you've ever seen, how much did you play previous editions?. Are we going to say that the current IG codex is definitively less balanced than something like say...damn near the entirety of 7E as a whole (between Eldar & Necrons, Gladius, 2++ rerollable invisible deathstars, etc)? 4E Eldar and 3.5E CSM? 5E Space Wolves & GK's? 2E Eldar & Space Wolves? 6E Eldar & Tau? There's a very long list of broken books, I don't think anything has quite hit the levels of balance absurdity 7th peaked at.

2++ reroll stars weren't blatant - they were more subtle. It doesn't just jump right out of the page at you. You had to do a little research to really find the combo. IG stuff is out of the box so much better and clear right in front of you...I didn't play second edition man I'm not sure I was alive yet. I was born in 86 - was I alive yet? I starting in 3rd or 4th edition and didn't get serious about the game until 5th. I saw the blood angels then and the GK then. They were really powerful but the gap was not like this. IG right now should basically never lose a game if they build the right list.

2nd ed tyranids. 2nd ed CSM.

 Xenomancers wrote:
IG right now should basically never lose a game if they build the right list.

I don't think anyone is denying IG aren't really strong and got a boost from the Index to the Codex...but hyperbole like this is ridiculous and does nothing to further the conversation.

People said the exact same things when Eldar and Tau got their books in 6th and 7th. All of this had happened before and will happen again.

Posting nonsense like they'll never ever lose is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on dakka, and I witnessed the birth of the CRASSUS meme.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are proving my point for me. You attribute soup success to the units married with AM codex/index. While AM comprise 80-90% of the list in most cases. And you don't see players just replacing the AM elements with space marines or whatever other imperial faction you wish. It is always AM. Case and point. AM are OP.

I don't know what proofs you want? I can prove a lemon russ is more efficient than a preditor - that conscripts are more efficient than tactical marines. I can prove that a shadowsword has more firepower than a space marine falchion which is supposed to have 2 volcano cannons compared to one AND chapter traits can make it EVEN BETTER.

There is practically unlimited proof unless you are being willfully blind to it.

Let's get this out of the way - you may be right about the Codex's power level eventually - but you clearly have no idea what the words "mathematical" and "fact" mean.

Where are you getting these numbers now, 80-90% of mostly AM? ...where are you getting the "data" on what people are replacing units with other units on? You cannot prove ANYTHING you are saying hah.

Are you disagreeing with me that imperial soup lists aren't mostly imperial guard? I am confused...what is your angle here? are you trying to confuse me with semantics?

Lets clear this up right now. Are tournament winning soup lists mostly imperial guard or something else? Because them being mostly imperial guard is something I would call a fact. The data that they are winning more than other armies I would also call a fact.

Martel732 wrote:

Yeah, it sucks. I'm actually feeling bad for GK, and after 5th, I NEVER thought I'd say that.

Haha. Yeah.

i'm at the crossroads. Do i go balls deep into buying IG and AM to round out GK, or just wait for the next primarch to drop and collect something completely different? If Angron drops i'm done with GK for sure.

The biggest insult is our psychic powers... and those won't change until 9th at the earliest.

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed tyranids. 2nd ed CSM.

2nd ed Eldar, 3rd edition Blood Angels (prior to TAR), 3.5 CSM codex, 4th ed Tyranids for a spell, 5th edition BA had a short window on top but GK were good for longer, 7th edition Eldar was probably the most broken I've seen in all of the editions.

I'm waiting to see how the GK do... our GK player seems to think they're great but from the Internet (the least reasonable source) they do sound pretty nerfed.

BA in 8th were bad when it was just all Index armies, and even worse now - unfortunately the FTG guys are involved again, so the Codex will likely also suck.

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Yeah, it sucks. I'm actually feeling bad for GK, and after 5th, I NEVER thought I'd say that.

Haha. Yeah.

i'm at the crossroads. Do i go balls deep into buying IG and AM to round out GK, or just wait for the next primarch to drop and collect something completely different? If Angron drops i'm done with GK for sure.

The biggest insult is our psychic powers... and those won't change until 9th at the earliest.

You're always safest just playing/building something you enjoy. The power shifts too often to bandwagon, unless you have and like to spend all that cash money. Its not ideal when certain factions get hosed. GW has a long history of shoddy balance and it benefits no one.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IG right now should basically never lose a game if they build the right list.

I don't think anyone is denying IG aren't really strong and got a boost from the Index to the Codex...but hyperbole like this is ridiculous and does nothing to further the conversation.

People said the exact same things when Eldar and Tau got their books in 6th and 7th. All of this had happened before and will happen again.

Posting nonsense like they'll never ever lose is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on dakka, and I witnessed the birth of the CRASSUS meme.

No this is progress to me...you agree that the AM codex is OP? to what degree yet you aren't certain? I think we are closer in opinion than you think then. I think this is worse than 7th eldar and 6th tau though. way worse than 5th GK.

I refuse to buy conscripts. I refuse to accept that untrained guardsmen are better BA than BA at pushing objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed tyranids. 2nd ed CSM.

2nd ed Eldar, 3rd edition Blood Angels (prior to TAR), 3.5 CSM codex, 4th ed Tyranids for a spell, 5th edition BA had a short window on top but GK were good for longer, 7th edition Eldar was probably the most broken I've seen in all of the editions.

I'm waiting to see how the GK do... our GK player seems to think they're great but from the Internet (the least reasonable source) they do sound pretty nerfed.

BA in 8th were bad when it was just all Index armies, and even worse now - unfortunately the FTG guys are involved again, so the Codex will likely also suck.

I 90% agree, except 5th ed BA were never truly above IG or SW. But they WERE damn good.

The Demons 2++ rerollable might not have been obvious, but several variations of the CWE 6e/7e 2++ rerollable were immediately obvious.

But then, CWE had WK, Serpent Spam, and then SL Windriders which were all also obviously OP in the same books.

If your set of theories and knowledge say "This should never happen", but you see examples of it happening, it's time to reexamine those theories and knowledge.

If the claim is that AM (built and played by a highly skilled player) is statistically better and will win, statistically, almost all matches over time, we don't have the data to disprove that (although the current data does refute that, not strongly enough to be conclusive).

But the claim is 'Should basically never lose a game if they build the right list'.

Throw in some fairly supportable assumptions:
-At a large GT, there will be, lets say, 5 or more IG lists built right
-An army that should basically never lose should at least rank in the top 15

Even with those - incredibly weak - assumptions, we now know at least 5 of every top 15 should be IG. If not, one of our assumptions is wrong.

Now, look at tournies since IG dropped. Are 5 of the 15 in each tourny OP?

If not, which assumptions are most likely wrong?

That's how you do proofs. And none of those 3 assumptions are strong enough to actually prove anything. All are wrong in some way.

Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are proving my point for me. You attribute soup success to the units married with AM codex/index. While AM comprise 80-90% of the list in most cases. And you don't see players just replacing the AM elements with space marines or whatever other imperial faction you wish. It is always AM. Case and point. AM are OP.

I don't know what proofs you want? I can prove a lemon russ is more efficient than a preditor - that conscripts are more efficient than tactical marines. I can prove that a shadowsword has more firepower than a space marine falchion which is supposed to have 2 volcano cannons compared to one AND chapter traits can make it EVEN BETTER.

There is practically unlimited proof unless you are being willfully blind to it.

Let's get this out of the way - you may be right about the Codex's power level eventually - but you clearly have no idea what the words "mathematical" and "fact" mean.

Where are you getting these numbers now, 80-90% of mostly AM? ...where are you getting the "data" on what people are replacing units with other units on? You cannot prove ANYTHING you are saying hah.

Are you disagreeing with me that imperial soup lists aren't mostly imperial guard? I am confused...what is your angle here? are you trying to confuse me with semantics?

Lets clear this up right now. Are tournament winning soup lists mostly imperial guard or something else? Because them being mostly imperial guard is something I would call a fact. The data that they are winning more than other armies I would also call a fact.

Confuse you with semantics? ...you are the one making specific numerical claims that you cannot, in any way, prove. Winning Soup armies containing mostly AM? ...I'm willing to bet that is correct, but you said 80-90% and the FACT is you have no idea. You are the one that claimed to have "mathematical fact", and you don't have anything remotely close...

Further are you using the ITC as your proof / "fact" that "they are winning more than other armies"?

Beyond that, as has been stated over and over - these so-called "facts" you have and the relevance to the current AM Codex, of which you have indisputable ZERO data on, is not transferable.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IG right now should basically never lose a game if they build the right list.

I don't think anyone is denying IG aren't really strong and got a boost from the Index to the Codex...but hyperbole like this is ridiculous and does nothing to further the conversation.

People said the exact same things when Eldar and Tau got their books in 6th and 7th. All of this had happened before and will happen again.

Posting nonsense like they'll never ever lose is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on dakka, and I witnessed the birth of the CRASSUS meme.

No this is progress to me...you agree that the AM codex is OP? to what degree yet you aren't certain? I think we are closer in opinion than you think then. I think this is worse than 7th eldar and 6th tau though. way worse than 5th GK.

I've never denied the power of the Guard this edition. They received a lot of buffs, most of them not warranted (unfortunately, several weak units didn't get the love they needed). Overpowered, undercosted, whatever words you want to use accurately describe the power of the Guard. As a full codex, I'd rank them #1 in factions, but other codices have builds that rival the best of the IG. Tournament results show this to be true.

Every time a new overpowered codex gets released, everyone immediately claims its more of a gap than a previous overpowered codex. There's no good way to measure that. I started in 5th so I never witnessed Chaos 3.5, but the GK, SW, and Necron codices of 5th were very strong, the 6th ed Necron codex propelled the game to a new level with the decurion, only made worse by the likes of the Eldar and Tau codices.

Plus, what good does it do to argue over which codex gap is the largest leap? There's no way to measure it.

Ultimately, claiming the Guard are literally unbeatable is hyperbolic nonsense.

Martel732 wrote:
Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

This is also the "alpha strike" edition where you can deep strike without scatter on any turn, and assaulting a tank - even without causing any damage, will neutralize its shooting.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've never seen such blatant disregard for balance

Given GW's loooooooooooooooooooooong history of terrible balance, if this is the worst balanced book you've ever seen, how much did you play previous editions?. Are we going to say that the current IG codex is definitively less balanced than something like say...damn near the entirety of 7E as a whole (between Eldar & Necrons, Gladius, 2++ rerollable invisible deathstars, etc)? 4E Eldar and 3.5E CSM? 5E Space Wolves & GK's? 2E Eldar & Space Wolves? 6E Eldar & Tau? There's a very long list of broken books, I don't think anything has quite hit the levels of balance absurdity 7th peaked at.

2++ reroll stars weren't blatant - they were more subtle. It doesn't just jump right out of the page at you. You had to do a little research to really find the combo. IG stuff is out of the box so much better and clear right in front of you...I didn't play second edition man I'm not sure I was alive yet. I was born in 86 - was I alive yet? I starting in 3rd or 4th edition and didn't get serious about the game until 5th. I saw the blood angels then and the GK then. They were really powerful but the gap was not like this. IG right now should basically never lose a game if they build the right list.

The 2++ reroll stuff was more subtle because it required the use of psychic powers, but that and Invisibility are both far more broken than anything 8E has as yet. Lets also be honest, Scatterbikes and Wraithknights or Necron Decurion's and Wraiths or Gladius detachments weren't exactly spectacularly subtle either, those hopped out of the pages right at everyone as soon as they were seen, as have many other things with many other books in many other editions. I remember 4E Skimmerspam where you couldn't kill Eldar tanks because they could only be hit on 6's in melee, could only be glanced, and you rolled 2D6 pick the lowest for damage, and they could take wargear to ignore the Skimmer downsides (so whereas you need about 18 BS3 Lascannons to average a kill on a Russ, you needed over 100 to kill a Falcon for example). There's been lots of balance sillyness in this game throughout time, and 8E hasn't yet reached the levels of some of the sillier stuff in previous editions. It may yet, but we're a bit off still, most of the big issues with IG appear to be army construction meta issues with Soup and CP's, with a handful of codex costing concerns, as opposed to fundamentally broken stuff like Seerstars or the like.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are proving my point for me. You attribute soup success to the units married with AM codex/index. While AM comprise 80-90% of the list in most cases. And you don't see players just replacing the AM elements with space marines or whatever other imperial faction you wish. It is always AM. Case and point. AM are OP.

I don't know what proofs you want? I can prove a lemon russ is more efficient than a preditor

In what role against what targets? Against weeny infantry, sure the Russ is better, however there certainly isn't a Russ variant that's going to match a Quadlas Predator for long range tank/monster hunting capability. Meanwhile, compare a Stalker to a Hydra and we can see the Hydra gets 2 additional shots and a heavy bolter, but that HB is mostly useless and cant engage multiple air targets with its autocannons the way the Stalker can while the BS difference equalizes out the Hydra's 2 additional shots, but the Hydra is T6 vs the Stalker's T8 (why is a Rhino chassis AA tank almost identical in resiliency to a Leman Russ?) and the difference in cost is IIRC 6 points? The IG codex has its fair share of weirdness and dump units.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

This is also the "alpha strike" edition where you can deep strike without scatter on any turn, and assaulting a tank - even without causing any damage, will neutralize its shooting.

I hope you're not seriously implying that anyone will get a turn 1 charge off on a manticore... Like, one of the many reasons AM is as good as it is is that they have the best screening units in the game. You don't get a turn one charge on anything useful, period.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

This is also the "alpha strike" edition where you can deep strike without scatter on any turn, and assaulting a tank - even without causing any damage, will neutralize its shooting.

They don't physically allow you to reach their tanks with cheap screens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

This is also the "alpha strike" edition where you can deep strike without scatter on any turn, and assaulting a tank - even without causing any damage, will neutralize its shooting.

I hope you're not seriously implying that anyone will get a turn 1 charge off on a manticore... Like, one of the many reasons AM is as good as it is is that they have the best screening units in the game. You don't get a turn one charge on anything useful, period.

You don't get a turn 4 charge, and by then, you are out of BA. Because it takes that long to chop the screens.

That is false...a command russ with a battle cannon and a las cannon is a far better tank hunter than a quad las pred and I don't know why you wouldnt just thorw on 2 HB just because you can. It's also tougher and has more wounds. Cost only 9 more points without them though. And in this form not only is it better at killing tanks - it's better at killing everything by a much larger margin.

... Or you could go with 5 or 6 Tac squads with a Lascannon.

It'd be interesting to discuss why that works, as opposed to whether or not it works.

Bharring wrote:
... Or you could go with 5 or 6 Tac squads with a Lascannon.

It'd be interesting to discuss why that works, as opposed to whether or not it works.

It's actually super boring. The lascannon is a way to project force beyond screens of cheap chaff that marines don't have access to, nor viable solutions to directly engage. Even though marine fluff, for those that care, is full of marines laying waste to hordes of chaff. Yes, they made the aggressor, but that model is a complete failure.

The range of the lascannon means the tac squad can cower in cover the entire game getting a free bump from 3+ armor to 2+ armor, halving the casualties from two of the most offensive weapon systems, wyverns and mortars. This is far less effective vs basilisks and manticores, but you are counting on the 6 undercosted asscannon razors and the stormraven to suck up that fire. The bolters don't matter, nor does the assault ability. The other 4 marines in the squad could have no weapons at all and the list would play EXACTLY the same. That's why I say they aren't worth 13 ppm. They are a really expensive wound for a lascannon.

The 8th ed meta has reduced my armory to very few pieces of equipment that matter: lascannons, typhoon launchers, asscannons, and maybe a couple others. Melta is dead. Powerfists are dead. Thunderhammers are dead. Flamers are dead. Plasma with no rerolls is dead, so I can't use any characters that don't give those precious rerolls to shoot.

Cheap screens (that are always magically immune to psychology), like scatterbikes, have managed to make 85% of my codex mean nothing. Bravo GW.

Is there no more discussion to be had about the "First Warhammer40k GT results"?

Made new thread that's more relevant.

 Xenomancers wrote:
That is false...a command russ with a battle cannon and a las cannon is a far better tank hunter than a quad las pred

I'm not talking about an HQ command Russ versus a Heavy Support Predator, as there is no equivalent Space Marine HQ (unless you want to compare Chronus, but that's another matter altogether), I'm talking about a standard Heavy Support Russ versus a Heavy Support Predator.

However, lets look at this, discounting any Chapter Tactics, Doctrines, Orders, Psychic Powers, etc. We'll throw in the Command Tank as well. (Yes we can add multimeltas to the Russ, but they're short ranged and very expensive)

A Russ shooting a Battle Cannon twice and tossing a Lascannon in will inflict an average of 3.3 wounds against a T8 3+sv target (3.8 with HB's). A Quadlas Predator will do 5.185 on average. The Russ costs 162 points (178 with HB's), the Predator costs 190. The Russ is doing 1 wound per 49 points spent, if we add in Heavy Bolters, we're talking 1 wound per 47 points spent. The Predator is doing 1 wound for 37 points spent. If we want to compare a Command Tank Russ, then we're looking at 4.4 wounds inlicted (4.7 with HB's) for 209 (225 with HB's) so we're looking at 48pts per wound on average both with and without Heavy bolters, functionally the same damage output per point spent as the basis HS Russ.

Against a T6/7 3+sv target, they narrow to 1 Wound per 40 points spent for the Russ or 1 per 39pts spent with HB's, a Command Russ drops to 1 Wound per 38 Points or 37 with HB's, while the Predator remains unchanged (the Predator is still better than the HS Russ, but only slightly so, not enough to care about, and identical to the Command Russ),

but against a T8 2+sv target like a Land Raider or SM superheavy or the like, the HS Russ drops to 2.5 wounds inflicted on average (2.7 with HB), doing 1 wound per 74 points (1 per 65 with HB's), the Command Russ drops to 3.4 wounds inflicted (3.8 with HB's) for 1 wound per 67 Points and 1 wound per 60 points with HB's, while the Predator is doing 4.15 wounds on average doing 1 wound per 46 points.





So, against light armor, they're about the same. Against anything else, the Predator is the clearly and unequivocally superior tank hunter, both in absolute terms and on a per-points-spent basis.

and I don't know why you wouldnt just thorw on 2 HB just because you can. It's also tougher and has more wounds.

It has 1 more wound and 1 more T over the Predator (which may matter against something like Autocannons, but won't mean much of squat all against actual AT guns like Lascannons), while the Predator can move and shoot far more effectively (between higher BS and not losing shots moving over half speed). Overall, doesn't sound like the Quadlas Predator is at any meaningful disadvantage.