I'm seeing a lot of tournies ensuring people bring at least a brigade or battalion which means a minimum of 3 troop choices.

Just curious what people's opinions of the top 5 troop choices available would be.

Time of madness

Tyranid Genestealers
Guard Conscripts
Khorne Berzerkers

I can't think of any other must have Troops in any Faction but I'm sure I'm forgetting something obvious.

Probably Conscripts, Infantry, Scions, Battle Sisters, and Horrors. Though World Eaters, Orks, Tyranids, Harlequins, and Necrons typically don't feel bad about taking lots of their Troops too.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Probably Conscripts, Infantry, Scions, Battle Sisters, and Horrors. Though World Eaters, Orks, Tyranids, Harlequins, and Necrons typically don't feel bad about taking lots of their Troops too.

Battle Sisters are particularly good are they? I thought they seemed fairly standard. Not bad by any means, but I didn't see anything that stood them apart.

For Orks, the must have troops choice is definitly Boyz. (Also for elites/heavy/flyers... just bring boyz in every slot!)

They're actually pretty good, for the points.

Necron Warriors, Guard conscripts and Tau Fire Warriors.

While possibly not among the very top, noise Marines are pretty solid troops choices as well.

Conscripts and Noise Marines are the best for sitting on objectives, Berzerkers and Genestealers are the best for killing stuff IMO.

This is a good question and I imagine it varies by purpose.

E.G. the best troop for killing a tank (point for point) is probably Battle Sisters with 3 meltagun shots per five models.

The best troop for CQB is Zerkers hands down.

The best troop for objective camping is either Conscripts (if it's close to you), Scouts (if it's in midfield) or Tactical Marines (if it's close to your enemy where the scouts can't be).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This is a good question and I imagine it varies by purpose.

E.G. the best troop for killing a tank (point for point) is probably Battle Sisters with 3 meltagun shots per five models.

The best troop for CQB is Zerkers hands down.

The best troop for objective camping is either Conscripts (if it's close to you), Scouts (if it's in midfield) or Tactical Marines (if it's close to your enemy where the scouts can't be).

Tactical marines! LOL

I'm having a lot of luck with my Thousand Sons Rubric Marines. The potential to do 4 mortal wounds a turn is nice. The possibility of having a 2+ save verses a lot of attacks really keeps them alive, and the Inv save really helps a lot. I know some people complain about how much they cost, but they have served me well

Ravingbantha wrote:
I'm having a lot of luck with my Thousand Sons Rubric Marines. The potential to do 4 mortal wounds a turn is nice. The possibility of having a 2+ save verses a lot of attacks really keeps them alive, and the Inv save really helps a lot. I know some people complain about how much they cost, but they have served me well

I personally think once the 1k sunz codex comes out and gives the army a couple buffs, that Rubric Marines will be possibly the best line infantry in the game. Right now they are close but not quite there. They still need some sort of buff or deterant for heavy weapons like heavy grav which turn them into slabs. But against most other weapons, they are like a fething brick wall

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This is a good question and I imagine it varies by purpose.

E.G. the best troop for killing a tank (point for point) is probably Battle Sisters with 3 meltagun shots per five models.

The best troop for CQB is Zerkers hands down.

The best troop for objective camping is either Conscripts (if it's close to you), Scouts (if it's in midfield) or Tactical Marines (if it's close to your enemy where the scouts can't be).

Tactical marines! LOL

Of course Scouts are the best campers. They must do what they can to earn those Merit Badges

For shooting, Tau Fire Warriors are pretty nasty for their points if they have an Ethereal or Cadre Fireblade buffing them, especially if there are also some markerlights around. Space Marine Intercessors aren't bad but they are expensive. EC Noise Marines also put out the shooting pain pretty well, perhaps better than any of the above. And let's not forget Necron Warriors, who have pretty decent guns and can get back up if their unit isn't completely wiped out.

For close combat, Khorne Berzerkers have no equal. Tyranid Genestealers aren't bad either in this department. Daemonettes and Bloodletters are okay but really too squishy. Ork Boyz get hilarious when buffed by characters (Ghazzy for an extra attack, Big Mek with KFF for a 5++, Painboy for 6+++, etc.), plus they are hard to scare off with the Mob Rule and/or a nearby Warboss.

For objective camping, Space Marine Scouts with Camo Cloaks are pretty sweet. Nurglings are surprisingly good for this as well, as they essentially get a rerollable 5++ against 1-damage weapons. Chaos Cultists can sort of camp objectives since they are at least cheap; same with Brimstone Horrors.

For bubble wrapping, Conscripts are probably the best, with Chaos Cultists, Poxwalkers, and even Plaguebearers (at least in large units) being good for this role. Tyranid Termagants aren't bad for bubble wrapping big monsters either.

Seen Necron Warriors mentioned 3 times. Warriors are at best average.
They don't have access to specials or heavies so their shooting is pants (everyone in the game has the old Gauss rule now - the rule that made up for this lack in the past).
They are very slow and have 1 transport that can't carry them all and 2 'transports' that automatically kill the entire lot in reserve if they are destroyed.
They are too expensive to horde.
They are awful in melee for their points.
The one ability that they pay a ton for that is what people obsess about gets completely cancelled out if they are focused down.

Immortals need T5 back and maybe a point or 2 shaved off.

I'd say that Guard have the best troops - Conscripts and Infantry. The Conscripts are an obvious choice, but I'm surprised at how little love Guard Infantry get. They are amazing! 10 men, Plasma Gun, Plasma Pistol, Lascannon and Vox for 77pts. Repeat 9 times for the troop slots of both a Brigade and Detachment and those 90 well equipped bodies come to less than 700pts. And the opponent has to kill 6 4pt models before they start killing any good stuff.

Ork boyz, since everything else in the codex sucks, with the exception of a few HQs. There are no orks lists without boyz, but that's not because they're great, but because we don't have other viable ways to play them.

As always; it depends on what your intended use and your own personal faction biases.
I would choose Noise Marines as the Best Troops, with errata allowing it now, but luckily they are decent by a lot of additional measuring sticks.

As a rule of thumb I would say any Elite/Heavy/Other that can be chosen as a Troop choice will be better then any default Troop choice that could be chosen. After all, any Unit that has some unique ability or war-gear that makes them more usable on the field are likely to be taking up other slots then Troops. For the longest time the 'best' answers would have been 'the cheapest unit available' because the default troops where noticeably worse then their elite counterparts. Armies that could take their good stuff as 'troops' to begin with where oh so sweet in the past....

Ork boyz are kinda great - especially if you get lucky and your opponent spams high str low shot weapons. They just have serious problems with support in the ork index - especially ranged support. Cause currently best support for boyz are other boyz.

Ravingbantha wrote:
I'm having a lot of luck with my Thousand Sons Rubric Marines. The potential to do 4 mortal wounds a turn is nice. The possibility of having a 2+ save verses a lot of attacks really keeps them alive, and the Inv save really helps a lot. I know some people complain about how much they cost, but they have served me well

Same for me. Either min squads with 2 flamers or a full squad with 2 flamers and soulreapers; always in rhinos rushing down the table. They just pack a mean punch and are durable to boot.

The trick to making rubrics shine is building the army around them by surounding them with a lot of vehicles and other durable units. If everything in your army is durable, you're making your opponent's D1 weapons all but useless and he'll have to spread his nastier guns thin.

Niiru wrote:

Battle Sisters are particularly good are they? I thought they seemed fairly standard. Not bad by any means, but I didn't see anything that stood them apart.

For Orks, the must have troops choice is definitly Boyz. (Also for elites/heavy/flyers... just bring boyz in every slot!)

They're actually pretty good, for the points.

Battle Sisters are just incredibly cheap for what they do. 51 points gets you 5 T3 3+ wounds with 8 bolters' worth of shooting, and that shooting degrades slowly as the unit takes losses. A basic Sister is just better than a standard Marine in every way. She shoots 44% better for her cost. She's 44% more durable in the face of S8+, and is still 8% more durable against S4, only losing out against S3 (where she's only 4% less durable). She's only 27% less efficient in CC against T4, and both the Sister and the Marine only get 1 attack anyway, and their bolt pistols are the same. A Sister with a storm bolter shoots 136% (!) better than a Marine per point (and is still cheaper than the Marine), and Sisters' weapon options make them much better for an anti-infantry role. Of course, you can also give a squad 3 melta guns. And they have a 6++, which becomes a 5++ when near a basically-mandatory HQ choice. And, though you can only do this with a few units per turn at most, they can take a free action at the start of your turn.

I mean, people are talking like Noise Marines are solid choices, and Sisters make them look like crap. 19 points gets you a Noise Marine with 3 S4 shots at 24", while 20 points gets you 2 Sisters (twice as many wounds) with 3 shots at 24". The Noise Marines ignore cover, but the Sisters get double the firepower inside 12", which seems like a much bigger deal. Otherwise, I guess the Noise Marines get to make a single S4 shot when they die? And they're better on the charge, though in a sustained engagement the Sisters' bolt pistols and more wounds make them better in CC.

Eldar Windriders are the best Troop. At least they will be when the codex drops, decreases the ridiculously high points cost of their basic weapon and properly restores them to Troops (at least for <Saim Hann> armies).

But they probably still wont hold a candle to Conscripts & Brimstone horrors in terms of pure irremovable bodies on the field.

-

 Galef wrote:
Eldar Windriders are the best Troop. At least they will be when the codex drops, decreases the ridiculously high points cost of their basic weapon and properly restores them to Troops (at least for <Saim Hann> armies).

But they probably still wont hold a candle to Conscripts & Brimstone horrors in terms of pure irremovable bodies on the field.

-

Between the changes to their toughness and changes to mobility, mixed with some hold-over hatred for Scatbikes of 7th edition, i've found my Windriders are the very first target any time I field my eldar. No matter what else is on the board. They don't survive for too terribly long, so my typical strategy is to buff them up with Farseer psyker powers, do as much damage as possible, providing ive got first turn. They're not even scatbikes and people go murder-crazy when they're on the board!

I'm not too terribly bothered by Eldar's rather unideal troop options, given their index is still decently strong, and that I can only field at most, two troop choices from my Eldar collection (two five-man squads of Dire Avengers... now those need a change.) and just run the Outrider detatchment.

But on the topic, the best troop choices that I've played with and against seem to be;
Noise Marines. The dakka they've got is impressive, and Music of the Apocalypse is one hell of a drug.
Ork Boyz.
Intercessor Marines. They're hard to shift without multi-damage weapons, and seem to be a pretty good psychological deterrent. For their points, they are very tough to small arms fire.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Seen Necron Warriors mentioned 3 times. Warriors are at best average.
They don't have access to specials or heavies so their shooting is pants (everyone in the game has the old Gauss rule now - the rule that made up for this lack in the past).
They are very slow and have 1 transport that can't carry them all and 2 'transports' that automatically kill the entire lot in reserve if they are destroyed.
They are too expensive to horde.
They are awful in melee for their points.
The one ability that they pay a ton for that is what people obsess about gets completely cancelled out if they are focused down.

Immortals need T5 back and maybe a point or 2 shaved off.

I'd say that Guard have the best troops - Conscripts and Infantry. The Conscripts are an obvious choice, but I'm surprised at how little love Guard Infantry get. They are amazing! 10 men, Plasma Gun, Plasma Pistol, Lascannon and Vox for 77pts. Repeat 9 times for the troop slots of both a Brigade and Detachment and those 90 well equipped bodies come to less than 700pts. And the opponent has to kill 6 4pt models before they start killing any good stuff.

Vox is a ripoff now. Save yourself 45 pts and buy another company commander instead for more orders..

I can't believe people actually think TAC Marines are the best troops.

I would personally say conscripts are the best troops. Being able to get a battalion for under 300 points is really amazing. And, you will have area denial like you cannot believe, and anything you want protected will be protected.

I cannot acquire conscripts fast enough. In my entire 40k lifespan i have only purchased 2 tactical squads. I never play them.

If TAC marines cost 10 points per model, then yeah, they'd be the best troops.

We already have a trend with Conscripts, Battle Sisters, and others.
GK Termies are a troop choice and can be teleported. This makes them very flexible. You can deploy them where they are needed with maximal fire output and minimal return fire. The same holds for Strikes but they are less survivable.

I think necron warriors would rate as good, but best seems a stretch. You get a lot for that 12 points, but they don't have the support options other troop choices have. No rerolling misses, no ignoring morale, and no special weapons. With something like the humble tac marine you are paying for what can be done to help him as opposed to just paying for the unit themselves. That's the problem with these comparisons, units don't exist in a vacuum, and the presence of force multipliers like buffs makes it a very complicated to compare one unit to another from a different army even if they are in a similar role. This was mentioned in the Necrons are OP thread back in the pre launch days, but then people didn't listen then and I'm not hopeful they started even after being proven as wrong as can be.

Conscripts aside, I'm really impressed by fire warriors.

I think Bloodletters are a hidden gem people haven't utilized yet. For 7 points a model, you get a 5++, S5 and 2 attacks on the charge OR when charged, and can be summoned instead of footslogging. They don't have range but with summoning and their good move speed, they are a bargain. Oh and they come with power swords.

Also, I guess Custodes are technically the BEST troop choice. Depends on what everyone's idea of best means.

I think outside of conscripts/scions. Harlequin troopes are the best. All 5 can take Fusion pistols and caress. Damage potential is off the charts. They also have 4++ saves. Making them somewhat resilient for their toughness level.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think outside of conscripts/scions. Harlequin troopes are the best. All 5 can take Fusion pistols and caress. Damage potential is off the charts. They also have 4++ saves. Making them somewhat resilient for their toughness level.

This...made me laugh. 4++ is great, but on a 1 wound T3 model that costs over 20ppm? Brimstones pull it off because they are so cheap. You can get 6 of them for the cost of 1 Harlie with Fusion Pistol.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think outside of conscripts/scions. Harlequin troopes are the best. All 5 can take Fusion pistols and caress. Damage potential is off the charts. They also have 4++ saves. Making them somewhat resilient for their toughness level.

This...made me laugh. 4++ is great, but on a 1 wound T3 model that costs over 20ppm? Brimstones pull it off because they are so cheap. You can get 6 of them for the cost of 1 Harlie with Fusion Pistol.

-

The reality is you are never shooting at a troope that isn't -1 to wound. I guess I am including that in my ranking them so high.

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think outside of conscripts/scions. Harlequin troopes are the best. All 5 can take Fusion pistols and caress. Damage potential is off the charts. They also have 4++ saves. Making them somewhat resilient for their toughness level.

This...made me laugh. 4++ is great, but on a 1 wound T3 model that costs over 20ppm? Brimstones pull it off because they are so cheap. You can get 6 of them for the cost of 1 Harlie with Fusion Pistol.

-

Indeed, Harlies die fast if the enemy can target them in the shooting phase. They have Starweavers for fast deployment. But if two or more Harlie units charge in the same turn, the enemy can spend CPs to let one enemy unit strike before one of the Harlie units strikes. This can be a severe downside in competitive play.

 Generalstoner wrote:
Necron Warriors, Guard conscripts and Tau Fire Warriors.

"Fire warriors, warriors"

Lolwut? Those are horrible. Scions are the better than either of those.

Custodes.

Another vote for Custodes! Tied with Conscripts as best objective camper in the game in my book.

 CplPunishment wrote:


Vox is a ripoff now. Save yourself 45 pts and buy another company commander instead for more orders..

I don't completely agree with that. Voxs give you a lot more flexibility. Say you have a few heavy weapons squads set up together in a certain location, you can set up a company commander nearby and as long as there is an infantry unit with a Vox babysitting them you can send your orders further to other units that may be more in need of them.
That's what I have done currently. Two areas with a concentration of HWSs 1 CC and 1 infantry squad with vox, and a main battle line with all the other infantry squads. When I've needed to I've been able to send all my orders to the main battle line because of the vox network.

An extra couple of platoon commanders would give me a couple more orders but not as high flexibility. So 6 of one half a dozen of the other (plus saves me elites slots :-p).

Audustum wrote:
Another vote for Custodes! Tied with Conscripts as best objective camper in the game in my book.

Aren't custodes hideously expensive?

Also, as far as I can see, they can't take any transports except for the also very expensive custodes land raider.

Niiru wrote:

Aren't custodes hideously expensive?

Also, as far as I can see, they can't take any transports except for the also very expensive custodes land raider.

They're slow and pretty expensive, yeah. But they're stupidly durable. They pay 18 points per T5 2+/3++ wound. That is, they're more durable per point than Conscripts in the face of bolter fire -- they're as durable as Brimstone Horrors. They're significantly more durable than regular Marines against Heavy Bolters -- in cover they're more durable than Conscripts outside of cover vs Heavy Bolters. You would ordinarily expect multi-wound models to be weak to multi-damage weapons, but they're really not. They are significantly more durable than regular one-wound Marines and basically all vehicles vs overcharged plasma. They are only slightly less durable per point than tactical Marines in the face of lascannon fire. Without mortal wounds, they're very hard to shift.

They shoot very poorly, but they fight pretty well for their cost. They're very good at killing characters because the characters can't get through their invulnerable save and they're putting out a ton of S5 AP-3 d3 damage attacks.

Their Land Raider is like 8 points more than a regular Land Raider and has BS2+, a 5++, and a 6+ FNP.

Dionysodorus wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Aren't custodes hideously expensive?

Also, as far as I can see, they can't take any transports except for the also very expensive custodes land raider.

They're slow and pretty expensive, yeah. But they're stupidly durable. They pay 18 points per T5 2+/3++ wound. That is, they're more durable per point than Conscripts in the face of bolter fire -- they're as durable as Brimstone Horrors. They're significantly more durable than regular Marines against Heavy Bolters -- in cover they're more durable than Conscripts outside of cover vs Heavy Bolters. You would ordinarily expect multi-wound models to be weak to multi-damage weapons, but they're really not. They are significantly more durable than regular one-wound Marines and basically all vehicles vs overcharged plasma. They are only slightly less durable per point than tactical Marines in the face of lascannon fire. Without mortal wounds, they're very hard to shift.

They shoot very poorly, but they fight pretty well for their cost. They're very good at killing characters because the characters can't get through their invulnerable save and they're putting out a ton of S5 AP-3 d3 damage attacks.

Their Land Raider is like 8 points more than a regular Land Raider and has BS2+, a 5++, and a 6+ FNP.

Ahh, true, that does end up sounding pretty durable put like that haha.

Grey Knight Strike Squads. They're not too bad, cost wise, considering what you get. For 105 pts, you get a 5 man squad with choice of force weapons, 3+ T4 deepstriking psychic unit that knows both babysmite and another power. Very spammable, lots of shooting, and good CC capability.

This is discounting units that can be used as hordes (Conscripts, Boyz, Cultists, etc). With the way buffs work, being force multipliers and all, horde units are capable of punching well above their weight. Not that I think there's a problem with that. I like seeing a big sea of models on the table. It's cinematic.

As far as Custodes, you generally won't move them off an objective without some MAJOR brute force. They are essentially buffed up Paladins without the psyker stuff. They are expensive points-wise, but well worth their points. Some of the best elite style units in the game. They will absolutely murderdeathkill about any unit in the game in CQC.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I mean, people are talking like Noise Marines are solid choices, and Sisters make them look like crap. 19 points gets you a Noise Marine with 3 S4 shots at 24", while 20 points gets you 2 Sisters (twice as many wounds) with 3 shots at 24". The Noise Marines ignore cover, but the Sisters get double the firepower inside 12", which seems like a much bigger deal. Otherwise, I guess the Noise Marines get to make a single S4 shot when they die? And they're better on the charge, though in a sustained engagement the Sisters' bolt pistols and more wounds make them better in CC.

Noise marines when they die get to shot the weapon they are carrying, so if he has a sonic blaster he gets 3 shots when he dies, but he has to fire the bolt pistol if he wants to shot someone he is in close combat with when he dies.

So normally what you do is when one dies in close combat you shot something outside of the combat so you can shot the sonic blaster. Also noise marines have bolt pistols too and always hit first in combat so I fail to see how sisters are better in subsequent rounds, as noise marines get to hit first in both players turns then shot the opponent with there bolt pistol.

10 sisters (divided into 2 squads) = 102pts which gives you 14 bolter shots at long range and 28 at short range, in combat you get 12 str3 attacks. Durability wise you have 10 t3 3+ wounds.
5 Noise Marines = 107 which gives you 12 ignores cover bolter shots, and either d3 str8 ap-2 Dd3 damage ignores cover shots or, 1d6 str4 ap-1 D1 shots, in combat noise marines have 11 str4 attacks. Durability wise you have 5 t4 2+ wounds.

So before we bring in special abilities which noise marines have allot of special abilities, noise marines are superior at both long range shooting, close combat, dealing with vehicles, monsters and units camping in cover. (because they have an actual heavy weapon and ignore cover)

Noise marines however are inferior at close range shooting and I think 10 t3 3+wounds are better than 5 t4 3+ ones (though I would argue noise marines generally have a 2+ since there role is to camp objectives which people generally place in cover) while sisters normally advance up the board into 12in range.

Noise marines also have the ability to always hit first in close combat, which allows them to sometimes hit before nasty squishes like orks, genestealers, daemons during a massed charge, they also get to shot there weapons upon death which sister don't.

(PS I'm not saying sisters are bad, they are definitely one of the best troops in the game)

 Tsol wrote:

Ravingbantha wrote:
I'm having a lot of luck with my Thousand Sons Rubric Marines. The potential to do 4 mortal wounds a turn is nice. The possibility of having a 2+ save verses a lot of attacks really keeps them alive, and the Inv save really helps a lot. I know some people complain about how much they cost, but they have served me well

I personally think once the 1k sunz codex comes out and gives the army a couple buffs, that Rubric Marines will be possibly the best line infantry in the game. Right now they are close but not quite there. They still need some sort of buff or deterant for heavy weapons like heavy grav which turn them into slabs. But against most other weapons, they are like a fething brick wall

That's been the beauty on Rubric Marines, They are my troops so people look at them as such. Using heavier weapons on my Rubrics means that those weapons are not being used on my terminators, or some of the other heavier hitters. If you leave them alone, they will keep chewing through units, if you shoot them with Anti-Infantry they shrug most of it off, if you shoot them with MEQ or tank killers that means those units are not getting hit. They are like a Distract-O-Fex in troop slot form.

Conscripts, Genestealers, Boyz

 Rydria wrote:
Noise marines when they die get to shot the weapon they are carrying, so if he has a sonic blaster he gets 3 shots when he dies, but he has to fire the bolt pistol if he wants to shot someone he is in close combat with when he dies.

You may want to re-read the general shooting rules to see how to apply the Noise Marines' Music of the Apocalypse. It's not how you expect it to work, but the rules seem unambiguous that a Noise Marine with a Sonic Blaster only gets 1 S4 shot when he dies. He gets to make "a shooting attack" -- that's one dice. Normally a model with an Assault 3 gun gets to make 3 attacks with it.

So normally what you do is when one dies in close combat you shot something outside of the combat so you can shot the sonic blaster. Also noise marines have bolt pistols too and always hit first in combat so I fail to see how sisters are better in subsequent rounds, as noise marines get to hit first in both players turns then shot the opponent with there bolt pistol.

Noise Marines are generally going to fare worse than equal points of Sisters when close to the enemy. You can run some examples if you don't believe this. Obviously if our unit gets to charge, the Noise Marines are coming out way behind -- every 20 points of Sisters is putting out 6 S4 shots before any blows are exchanged, then getting 2 WS4+ S3 attacks in each subsequent Fight phase and 2 BS3+ S4 pistol shots in each of their later Shooting phases. Every 19 points of Noise Marines is getting only 3 S4 shots before charging, then 2 WS3+ S4 attacks and 1 BS3+ S4 pistol shot later on. The Noise Marines don't even catch up to the Sisters' pre-charge shooting until their second Fight phase. It's true that if our unit gets charged, the Noise Marines look a little better at first. The Sisters' Overwatch is twice as good, amounting to 2 extra WS4+ S4 attack in expected damage, whereas the Noise Marines only get 1. Then the Noise Marines get 2 WS3+ S4 attacks compared to the Sisters' 2 WS4+ S3 attacks. The Noise Marines come out very slightly ahead vs MEQs after accounting for Overwatch. But then the Sisters do just as well as the Noise Marines in their own turn, since the Sisters get 2 bolt pistol shots for every 1 that the Noise Marines get.

You're also not accounting for how much easier the Noise Marines are to kill. The above shows that Sisters are much better on the charge and comparable when defending even if you assume that they're not taking any hits themselves. But Noise Marines are far more fragile than Sisters. If our models take 18 S4 hits, 3 Noise Marines -- 57 points' worth -- expect to die. Our unit just lost 9 shots at range and 6 attacks in CC, plus 3 bolt pistols. 18 S4 hits expects to kill 4 Sisters -- somewhere between 36 and 44 points' worth -- and obviously we're going to take the ones that just have regular bolters as casualties first. This means that, at range or in CC, the Sisters are tending to get more attacks in subsequent rounds just because they're not dying as quickly.

10 sisters (divided into 2 squads) = 102pts which gives you 14 bolter shots at long range and 28 at short range, in combat you get 12 str3 attacks. Durability wise you have 10 t3 3+ wounds.
5 Noise Marines = 107 which gives you 12 ignores cover bolter shots, and either d3 str8 ap-2 Dd3 damage ignores cover shots or, 1d6 str4 ap-1 D1 shots, in combat noise marines have 11 str4 attacks. Durability wise you have 5 t4 2+ wounds.

So before we bring in special abilities which noise marines have allot of special abilities, noise marines are superior at both long range shooting, close combat, dealing with vehicles, monsters and units camping in cover. (because they have an actual heavy weapon and ignore cover)

Noise marines however are inferior at close range shooting and I think 10 t3 3+wounds are better than 5 t4 3+ ones (though I would argue noise marines generally have a 2+ since there role is to camp objectives which people generally place in cover) while sisters normally advance up the board into 12in range.

Noise marines also have the ability to always hit first in close combat, which allows them to sometimes hit before nasty squishes like orks, genestealers, daemons during a massed charge, they also get to shot there weapons upon death which sister don't.

(PS I'm not saying sisters are bad, they are definitely one of the best troops in the game)

I don't think this is quite right. A 51 point Battle Sister squad has 5 models with 3 storm bolters and 2 bolters. 2 units will have 16/32 shots. In a fight they get 12 S3 attacks, but also 10 bolt pistol shots if still stuck in their own Shooting phase. 4 Noise Marines with sonic blasters and 1 with a blastmaster is 111 points, and they have 3+ saves. We could make the points even by adding an 11th Sister somewhere, but of course you wouldn't generally do this.

The Noise Marines are significantly worse at long-range shooting against any sort of infantry other than 3+ or 4+ saves in cover. They're only just as good as the Sisters against 4+ saves in cover. They only come out notably ahead against 3+ saves in cover -- this is really the one thing they're good at. The Sisters are way better against anything outside of cover. The Noise Marines are only about 15% better against T7 3+ multi-wound, per point. Of course, if we wanted to equip a Sisters squad to be better able to deal with vehicles, that's not hard to do.

And the Sisters' durability is still a huge deal. Sure, Noise Marines camped in cover on an objective are more durable against small arms than Sisters advancing up the field outside of cover, but that's a weird comparison. You could use Sisters in exactly the same way as you want to use the Noise Marines, and they'd do a better job at it because they'd have their own 2+ saves and they shoot much better at things advancing up the field outside of cover. It's just that you have even better uses for them that involve trading away some durability for more firepower. Used similarly, Noise Marines are going to lose more points' worth of models much faster than Sisters and so will become much worse at their job.

Striking first in CC is kind of nice. It's pretty situational, though. In general the Sisters' massively better Overwatch is probably going to do more to protect them from CC than the Noise Marines' ability to strike first -- they always get the equivalent of an extra WS4+ S4 attack when charged compared to the Noise Marines sometimes being able to make their normal 2 attacks earlier than they otherwise would.

How about plague marines they can get pretty nice weapons in the CSM codex and most likely have same or more weapon Options incoming DG codex. Do you Guys think that they could be top troop choices?

Custodes...

They're slow and pretty expensive, yeah. But they're stupidly durable. They pay 18 points per T5 2+/3++ wound.

But this computation has a flaw, since multiwound weapons can end their lifes rather easily if they go through.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Custodes...

They're slow and pretty expensive, yeah. But they're stupidly durable. They pay 18 points per T5 2+/3++ wound.

But this computation has a flaw, since multiwound weapons can end their lifes rather easily if they go through.

No, I was considering that when talking about their durability in the face of plasma and lascannon fire. Plasma is particularly bad against them because they have 3 wounds, so a volley of overcharged plasma shots risks overkilling a model. A single plasma gun mixed in with a squad of bolters does better, but it's still nothing special. Even against a lascannon, that 3++ is great, and makes Custodes about as durable per-point as a basic tactical Marine, which is obviously not a very appealing target for a lascannon. Plus, though I didn't try to include this, saving them from a lascannon wound is a really strong use of the re-roll stratagem.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Custodes...

They're slow and pretty expensive, yeah. But they're stupidly durable. They pay 18 points per T5 2+/3++ wound.

But this computation has a flaw, since multiwound weapons can end their lifes rather easily if they go through.

With a 3++ they're still going to be pretty resistant to multi-wound weapons though (since most tend to have few shot and rely instead on good AP). And 3-wounds makes them a lot harder to kill with plasma and such.

edit

First i'm going to apologize for replying at 4am with no sleep that was an awful idea.

Dionysodorus wrote:
You may want to re-read the general shooting rules to see how to apply the Noise Marines' Music of the Apocalypse. It's not how you expect it to work, but the rules seem unambiguous that a Noise Marine with a Sonic Blaster only gets 1 S4 shot when he dies. He gets to make "a shooting attack" -- that's one dice. Normally a model with an Assault 3 gun gets to make 3 attacks with it.

Most people I've talked to on here and other forums consider a shooting attack to be firing the weapon.

Shooting attack = how many attacks the weapon profile has. (But we could be wrong)

Dionysodorus wrote:
Noise Marines are generally going to fare worse than equal points of Sisters when close to the enemy. You can run some examples if you don't believe this. Obviously if our unit gets to charge, the Noise Marines are coming out way behind -- every 20 points of Sisters is putting out 6 S4 shots before any blows are exchanged, then getting 2 WS4+ S3 attacks in each subsequent Fight phase and 2 BS3+ S4 pistol shots in each of their later Shooting phases. Every 19 points of Noise Marines is getting only 3 S4 shots before charging, then 2 WS3+ S4 attacks and 1 BS3+ S4 pistol shot later on. The Noise Marines don't even catch up to the Sisters' pre-charge shooting until their second Fight phase. It's true that if our unit gets charged, the Noise Marines look a little better at first. The Sisters' Overwatch is twice as good, amounting to 2 extra WS4+ S4 attack in expected damage, whereas the Noise Marines only get 1. Then the Noise Marines get 2 WS3+ S4 attacks compared to the Sisters' 2 WS4+ S3 attacks. The Noise Marines come out very slightly ahead vs MEQs after accounting for Overwatch. But then the Sisters do just as well as the Noise Marines in their own turn, since the Sisters get 2 bolt pistol shots for every 1 that the Noise Marines get. 

You're also not accounting for how much easier the Noise Marines are to kill. The above shows that Sisters are much better on the charge and comparable when defending even if you assume that they're not taking any hits themselves. But Noise Marines are far more fragile than Sisters. If our models take 18 S4 hits, 3 Noise Marines -- 57 points' worth -- expect to die. Our unit just lost 9 shots at range and 6 attacks in CC, plus 3 bolt pistols. 18 S4 hits expects to kill 4 Sisters -- somewhere between 36 and 44 points' worth -- and obviously we're going to take the ones that just have regular bolters as casualties first. This means that, at range or in CC, the Sisters are tending to get more attacks in subsequent rounds just because they're not dying as quickly.

Those 57 pts of noise marines are accomplishing something even when they die while the sister aren't so even though you're losing only 6 attacks (2 bolters and 2 storm bolters) to the noise marines 3 sonic blaster, the sonic blaster marines are still getting to shot upon death.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I don't think this is quite right. A 51 point Battle Sister squad has 5 models with 3 storm bolters and 2 bolters. 2 units will have 16/32 shots. In a fight they get 12 S3 attacks, but also 10 bolt pistol shots if still stuck in their own Shooting phase. 4 Noise Marines with sonic blasters and 1 with a blastmaster is 111 points, and they have 3+ saves. We could make the points even by adding an 11th Sister somewhere, but of course you wouldn't generally do this.

In my half asleep state I forgot about the sister superior's combi-bolters even though I pointed them up that was my bad. As for the noise marines I have no idea how I messed that up.

Dionysodorus wrote:
The Noise Marines are significantly worse at long-range shooting against any sort of infantry other than 3+ or 4+ saves in cover. They're only just as good as the Sisters against 4+ saves in cover. They only come out notably ahead against 3+ saves in cover -- this is really the one thing they're good at. The Sisters are way better against anything outside of cover. The Noise Marines are only about 15% better against T7 3+ multi-wound, per point. Of course, if we wanted to equip a Sisters squad to be better able to deal with vehicles, that's not hard to do.

I don't see how they are significantly worse if you use the inferior setting of the blast master you are averaging an equal number of shots to the sisters while being better against targets in cover. Noise marines can also split fire the blastmaster on the krak missile setting which averages 2 shots.

So it is 16 bolters vs 12 bolters + 2 krak missiles. (Noise Marines win)
or 16 bolters vs 12 bolters + 4 bolt rifles (Noise Marines win)

Dionysodorus wrote:
And the Sisters' durability is still a huge deal. Sure, Noise Marines camped in cover on an objective are more durable against small arms than Sisters advancing up the field outside of cover, but that's a weird comparison. You could use Sisters in exactly the same way as you want to use the Noise Marines, and they'd do a better job at it because they'd have their own 2+ saves and they shoot much better at things advancing up the field outside of cover. It's just that you have even better uses for them that involve trading away some durability for more firepower. Used similarly, Noise Marines are going to lose more points' worth of models much faster than Sisters and so will become much worse at their job.

If you aren't moving the sisters up the board though you aren't playing to there strengths while camping with noise marines is playing to there strength.

I have already pointed out that sisters are significantly superior at short range shooting so there isn't a point in talking about that.

quote=Dionysodorus 737182 9569789 null]Striking first in CC is kind of nice. It's pretty situational, though. In general the Sisters' massively better Overwatch is probably going to do more to protect them from CC than the Noise Marines' ability to strike first -- they always get the equivalent of an extra WS4+ S4 attack when charged compared to the Noise Marines sometimes being able to make their normal 2 attacks earlier than they otherwise would.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
For objective camping, Space Marine Scouts with Camo Cloaks are pretty sweet

Tacticals do it better. And yes, I know the less knowledgable people in the game would say otherwise, but it's objectively true.

For one point less than a scout with camo cloak, you can camp a tactical on an objective and get the same defensive result against shooting, while having superior protection against assault. So, point per point, tacs are better at this than camo scouts. Toss snipers on the scouts and sure, but then they become even more expensive, and most people think snipers suck anyway. A tactical squad with a lascannon is better protected than camo scouts with sniper rifles, and arguably has better utility-- for the same price.

I do think the baseline battle sister is pretty good. She's basically a min-maxed budget tactical marine, subtracting points from stats that matter in situations the tactical marine already doesn't want to be in and trading it for points savings. Plus the minimum size battle sister squad gets full special weapon privileges, unlike the tactical which require full-sized squads.

Thing is: they're also the basis for their fast attack and heavy support units and those are much more desirable. You aren't likely to see sisters players taking more BSS than the minimum neccesary, while noise marines, berserkers and conscripts have a utility of their own that make people want to take them.

Whoever priced the current camo cloaks is stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
For objective camping, Space Marine Scouts with Camo Cloaks are pretty sweet

Tacticals do it better. And yes, I know the less knowledgable people in the game would say otherwise, but it's objectively true.

For one point less than a scout with camo cloak, you can camp a tactical on an objective and get the same defensive result against shooting, while having superior protection against assault. So, point per point, tacs are better at this than camo scouts. Toss snipers on the scouts and sure, but then they become even more expensive, and most people think snipers suck anyway. A tactical squad with a lascannon is better protected as camo scouts with sniper rifles, and arguably has better utility-- for the same price.

Sniper Rifles + ML is MUCH better utility. You flatout ignored that post though.

 Melissia wrote:
Tacticals do it better. And yes, I know the less knowledgable people in the game would say otherwise, but it's objectively true.

Who still says this? Are they just reiterating old advice from 7th edition?

Tactical squads are bad at everything. Stop pushing your agenda Melisa. To even mention tactical squads in a thread about the "best troops in the game" it's a pretty low blow.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Tacticals do it better. And yes, I know the less knowledgable people in the game would say otherwise, but it's objectively true.

Who still says this? Are they just reiterating old advice from 7th edition?

AM fan-girls that don't want conscripts nerfed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sniper Rifles + ML is MUCH better utility

So add another 21 points on to the cost of the scout squad then, making it cost nearly as much as two five-man tactical squads, which is definitely far superior in durability than the scouts, especially against assault. And at short range, puts out far superior damage against infantry as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You flatout ignored that post though.

No, I did not.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tactical squads are bad at everything.

This is objectively untrue.

My votes for the top three, in arbitrary order, are:

Battle Sister Squads: Cheap, can take a ton of special weapons, still gets 3+ armor and krak grenades. The things they suck at are things that most troop units don't want to be doing anyway. Their 6++ and half-assed deny seem tiny, but do have their uses - in particular, that 6++ makes them ever so slightly harder to delete with AP -4/-5 weapons.

Brimstone Horrors: Cheap, cheap, cheap, and just durable enough to be really annoying. Micro-smite is wussy, but it adds up. Again, cheap, so the suicide factor doesn't matter. If it greases a lone guardsman, that's a fair trade.

Scions: Like Sisters, but with different tradeoffs. They lose some range, a point of armor and the shield of faith factor, and have slightly less special weapon density, but they're a little better in melee, can take orders, can deep strike, and their default weapon has AP -2. The hotshot lasguns, because of that, are arguably better than bolters for trying to ping a few wounds off tough stuff, which somewhat makes up for the loss of the third melta, while FRFSRF makes up for the loss of the third flamer (or storm bolter).

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sniper Rifles + ML is MUCH better utility

So add another 21 points on to the cost of the scout squad then, making it cost nearly as much as two five-man tactical squads, which is definitely far superior in durability than the scouts, especially against assault. And at short range, puts out far superior damage against infantry as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You flatout ignored that post though.

No, I did not.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tactical squads are bad at everything.

This is objectively untrue.

I don't know where you got an extra 21 points from. Sniper makes them 1 more point expensive and gives better range + mortal wound chances, and the ML is the same price as the Lascannon. So mildly less effective vs large targets but still D6 damage and has the Frag option.

You're one of the only people defending Tactical Marines remember that. I know you're starting a Blood Angels army and stuff, but once you start using Marines in an actual competitive setting you'll see they offer nothing.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Sniper Rifles + ML is MUCH better utility

So add another 21 points on to the cost of the scout squad then, making it cost nearly as much as two five-man tactical squads, which is definitely far superior in durability than the scouts, especially against assault. And at short range, puts out far superior damage against infantry as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You flatout ignored that post though.

No, I did not.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tactical squads are bad at everything.

This is objectively untrue.

I don't know where you got an extra 21 points from. Sniper makes them 1 more point expensive and gives better range + mortal wound chances, and the ML is the same price as the Lascannon. So mildly less effective vs large targets but still D6 damage and has the Frag option.

You're one of the only people defending Tactical Marines remember that. I know you're starting a Blood Angels army and stuff, but once you start using Marines in an actual competitive setting you'll see they offer nothing.

She is saying the Marines + Lascannon are the same price as Scouts with cloaks and rifles. I think if you add the ML then you get the extra 21 points. But I only have Imperium 1, not the 'dex, so I have no idea.

 Rydria wrote:
Most people I've talked to on here and other forums consider a shooting attack to be firing the weapon.

Shooting attack = how many attacks the weapon profile has. (But we could be wrong)

The rules are very clear that an attack is one dice: "Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made. The number of attacks a model can make with a weapon, and therefore the number of dice you can roll, is found on the weapon's profile..." Music of the Apocalypse does not do much. The shooting rules simply never use "attack" as a singular noun to refer to using a weapon's full profile, including its number of attacks. You'll note that when the rules want you to use the weapon's full profile, they simply allow you to "shoot", as with Space Marine Ancients.

I don't see how they are significantly worse if you use the inferior setting of the blast master you are averaging an equal number of shots to the sisters while being better against targets in cover. Noise marines can also split fire the blastmaster on the krak missile setting which averages 2 shots.

So it is 16 bolters vs 12 bolters + 2 krak missiles. (Noise Marines win)
or 16 bolters vs 12 bolters + 4 bolt rifles (Noise Marines win)

You're right, I was counting the blastmaster wrong, and it really is the blastmaster alone that keeps Noise Marines competitive. Though note that the Sisters are 9% cheaper -- they still end up performing better against lots of infantry targets.

If you aren't moving the sisters up the board though you aren't playing to there strengths while camping with noise marines is playing to there strength.

I have already pointed out that sisters are significantly superior at short range shooting so there isn't a point in talking about that.

That's not the point. That the Sisters have the ability to operate in this other way which is generally better than standing in cover on an objective while shooting at range doesn't mean that they're bad at standing in cover while shooting at range. This game doesn't care about comparative advantage, only absolute advantage. That Sisters can compete with Noise Marines at the Noise Marines' own job, while absolutely excelling at their own preferred role, is exactly why they're so good. Like, if we made Noise Marines' guns rapid fire instead of assault, they'd be way better even though now they'd probably want to be moving up the field. It's not like they'd be any worse at holding objectives.

Circumventing an entire phase is allot more powerful than you're making it out to be here, if a sister army gets mass charged it will generally be crippled or outright killed before it gets to attack, a emperor's children army forces the opponent to fight interchangeable fight phase actions which can completely change the outcome of a massed charged.

This also increases durability indirectly in subsequent fight phases as the noise marines will always hit first, so noise marines will generally be receiving less attacks in CQC than sisters will be.

First, my point was that the Sisters are getting a significant fraction of the same benefit just because their Overwatch is so much better, and they get this basically unconditionally. Like, how often is it actually a big deal that your Noise Marines are getting to strike with chargers? If only one unit charged Noise Marines, and your opponent's other chargers charged things other than Noise Marines, it's not going to matter at all unless maybe you have a big character elsewhere and your opponent wants to make sure you don't spend 2 CP to interrupt over there. Are you running an army consisting of almost nothing but Noise Marines? Likewise it doesn't matter very much on your turn unless you again have multiple units of Noise Marines still in combat. Meanwhile Sisters are getting 38% of the impact before all enemy chargers fight, in addition to their regular attacks later. Finally, I don't think I've ever seen a Sisters army get mass charged. You just don't arrange your units so that it's possible to charge a whole bunch of them. You have screens for that kind of thing.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
She is saying the Marines + Lascannon are the same price as Scouts with cloaks and rifles. I think if you add the ML then you get the extra 21 points. But I only have Imperium 1, not the 'dex, so I have no idea.

You are correct.

Scouts with cloaks are one point per model more expensive than tacticals, for the same defense against shooting while in cover but worse defense against assault. Scouts with sniper rifles add four points on top of that, making them five points per model more expensive than tacticals. Add a missile launcher, which is 25 points, or 25-4=21 to replace a sniper rifle, and you have a 111 point squad that's less effective defensively than a tactical squad, and only arguably better offensively.

Don't get me wrong, I like scouts. I even use the SR+ML team mentioned here in my own list. But one has to be realistic with what they can accomplish.

Gretchen are among my top 5 with Ork Boys being my number one. So, it's orks and grots for my top 5.

I think all the marines troops are poor, which is why that debate is an endless cesspool.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Rydria wrote:
Most people I've talked to on here and other forums consider a shooting attack to be firing the weapon.

Shooting attack = how many attacks the weapon profile has. (But we could be wrong)

The rules are very clear that an attack is one dice: "Each time a model shoots a ranged weapon, it will make a number of attacks. You roll one dice for each attack being made. The number of attacks a model can make with a weapon, and therefore the number of dice you can roll, is found on the weapon's profile..." Music of the Apocalypse does not do much. The shooting rules simply never use "attack" as a singular noun to refer to using a weapon's full profile, including its number of attacks. You'll note that when the rules want you to use the weapon's full profile, they simply allow you to "shoot", as with Space Marine Ancients.

It specifically says a shooting attack with a weapon of your choice. The attack with the weapon is equal to the number of shots in the weapons profile. For a sonic blaster that is 3. For a blastmaster that is d3/d6. Otherwise this is an exception to all shooting attacks in the game with the wording.

You are making one attack using the weapons profile which is assault 3 if using a sonic blaster.

You are making 3 shots in one attack.

This is no different than the shooting phase where you make an attack using all weapons available, except shooting a weapon and a pistol.

On topic more:

For my list which I have played with:

1)NMs are just beast anyway. They hold objectives and put out tons of dakka.
2)Zerkers are blenders
3)Cultist are so cheap it allows a lot of options.

jade_angel wrote:
My votes for the top three, in arbitrary order, are:

Battle Sister Squads: Cheap, can take a ton of special weapons, still gets 3+ armor and krak grenades. The things they suck at are things that most troop units don't want to be doing anyway. Their 6++ and half-assed deny seem tiny, but do have their uses - in particular, that 6++ makes them ever so slightly harder to delete with AP -4/-5 weapons.

Brimstone Horrors: Cheap, cheap, cheap, and just durable enough to be really annoying. Micro-smite is wussy, but it adds up. Again, cheap, so the suicide factor doesn't matter. If it greases a lone guardsman, that's a fair trade.

Scions: Like Sisters, but with different tradeoffs. They lose some range, a point of armor and the shield of faith factor, and have slightly less special weapon density, but they're a little better in melee, can take orders, can deep strike, and their default weapon has AP -2. The hotshot lasguns, because of that, are arguably better than bolters for trying to ping a few wounds off tough stuff, which somewhat makes up for the loss of the third melta, while FRFSRF makes up for the loss of the third flamer (or storm bolter).

I'm confused, why are Scions better in melee than sisters?

- They have the same number of attacks
- They have the same strenght
- Neither have any melee weapons to alter stats (except for the leader of each squad, which works out the same for each)

- BUT sisters get a 3+ save and a 6++ rerollable invulnerable, vs scions straight 4+ save, so sisters should be more survivable?

Oh... but I guess scions with a tempestor prime can re-roll all 1's to hit and to wound, if they're the only squad being ordered by the tempestor.
But then, if sisters are the only sisters being "ordered" they can use an act of faith to fight twice per turn.

Also, I laugh at the idea that the 6+ invulnerable sisters get actually matters.

Functionally, it is a rule you can forget even exists and have no real impact on 99% of your games.

Mazzyx wrote:

It specifically says a shooting attack with a weapon of your choice. The attack with the weapon is equal to the number of shots in the weapons profile. For a sonic blaster that is 3. For a blastmaster that is d3/d6. Otherwise this is an exception to all shooting attacks in the game with the wording.

You are making one attack using the weapons profile which is assault 3 if using a sonic blaster.

You are making 3 shots in one attack.

This is no different than the shooting phase where you make an attack using all weapons available, except shooting a weapon and a pistol.

You should probably re-read the shooting rules because it never talks about making "an attack" with a weapon's profile where you then get a number of attacks based on that profile. In the shooting phase you attack with your weapons a number of times equal to the number on their profile.

 Melissia wrote:
Also, I laugh at the idea that the 6+ invulnerable sisters get actually matters.

Functionally, it is a rule you can forget even exists and have no real impact on 99% of your games.

It really only matters if you're taking a high-AP hit to the face, so yeah the vehicles get a lot more out of it. Though it means less than it did in previous editions, it's still there.

Niiru wrote:

Oh... but I guess scions with a tempestor prime can re-roll all 1's to hit and to wound, if they're the only squad being ordered by the tempestor.

Just a point, but they can only do one of those at a time.

And it's unlikely Battle Sisters would ever be the ones to benefit from an act of faith in most lists, which are MSU. A full fifteen-girl squad might, but not the 5-girl ones most people use.

The AoF is reserved for more powerful specialist squads in most lists, like dominions or celestine, or even retributors.

 Melissia wrote:
And it's unlikely Battle Sisters would ever be the ones to benefit from an act of faith in most lists, which are MSU. A full fifteen-girl squad might, but not the 5-girl ones most people use.

The AoF is reserved for more powerful specialist squads in most lists, like dominions or celestine, or even retributors.

Which brings us back to the matter of comparing the troop units point for point vs a more holistic approach to how they perform in their respective armies.

"Best" is very undefined. "Best" is very contextual based on army and purpose. Conscripts, Genestealers, Sisters and Custodes are all so different.

Obviously, my choice is Tacticals though I think they have more equipment options than any other troop in the game. Right now I'm leaning towards Salamanders 5 man w/lascannon squad. Reroll to hit and wound on a Lascannon, for free, is intense.

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
She is saying the Marines + Lascannon are the same price as Scouts with cloaks and rifles. I think if you add the ML then you get the extra 21 points. But I only have Imperium 1, not the 'dex, so I have no idea.

You are correct.

Scouts with cloaks are one point per model more expensive than tacticals, for the same defense against shooting while in cover but worse defense against assault. Scouts with sniper rifles add four points on top of that, making them five points per model more expensive than tacticals. Add a missile launcher, which is 25 points, or 25-4=21 to replace a sniper rifle, and you have a 111 point squad that's less effective defensively than a tactical squad, and only arguably better offensively.

Don't get me wrong, I like scouts. I even use the SR+ML team mentioned here in my own list. But one has to be realistic with what they can accomplish.

The Camo Cloaks should only be one point. If you're using them in this analysis, that's your own fault. Completely and overly costed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Also, I laugh at the idea that the 6+ invulnerable sisters get actually matters.

Functionally, it is a rule you can forget even exists and have no real impact on 99% of your games.

Anyone using that 6++ as a defending point has lost.

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Best" is very undefined. "Best" is very contextual based on army and purpose. Conscripts, Genestealers, Sisters and Custodes are all so different.

Obviously, my choice is Tacticals though I think they have more equipment options than any other troop in the game. Right now I'm leaning towards Salamanders 5 man w/lascannon squad. Reroll to hit and wound on a Lascannon, for free, is intense.

What good are options? It's not like you can chose in the middle of the battle like an obliteratre used to. You have to pick which options - usually it's the same deal - a single las cannon or 2 plasma guns on a 5 man. Who cares that you can take a multi melta or a plasma cannon - you are never going to do it.

He's trolling you. Just chill.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
She is saying the Marines + Lascannon are the same price as Scouts with cloaks and rifles. I think if you add the ML then you get the extra 21 points. But I only have Imperium 1, not the 'dex, so I have no idea.

You are correct.

Scouts with cloaks are one point per model more expensive than tacticals, for the same defense against shooting while in cover but worse defense against assault. Scouts with sniper rifles add four points on top of that, making them five points per model more expensive than tacticals. Add a missile launcher, which is 25 points, or 25-4=21 to replace a sniper rifle, and you have a 111 point squad that's less effective defensively than a tactical squad, and only arguably better offensively.

Don't get me wrong, I like scouts. I even use the SR+ML team mentioned here in my own list. But one has to be realistic with what they can accomplish.

The Camo Cloaks should only be one point. If you're using them in this analysis, that's your own fault. Completely and overly costed.

LMAO!

With that attitude, you're damn right tactical marines are useless. If you can't see how arbitrarily making everything cheaper than tactical marines, - I don't know what to tell you - of course marines will be bad.

Perhaps the scout squad with camo-cloaks is priced very specifically to leave some space for Tacticals? *waggles eyebrows*

Tac marines are worse than the sum of their parts. Always have been, always will be, more than likely. Anyone denying this is really ignoring 20 years of competitive history in this game. The AP system hurts marines in general as well. Not 2nd ed bad, but the hit is contributing for sure.

Marines are now reset back to their 5th ed status, I think, which is shockingly mediocre at best. At worst, we're talking overcosted across the board, because of the curse of the generalist. Tac marines just aren't worth 13 pts when fire warriors are 8 and guardsmen are 4. They just aren't. You can't leverage their stats well enough game in and game out, no matter how good you think you are at the game.

Any cheap troop, ie 4 pts or less, is almost necessarily better than any marine troop just via the wound table and board coverage mechanics. I don't include gretchin because T2 is real liability. But T3 and above cheap guys are so much better than marines. Then we can talk about harlequins and scions.

There isn't even a clearly best troop unit since all the troops mentioned so far are better at different things. You're never going to catch anyone using Berserkers or Genestealers as backfield objective campers.

Best campers: Brimstones, Conscripts, Noise Marines, cultists
Best aggressive (proactive): Berserkers, Genestealers, Sisters, Boyz

Even then there good at there jobs for different reasons, the reason Noise marines are great objective campers is because they have long ranged fire support, while the other 3 are good because they ridiculously hard to shift

 Rydria wrote:
There isn't even a clearly best troop unit since all the troops mentioned so far are better at different things. You're never going to catch anyone using Berserkers or Genestealers as backfield objective campers.

Best campers: Brimstones, Conscripts, Noise Marines, cultists
Best aggressive (proactive) troops: Berserkers, Genestealers, Sisters, Boyz

This is a clever way to break it down.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
She is saying the Marines + Lascannon are the same price as Scouts with cloaks and rifles. I think if you add the ML then you get the extra 21 points. But I only have Imperium 1, not the 'dex, so I have no idea.

You are correct.

Scouts with cloaks are one point per model more expensive than tacticals, for the same defense against shooting while in cover but worse defense against assault. Scouts with sniper rifles add four points on top of that, making them five points per model more expensive than tacticals. Add a missile launcher, which is 25 points, or 25-4=21 to replace a sniper rifle, and you have a 111 point squad that's less effective defensively than a tactical squad, and only arguably better offensively.

Don't get me wrong, I like scouts. I even use the SR+ML team mentioned here in my own list. But one has to be realistic with what they can accomplish.

The Camo Cloaks should only be one point. If you're using them in this analysis, that's your own fault. Completely and overly costed.

LMAO!

With that attitude, you're damn right tactical marines are useless. If you can't see how arbitrarily making everything cheaper than tactical marines, - I don't know what to tell you - of course marines will be bad.

Perhaps the scout squad with camo-cloaks is priced very specifically to leave some space for Tacticals? *waggles eyebrows*

What space is that? Scouts really aren't much less survivable. So no, Camo Cloaks are just overpriced. I'm content just not buying them. Don't pretend that gives Tactical Marines any edge because one upgrade is useless.

If you are paying for a sniper rifle already, you can double your save vs crap like wvyerns for 3 pts. I don't know. It's all pretty bad, I think.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
She is saying the Marines + Lascannon are the same price as Scouts with cloaks and rifles. I think if you add the ML then you get the extra 21 points. But I only have Imperium 1, not the 'dex, so I have no idea.

You are correct.

Scouts with cloaks are one point per model more expensive than tacticals, for the same defense against shooting while in cover but worse defense against assault. Scouts with sniper rifles add four points on top of that, making them five points per model more expensive than tacticals. Add a missile launcher, which is 25 points, or 25-4=21 to replace a sniper rifle, and you have a 111 point squad that's less effective defensively than a tactical squad, and only arguably better offensively.

Don't get me wrong, I like scouts. I even use the SR+ML team mentioned here in my own list. But one has to be realistic with what they can accomplish.

The Camo Cloaks should only be one point. If you're using them in this analysis, that's your own fault. Completely and overly costed.

LMAO!

With that attitude, you're damn right tactical marines are useless. If you can't see how arbitrarily making everything cheaper than tactical marines, - I don't know what to tell you - of course marines will be bad.

Perhaps the scout squad with camo-cloaks is priced very specifically to leave some space for Tacticals? *waggles eyebrows*

What space is that? Scouts really aren't much less survivable. So no, Camo Cloaks are just overpriced. I'm content just not buying them. Don't pretend that gives Tactical Marines any edge because one upgrade is useless.

But without cloaks, tactical marines become better objective campers than scouts...

If tacticals are average and scouts are debatably slightly better or slightly worse, doesn't that mean neither are close to being one of the best troop unit ?

Martel732 wrote:
Tac marines are worse than the sum of their parts. Always have been, always will be, more than likely. Anyone denying this is really ignoring 20 years of competitive history in this game. The AP system hurts marines in general as well. Not 2nd ed bad, but the hit is contributing for sure.

Marines are now reset back to their 5th ed status, I think, which is shockingly mediocre at best. At worst, we're talking overcosted across the board, because of the curse of the generalist. Tac marines just aren't worth 13 pts when fire warriors are 8 and guardsmen are 4. They just aren't. You can't leverage their stats well enough game in and game out, no matter how good you think you are at the game.

Any cheap troop, ie 4 pts or less, is almost necessarily better than any marine troop just via the wound table and board coverage mechanics. I don't include gretchin because T2 is real liability. But T3 and above cheap guys are so much better than marines. Then we can talk about harlequins and scions.

I think the opposite. The Tactical Marine itself is worth 13-14 points, but the way you kit out the squad makes them never worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
She is saying the Marines + Lascannon are the same price as Scouts with cloaks and rifles. I think if you add the ML then you get the extra 21 points. But I only have Imperium 1, not the 'dex, so I have no idea.

You are correct.

Scouts with cloaks are one point per model more expensive than tacticals, for the same defense against shooting while in cover but worse defense against assault. Scouts with sniper rifles add four points on top of that, making them five points per model more expensive than tacticals. Add a missile launcher, which is 25 points, or 25-4=21 to replace a sniper rifle, and you have a 111 point squad that's less effective defensively than a tactical squad, and only arguably better offensively.

Don't get me wrong, I like scouts. I even use the SR+ML team mentioned here in my own list. But one has to be realistic with what they can accomplish.

The Camo Cloaks should only be one point. If you're using them in this analysis, that's your own fault. Completely and overly costed.

LMAO!

With that attitude, you're damn right tactical marines are useless. If you can't see how arbitrarily making everything cheaper than tactical marines, - I don't know what to tell you - of course marines will be bad.

Perhaps the scout squad with camo-cloaks is priced very specifically to leave some space for Tacticals? *waggles eyebrows*

What space is that? Scouts really aren't much less survivable. So no, Camo Cloaks are just overpriced. I'm content just not buying them. Don't pretend that gives Tactical Marines any edge because one upgrade is useless.

But without cloaks, tactical marines become better objective campers than scouts...

Not for the price if you really want that Lascannon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rydria wrote:
If tacticals are average and scouts are debatably slightly better or slightly worse, doesn't that mean neither are close to being one of the best troop unit ?

I say Scouts are one of the best actually though I know that's an sizeable minority.

There is no way a tac marine is worth 13 pts the way the game currently functions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rydria wrote:
If tacticals are average and scouts are debatably slightly better or slightly worse, doesn't that mean neither are close to being one of the best troop unit ?

Tacs aren't average because of their vulnerability/pt to antuli-infantry tech in 8th. On top of the curse of the generalist.

I think Tacs are worth their points, but I also think that some models are too cheap and it skews the perception of Tacs.
Conscripts and Brims are too cheap because they do not include the potential for how their army can use/buff them.
Tactical are probably at their points cost for 2 reasons:
1) GW redesigned 8E stating with Tacs and since they wer 13ppm in 7E, that was probably used as the "fixed point" that GW redesigned everything else around
2) GW intended Tacticals to be used with Chapter Tactics in mind, so any "over costing" was acceptable to maintain balance once their Codex was released.

Whether this was successfully achieved is clearly up for debate, but that is how I think GW approaches it.

In any case, Tacitcals are far from the best Troop in 40k, but I would argue that they are the "ideal" Troop in terms of balance. They can serve a purpose, but you can't win games with just them alone.

-

 Galef wrote:
I think Tacs are worth their points, but I also think that some models are too cheap and it skews the perception of Tacs.

The point system is relative, if other models have more impact per pt within the same role as tac marines and they have no other redeeming features then they are not worth their points. That doesn't mean that they are terrible, just not competitive. Other units might be overcosted if we assume that a tac marine is the baseline, but until those pts costs are changed it is what it is.

Martel732 wrote:
There is no way a tac marine is worth 13 pts the way the game currently functions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rydria wrote:
If tacticals are average and scouts are debatably slightly better or slightly worse, doesn't that mean neither are close to being one of the best troop unit ?

Tacs aren't average because of their vulnerability/pt to antuli-infantry tech in 8th. On top of the curse of the generalist.

Depends on what you mean by "anti-infantry" tech. I think a stormlord festooned with heavy bolters is a good bet for a buttload of really good anti-infantry firepower. With all the gubbins, it's 592, though I'll discount you the four lascannons (and not include them in the calculations) because they're pretty agreeably antitank weapons.

Shooting at Space Marine Tactical Marines with the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic in cover with my 512 point Stormlord

Stationary:
Main Gun: 1.67 wounds
Heavy Bolters: 2.22 wounds
Heavy Stubbers: 0.22 wounds
Stationary Total: 4.11 wounds (or 53.48 pts. I spent 9.57 points per 1 point of damage inflicted)

Moving:
Main Gun: 0.83 wounds
Heavy Bolters: 1.11 wounds
Heavy Stubbers: 0.11 wounds
Moving Total: 2.05 wounds (or 26.69 pts. I spent 19.14 points per 1 point of damage inflicted)

Shooting at Imperial Guard Infantry Squads in cover with my 512 point Stormlord

Stationary:
Main Gun: 5.20 wounds
Heavy Bolters: 6.67 wounds
Heavy Stubbers: 1.33 wounds
Stationary Total: 13.2 wounds (Or 52.8 pts. I spent 9.69 points per 1 point of damage inflicted)

Moving:
Main Gun: 3.47 wounds
Heavy Bolters: 4.44 wounds
Heavy Stubbers: 0.88 wounds
Moving Total: 8.79 wounds (or 35.16 points. I spent 14.56 points per 1 point of damage inflicted).

It seems to me to be the case that Tactical Marines are roughly as durable per-point as Guardsmen when the tank is firing at them stationary, which is balanced, and are more durable per point than Guardsmen when the tank is firing at them after moving.

Doesn't seem like they're any more vulnerable to anti-infantry weapons than Imperial Guardsmen, and I don't think anyone is saying Imperial Guardsmen are in a super bad spot right now durability wise, per point.

Not all marines are raven guard, and they don't always have cover. I know a humble flamer, on average, kills twice as many points of marines as conscripts. It would be slightly better for guardsmen, but no where near even.

I frequently don't objective camp at all, but rush with absolutely everything trying to get through 8th ed shooting lists. One almost never has cover under these circumstances.

Martel732 wrote:
Not all marines are raven guard, and they don't always have cover. I know a humble flamer, on average, kills twice as many points of marines as conscripts. It would be slightly better for guardsmen, but no where near even.

I frequently don't objective camp at all, but rush with absolutely everything trying to get through 8th ed shooting lists. One almost never has cover under these circumstances.

I can do the math without cover if you want. As for the "not all marines are Raven Guard" well, chapter tactics not being balanced is a whole 'nother issue, but Space Marines are paying for chapter tactics so to not include them is disingenuous. Here's the out of cover:

512 pt Stormlord vs Raven Guard Space Marines out of cover:

Stationary:
Main gun: 2.22 wounds
Heavy Bolters: 3.33 wounds
Heavy Stubbers: 0.44 wounds
Stationary Total: 5.99 wounds (round to 6): 78 pts, 6.56 pts spent to per point killed

Moving:
Main gun: 1.11 wounds
Heavy Bolters: 1.67 wounds
Heavy Stubbers: 0.22 wounds
Moving Total: 3 wounds, 39 pts, 13.13 pts spent per point killed

512 pt Stormlord vs Imperial Guard Infantry Squad out of cover:


Stationary:
Main gun: 6.25 wounds
Heavy Bolters: 8.33 wounds
Heavy Stubbers: 1.78 wounds
Stationary Total: 16.36 wounds, 65.44 pts, 7.82 pts spent to per point killed

Moving:
Main gun: 4.17 wounds
Heavy Bolters: 5.56 wounds
Heavy Stubbers: 1.19 wounds
Moving Total: 10.92 wounds, 43.68 pts, 11.72 pts spent per point killed

So again, Space Marines are just about balanced with an IG Squad. (I get slightly more efficiency against the Marines when stationary, and slightly more efficiency against IG when moving).

I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or
.667*.8333*4 = 2.22 points of guardsmen per hit

Heavy flamer is the same

Wvyern kills .5*.75*.3333*13= 1.62 points of marines per shot or
.5 *.8333. *.66666*4 = 1.11 points of guardsmen per shot.

Is it more dubious to assume Raven Guard or Iron hands or assume NOT one of those chapters? Most chapter tactics don't help with durability at all. Especially BA chapter tactics.

The best: Boyz
The almost best: Genestealers, Conscripts, Guard Infantry, Bezerkers
The very good: Fire warriors, Tesla Immortals, Battle Sisters, Noise Marines, Brimstones

Niiru wrote:
<snippity>
I'm confused, why are Scions better in melee than sisters?

- They have the same number of attacks
- They have the same strenght
- Neither have any melee weapons to alter stats (except for the leader of each squad, which works out the same for each)

- BUT sisters get a 3+ save and a 6++ rerollable invulnerable, vs scions straight 4+ save, so sisters should be more survivable?

Oh... but I guess scions with a tempestor prime can re-roll all 1's to hit and to wound, if they're the only squad being ordered by the tempestor.
But then, if sisters are the only sisters being "ordered" they can use an act of faith to fight twice per turn.

I screwed up on that one - I thought that Scions had WS 3+ for some reason.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or

A stormlord is the quintessential IG superheavy tank for killing infantry. It doesn't have regular flamers - and also, you should be happy if the enemy is shooting your marines with flamers because it means you get to use the marine's entire statline, which is something you've been upset about for IDK how long. Centuries at least!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or

A stormlord is the quintessential IG superheavy tank for killing infantry. It doesn't have regular flamers - and also, you should be happy if the enemy is shooting your marines with flamers because it means you get to use the marine's entire statline, which is something you've been upset about for IDK how long. Centuries at least!

How so?

Heavy bolters and wyverns are much better than flamers vs marines, as shown. That's what I'm concerned about.

I think your math on the main gun is off, but it's proportionally off for both examples so not a big problem:

20 shots of S6 AP-2 at BS4+ vs RG tac marine: 20x(1/3)x(2/3)x(2/3)=2.96

I'm mostly impressed that the guardsmen are able to tank as much damage per pt as RG tac marines benefitting from their CT. I'm of the opinion that regular infantry squads are good but not OP by any means.

Amusingly, marines ate actually less vulnerable to normal flamers this edition than previous ones. This edition they can get a 2+ against flamers by being in cover.

sossen wrote:
I think your math on the main gun is off, but it's proportionally off for both examples so not a big problem:

20 shots of S6 AP-2 at BS4+ vs RG tac marine: 20x(1/3)x(2/3)x(2/3)=2.96

I'm mostly impressed that the guardsmen are able to tank as much damage per pt as RG tac marines benefitting from their CT. I'm of the opinion that regular infantry squads are good but not OP by any means.

I was doing the VMB as 15 shots, is it 20 now?

Either way, it should be about the same - and if you think that regular infantry squads are good but not OP, then marines with comparable durability should also be good but not OP, surely?

They are not comparable. I just showed that they aren't. Marines are losing points 1.5X as fast to the fething WYVERN. Almost twice as fast to the heavy bolter.

Nah, it's a good comparison.

Cover is a poor assumption the way this game works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Nah, it's a good comparison.

Then show me how I'm wrong. The weapons I listed are way more common.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:
I think your math on the main gun is off, but it's proportionally off for both examples so not a big problem:

20 shots of S6 AP-2 at BS4+ vs RG tac marine: 20x(1/3)x(2/3)x(2/3)=2.96

I'm mostly impressed that the guardsmen are able to tank as much damage per pt as RG tac marines benefitting from their CT. I'm of the opinion that regular infantry squads are good but not OP by any means.

I was doing the VMB as 15 shots, is it 20 now?

Either way, it should be about the same - and if you think that regular infantry squads are good but not OP, then marines with comparable durability should also be good but not OP, surely?

No, I think infantry squads are good because they still function as conscript-style bubblewrap for a gunline army. Tac marines cover less physical space per pt and can't benefit from the RG CT when they get charged or if a unit deepstrikes nearby.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or

A stormlord is the quintessential IG superheavy tank for killing infantry. It doesn't have regular flamers - and also, you should be happy if the enemy is shooting your marines with flamers because it means you get to use the marine's entire statline, which is something you've been upset about for IDK how long. Centuries at least!

How so?

Heavy bolters and wyverns are much better than flamers vs marines, as shown. That's what I'm concerned about.

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Raven Guard Tactical Marine
Stationary: 0.33 wounds (4.29 pts; the Heavy Bolter payed 1.86 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.17 wounds (2.21 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.62 pts per point of damage inflicted)

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Imperial Guard Infantryman
Stationary: 0.833 wounds (3.33 pts; the heavy bolter payed 2.42 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.56 wounds (2.24 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.57 pts per wound inflicted)

So again, the Marine comes out to about as tough as a guardsman, point-for-point.

I already showed that they aren't even close on heavy bolters on a per hit basis, which cuts out a lot of the other extraneous crap.

Quit assuming Raven Guard. They are not the norm.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:
I think your math on the main gun is off, but it's proportionally off for both examples so not a big problem:

20 shots of S6 AP-2 at BS4+ vs RG tac marine: 20x(1/3)x(2/3)x(2/3)=2.96

I'm mostly impressed that the guardsmen are able to tank as much damage per pt as RG tac marines benefitting from their CT. I'm of the opinion that regular infantry squads are good but not OP by any means.

I was doing the VMB as 15 shots, is it 20 now?

Either way, it should be about the same - and if you think that regular infantry squads are good but not OP, then marines with comparable durability should also be good but not OP, surely?

No, I think infantry squads are good because they still function as conscript-style bubblewrap for a gunline army. Tac marines cover less physical space per pt and can't benefit from the RG CT when they get charged or if a unit deepstrikes nearby.

So how many Points Per Model should 'space on the table' cost?

And yeah, the RG CT aren't flawless, but IG are less resistant to morale than SM (without paying points) and can't combat squad, so I considered the gap in CT capability to be worth about as many points as combat squads + ATSKNF

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or

A stormlord is the quintessential IG superheavy tank for killing infantry. It doesn't have regular flamers - and also, you should be happy if the enemy is shooting your marines with flamers because it means you get to use the marine's entire statline, which is something you've been upset about for IDK how long. Centuries at least!

How so?

Heavy bolters and wyverns are much better than flamers vs marines, as shown. That's what I'm concerned about.

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Raven Guard Tactical Marine
Stationary: 0.33 wounds (4.29 pts; the Heavy Bolter payed 1.86 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.17 wounds (2.21 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.62 pts per point of damage inflicted)

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Imperial Guard Infantryman
Stationary: 0.833 wounds (3.33 pts; the heavy bolter payed 2.42 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.56 wounds (2.24 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.57 pts per wound inflicted)

So again, the Marine comes out to about as tough as a guardsman, point-for-point.

I don't see why an AM heavy bolter would be moving often, to me it looks like the guardsman comes out on top in this comparison.

Martel732 wrote:
I already showed that they aren't even close on heavy bolters on a per hit basis, which cuts out a lot of the other extraneous crap.

Quit assuming Raven Guard. They are not the norm.

But the tactical marine's cost includes Chapter Tactics, and if it's durability you're worried about, then bring the durability CT. I don't know what the problem is.

Your 13 points can include a whole variety of bonuses, but CT is the durability enhancement. If you're talking Durability, use RG CT, since they pay for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't know what a stormlord is, but here's what I'm looking at:

Flamer kills 3.5*.5*.333*13 = 7.58 points of marines or
3.5*.667*.6667*4= 6.22 points of guardsmen

Heavy bolter kills .667*.5*13 = 4.33 points of marines per hit or

A stormlord is the quintessential IG superheavy tank for killing infantry. It doesn't have regular flamers - and also, you should be happy if the enemy is shooting your marines with flamers because it means you get to use the marine's entire statline, which is something you've been upset about for IDK how long. Centuries at least!

How so?

Heavy bolters and wyverns are much better than flamers vs marines, as shown. That's what I'm concerned about.

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Raven Guard Tactical Marine
Stationary: 0.33 wounds (4.29 pts; the Heavy Bolter payed 1.86 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.17 wounds (2.21 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.62 pts per point of damage inflicted)

Heavy Bolter at BS4+ vs Imperial Guard Infantryman
Stationary: 0.833 wounds (3.33 pts; the heavy bolter payed 2.42 pts per point of damage inflicted)
Moving: 0.56 wounds (2.24 pts; the heavy bolter payed 3.57 pts per wound inflicted)

So again, the Marine comes out to about as tough as a guardsman, point-for-point.

I don't see why an AM heavy bolter would be moving often, to me it looks like the guardsman comes out on top in this comparison.

Yes, by less than a whole point's durability. That's probably because guardsmen should really be like 4.3 or 4.4 points, but the system's not that granular.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So how many Points Per Model should 'space on the table' cost?

That's a good question, I'm not sure but it does make a big difference with how the melee and deepstrike rules work. If 10 brimstones were restricted to only taking up as much space as one brimstone model I don't think they would be as good.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So how many Points Per Model should 'space on the table' cost?

That's a good question, I'm not sure but it does make a big difference with how the melee and deepstrike rules work. If 10 brimstones were restricted to only taking up as much space as one brimstone model I don't think they would be as good.

See, now we're getting to the crux of the "mathhammer doesn't work" argument that I often throw forwards and which is immediately swamped by "YES IT DOES SHUT UP."

There are things like "space taken up on the table" which affect how useful a model is in an army (there are other factors too) which simply cannot be reflected in points costs because they are so variable.

Is a Guard Squad forced to huddle together to fit between two impassable buildings less 'points efficient' than one spread out? Or is it moreso because of the super limited frontage it can provide while still covering its sector? Is a guard squad being used to drive up and attack objectives in a transport (and therefore literally taking up 0 space on the table) less points efficient than one being purely used to screen tanks? Should it be?

I'm talking about the durability of a generic tac marine, not Raven Guard.

Mathhammer has limitations for sure, but it can be used to illustrate a point.

Given that taking up space turns off some very expensive units completely, it should be worth more that it currently costs, I think.k

Tac marines being overcosted is not a problem since many SM units and wargear are way undercosted. I'd be ok with 10 points tac marines but also 120 points of naked rhinos or 150 points of twin las/ass cannon razorbacks for example. A paper dark eldar raider is 115 with the cheapest mandatory upgrades. SM are one of the few armies that have transports that are cheaper than the unit inside.

Or 30 points of lascannons. Even better with guilliman at 500 points or without his ability to let everyone re-roll everything, just give him the ability to re-roll failed to hit OR to wound of ones, not eveything.

Tactical marines may be overcosted, but the army is quite effective overall. Many people complain about tactical not being a solid troop option. Well, I guess SM need another overpowered unit, do they?

Martel732 wrote:
I'm talking about the durability of a generic tac marine, not Raven Guard.

Mathhammer has limitations for sure, but it can be used to illustrate a point.

But a generic tac marine is paying for the potential to be Raven Guard, so of course it's going to be less efficient. It's like ignoring their power armour when calculating their durability per point - it's included in the cost, so you're skewing the numbers.

"Tac marines being overcosted is not a problem since many SM units and wargear are way undercosted"

Hardly. Yes, Guilliman is a thing, but he's not a thing for BA.

Just like in 7th, I think stock marine units are actually rather for what they cost. What are these OP options, other than maybe stormravens? Marines are fundamentally based off tac marines for many of their units, and the suckitude and generalist curse gets passed down along with it.

I don't think stock marines are really effective at all in 8th. Too fragile, as ironic as that is. They're limping along on Guilliman deathstars, a gimmick, just like in 7th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm talking about the durability of a generic tac marine, not Raven Guard.

Mathhammer has limitations for sure, but it can be used to illustrate a point.

But a generic tac marine is paying for the potential to be Raven Guard, so of course it's going to be less efficient. It's like ignoring their power armour when calculating their durability per point - it's included in the cost, so you're skewing the numbers.

I disagree. Most chapter tactics have nothing to do with durability. So your average vanilla marine will NOT have a durability buff from chapter tactics. DA, BA, and SW will likely also lack durability buffs.

Martel732 wrote:

I disagree. Most chapter tactics have nothing to do with durability. So your average vanilla marine will NOT have a durability buff from chapter tactics. DA, BA, and SW will likely also lack durability buffs.

See, the other Chapter Tactics buff some other aspect (mobility, fall back + shoot, leadership, shooting, charging, whatever).

Those Chapter Tactics won't show themselves in a durability comparison, but they will in other ways.

However, if your claim is that the Marines are too fragile to cope, then you pick the Chapter Tactic that mitigates that weakness. If, instead, your claim is that Marines are too bad at shooting, then you pick the Salamanders (or IF or whatever) chapter tactic. If you claim they're too bad at getting into combat, then you pick the Templar's chapter tactic. If you'd rather use their whole statline in a turn then pick the Ultramarines chapter tactic.

You are trying to show they aren't durable enough for their points. If that's your concern, pick the rule that improves their durability, and they're suddenly worth their points.

I never see anyone dismiss mathhammer as long as it supports their point. As long as it is used within the correct contexts and everyone understands what is being calculated there is no problem with it.

As for intangibles and synergy advantages I'd say that guardsmen are more impactful in an AM army than tac marines can be in an SM army.

They're too bad at all of those things at the same time. The durability problem is just one aspect. They shouldn't be losing more points to weapons specialized to kill other unit categories, and they are.

"but they will in other ways."

Allegedly.

Also, what do I pick as a BA? Oh yeah, ..... nothing.

sossen wrote:
I never see anyone dismiss mathhammer as long as it supports their point. As long as it is used within the correct contexts and everyone understands what is being calculated there is no problem with it.

As for intangibles and synergy advantages I'd say that guardsmen are more impactful in an AM army than tac marines can be in an SM army.

That depends a whole lot on army composition. Throw an IG squad into my superheavy tank company and I payed -1 CP for basically no reason. Throw an SM Raven Guard squad in my superheavy tank company and I just payed -1 CP for a rather durable objective camper in my backfield.

And my superheavy tank company is an AM army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
They're too bad at all of those things at the same time. The durability problem is just one aspect. They shouldn't be losing more points to weapons specialized to kill other unit categories, and they are.

"but they will in other ways."

Allegedly.

Also, what do I pick as a BA? Oh yeah, ..... nothing.

*shrug* I don't know what to tell you. I've said my bit, this really isn't a counter argument, so...

and no, I don't think they're that bad at "all those things at the same time." I think they're comparable to 3 guardsmen, which is about what they're worth. I can run the math if you want, but the only thing 3 guardsmen are better at is board space control (as Sossen mentioned).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
"Best" is very undefined. "Best" is very contextual based on army and purpose. Conscripts, Genestealers, Sisters and Custodes are all so different.

Obviously, my choice is Tacticals though I think they have more equipment options than any other troop in the game. Right now I'm leaning towards Salamanders 5 man w/lascannon squad. Reroll to hit and wound on a Lascannon, for free, is intense.

What good are options? It's not like you can chose in the middle of the battle like an obliteratre used to. You have to pick which options - usually it's the same deal - a single las cannon or 2 plasma guns on a 5 man. Who cares that you can take a multi melta or a plasma cannon - you are never going to do it.

Because you can optimize their role to synergize with the rest of your army. If Primaris Marines become more common, I think you'll see an uptick in the amount of Grav Cannons again, since at 24" range it can hit like 4 plasmas.

I've already run the math, which is pretty far off from yours. No one has refuted my calculations, so I'm going with mine.

I don't think a marine is anywhere close to as good as 3 guardsmen right now.

Min squad sizes and options are different, which will change the math and manifestations.

27 lasgun shots to kill a Raven Guard Marine in the open.

27 lasgun shots kill 4.5 guardsmen in the open.

13 pts to 18.

Hm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Against BA:

18 Lasgun shots to kill a tactical marine in the open.

18 Lasgun shots kill 3 guardsmen.

Hm.

It takes 6 lasgun shots to kill a guardsman ?

How do guardsman and marines (both regular and raven guard) fair when in cover vs lasguns

 Rydria wrote:
It takes 6 lasgun shots to kill a guardsman ?

6/2 (BS4+) = 3, 3/2 (S v T wounding roll) = 1.5, 1.5/3 (2) (armour save) = 1


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In cover:

Blood Angels Tactical Marine: 36 Lasguns shots to kill one

Raven Guard Tactical Marine: 54 Lasgun shots to kill

36 lasgun shots kill 4.5 guardsmen in cover

54 lasgun shots kill 6.75 guardsmen in cover

 Jaxler wrote:

 Generalstoner wrote:
Necron Warriors, Guard conscripts and Tau Fire Warriors.

"Fire warriors, warriors"

Lolwut? Those are horrible. Scions are the better than either of those.

I think a lot of people are misperceiving a unit that uses the same models as a troop choice but has different upgrade options as being that troop choice, namely Scions and Battle Sisters for Scion Command Squads and Dominions.


SCS and Dominions are very similar, and both are very good. They get full special weapons loadouts and special rules that allow them to cross the no-man's land, in the form of Deep Strike and Vanguard. They're bother extremely good, but they're not troops.

Their troops cousins are not great, though. Scions' Hot Shot Lasguns are less than amazing, and they don't get full plasma/melta loadouts. Battle Sisters don't get Vanguard and also only get 2 special weapons [plus a Superior's Combi-Weapon], which is significantly less good and certainly inferior than quite a few other troops. Scions are decent, but BSS are a step short of terrible.

Fire Warrior Strike Teams are probably better for your 8 points than Scions. Scions have AP and Deep Strike, But Fire Warriors have the range to not really need Deep Strike and the Strength to destroy tanks and wound all infantry on a 3+, while Scions need a 5+. I don't rank Fire Warrior Strike Teams among my top troop choices, but they're not bad.

pismakron wrote:
The best: Boyz
The almost best: Genestealers, Conscripts, Guard Infantry, Bezerkers
The very good: Fire warriors, Tesla Immortals, Battle Sisters, Noise Marines, Brimstones

Tesla Immortals are okay, but I'd hesitate to call them 'very good'. They're not bad but they're completely one-dimensional and their weapons quickly lose effectiveness against tougher targets..

They also need a 100+pt Overlord to really shine.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
27 lasgun shots to kill a Raven Guard Marine in the open.

27 lasgun shots kill 4.5 guardsmen in the open.

13 pts to 18.

Hm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Against BA:

18 Lasgun shots to kill a tactical marine in the open.

18 Lasgun shots kill 3 guardsmen.

Hm.

Each lasgun hit kills 1.44 pts of marines, and 1.33 pts of guardsmen. Even less of conscripts. This is about as even as they get, but as I showed above, it get massively titled in the favor of geqs with other weapons.

sossen wrote:
I never see anyone dismiss mathhammer as long as it supports their point.

Finally somebody pointed it out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm talking about the durability of a generic tac marine, not Raven Guard.

Mathhammer has limitations for sure, but it can be used to illustrate a point.

But a generic tac marine is paying for the potential to be Raven Guard, so of course it's going to be less efficient. It's like ignoring their power armour when calculating their durability per point - it's included in the cost, so you're skewing the numbers.

They're also paying for the potential to be Imperial Fists or Ultramarines or White Scars. None of those you showed the math for because it doesn't help your point on the durability of a Tactical Marine huh? Then there's the Tactical Marines for Blood Angels (which is for Martel) and Dark Angels.

Moreover, a Tactical Marine doesn't do anything that can't be done elsewhere in the army for better. The entry might as well not exist. It's a garbage entry. They aren't a competitive unit, and you forget that nobody takes them outside of getting free vehicles out of it (and if that bonus applied to Sternguard or Scouts instead, you can bet your ass it would've been done with those units instead).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Moreover, a Tactical Marine doesn't do anything that can't be done elsewhere in the army for better.

Sure it does, it gets you a Lascannon in a Troops choice. Nothing else in the army gets you a Lascannon in a Troops choice.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Moreover, a Tactical Marine doesn't do anything that can't be done elsewhere in the army for better.

Sure it does, it gets you a Lascannon in a Troops choice. Nothing else in the army gets you a Lascannon in a Troops choice.

That's not doing anything? I can get Lascannons for cheaper and more effective elsewhere.
I can get an ML in the troop slot for cheaper via Scouts. Almost the same performance (T8 is rare, and the difference in AP is negligible vs most targets anyway), and it has an Anti-Infantry capability (though minor).

Yeah not buying your argument. When you have to get as specific as that, you have lost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I could get Lascannons via infantry squads for cheaper. So there's that.

Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

That's looks nice until the actual values are seen. That's merely a 5+ vs 6+ (a mere 16.7% increase? Pass), and T8 isn't going to be handled by Tactical Marines as they can't use the Lascannon like Devastators can. So what bonus is this really?

It's a made up one. Simple as that.

Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

 Galas wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

That L2P argument doesn't work when you look at actual tournamemt results.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

Agreed. Tacticals are quite useful.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

That L2P argument doesn't work when you look at actual tournamemt results.

So you agree with me. Or a unit is OP enough to win tournaments or is unusable crap. Typical and good metric, yes-yes!

By that metric Tau's in 7th where totally useless, because they didn't won anything agains't Space Marines or Eldar in tournaments.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

That L2P argument doesn't work when you look at actual tournamemt results.

Tournament armies have more than troops. In fact some armies that do very well do so by having the minimum of troops. Tournament standings don't necessarily reflect on a single unit.

 Galas wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

That L2P argument doesn't work when you look at actual tournamemt results.

So you agree with me. Or a unit is OP enough to win tournaments or is unusable crap. Typical and good metric, yes-yes!

By that metric Tau's in 7th where totally useless, because they didn't won anything agains't Space Marines or Eldar in tournaments.

Actually I have 4 levels. The unit is OP, pretty good, mediocre, or trash.

Also the Tau army WAS trash, but Riptides and Srormsurges were good enough to ally in to several armies. So yeah.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Tacticals aren't bad. I'd place them solidly in the middle of the road when it comes to Troops.

SHHHH What are you TALKING about?!

This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

Please go re-learn how tactics works here.

That L2P argument doesn't work when you look at actual tournamemt results.

Tournament armies have more than troops. In fact some armies that do very well do so by having the minimum of troops. Tournament standings don't necessarily reflect on a single unit.

But sometimes those armies will load up on troops. The tournament is a measure of unit worth because, as you said, people will go out of their way to avoid certain units. Everybody was avoiding Tactical Marines until they got free Razorbacks and Rhinos out of it, remember?

Yeah we all know internal balance is pretty mediocre in GW games, 7th even more. Eldar where only OP by 3-4 units, but everyone speaks about OP Eldar where.

Tacticals are as Katherine said, balanced. Many other units are balanced. The problem is that normally people want to balance the game around making the balanced units Op, instead of nerfing the real OP ones, and buffing the weaker ones.
Now GW with all their FAQ's and Erratas and Chapter Aproved can do more precise balancing, with smaller buffs and nerfs, instead of before where they did a balance change for a whole army with a Codex and that was all of the balance for probably 3-5 years.

I don't think you've looked at tacs super close. Their firepower is poor and they are more fragile thsn guardsmen.

 Galas wrote:
Yeah we all know internal balance is pretty mediocre in GW games, 7th even more. Eldar where only OP by 3-4 units, but everyone speaks about OP Eldar where.

Tacticals are as Katherine said, balanced. Many other units are balanced. The problem is that normally people want to balance the game around making the balanced units Op, instead of nerfing the real OP ones, and buffing the weaker ones.

That implies Tactical Marines were balanced the whole time. They weren't. They're just what you're using as the measure of balance when you should be doing the opposite. I already explained in great detail, last edition (before everyone's favorite formation the Gladius existed) and this current edition, why the Tactical Marine doesn't work as a unit, even though I've said they have the stats of a 14 point unit. Loadout is why, and upgrades is why. Plus they don't look good on the table but that's a personal matter on my end.

They never WERE balanced. Several other troop choices were balanced (in this edition, Guard Infantry squads, Tyranid stuff, Deathwatch, etc. Last edition you had Necrons troops, Genestealer Cults, etc), and you had the broken ones (6th-7th Scatterbikes and 5th Edition Grey Hunters are atrocities that can never be forgiven). However the Tactical Marine was never discussed as good outside the ridiculously miniscule minority. They weren't important and won't be, and the unit entry might as well be deleted.

I literally did math showing that if you wanted you can make your tactical marines as good as Imperial Guardsmen at durability, or at least within literally eleven-hundreths of a single point in a 2000 point match (for example).

If you don't want that durability, play White Scars or Black Templars or whatever, get the other bonuses. But don't say "tacticals aren't durable enough" and then avoid spending their free "insert special rule here" which they get on durability.

The tactical hate on dakkadakka is real.

Okay, let's say you DO get the durability buff.

They now lack hitting power.

They're incompetent across the board-not by a TON, but they pay for being generalists in a specialists' game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The tactical hate on dakkadakka is real.

And it's mostly the same three people spamming it everywhere, too.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay, let's say you DO get the durability buff.

They now lack hitting power.

They're incompetent across the board-not by a TON, but they pay for being generalists in a specialists' game.

Raven Guard Space Marine vs Raven Guard Space Marine at >12" : 0.11 wounds

3 Imperial Guardsmen vs Raven Guard Space Marine at >12" : 0.11 wounds

Huh. How very odd. I thought the Raven Guards would be way underpowered at shooting considering what you wrote.

 Melissia wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The tactical hate on dakkadakka is real.

And it's mostly the same three people spamming it everywhere, too.

Because we have tournaments and stats to back it up instead of the same "You need to play smart and L2P" garbage the Tactical Marine defenders have been regurgitating for years.

You have yet to answer to the fact that it literally took FREE transports with OS to get people to buy into the unit entry. As long as that didn't exist, the entry for Tactical Marines might as well not have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I literally did math showing that if you wanted you can make your tactical marines as good as Imperial Guardsmen at durability, or at least within literally eleven-hundreths of a single point in a 2000 point match (for example).

If you don't want that durability, play White Scars or Black Templars or whatever, get the other bonuses. But don't say "tacticals aren't durable enough" and then avoid spending their free "insert special rule here" which they get on durability.

The tactical hate on dakkadakka is real.

That's Martel. I'm saying they're not good because of the loadout choices and applications.

Nobody is speaking about how great Tacticals Marine are. Scouts have always been a superior choice, even in the more "casual" type of lists.

People is just saying that Tacticals Marine are, not perfectly, but mostly balanced in a middle of the road way. The problem is with how busted the game sistem is.

 Blackie wrote:
Ork boyz, since everything else in the codex sucks, with the exception of a few HQs. There are no orks lists without boyz, but that's not because they're great, but because we don't have other viable ways to play them.

I would actually say that Boyz* are great, and that there are a lot of ork units in the index that don't suck, they're just not quite good enough. We could just be using the words "great" and "sucks" differently, so maybe we're actually in complete agreement.

*Slugga Boyz specifically. I would say that Shoota Boyz are good, but not great.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

That's looks nice until the actual values are seen. That's merely a 5+ vs 6+ (a mere 16.7% increase? Pass), and T8 isn't going to be handled by Tactical Marines as they can't use the Lascannon like Devastators can. So what bonus is this really?

It's a made up one. Simple as that.

When you have 16 of them, that bonus means an extra few D6 of wounds againts vehicles in the first round of firing. That can mean one less enemy unit firing back, and diminished options for the opponent. And if youre going to poo-poo a 16% increase in firepower, it seems easy to poo-poo an 11% increase in points. It's nothing.

Devastators are great, but they use the Lascannon just like the Tacticals. They get to fire one at a 2+, which is nice. But everybody else is exactly the same as a tactical model.

Using S3 AP0 weapons as your reference point is the best possible situation for tac marines - and they still come out with roughly the same survivability. If we go the other way and look at something like a soulreaper cannon we get:

4*(2/3)*(2/3)*(5/6)=1.11 dead RG tac marines, 14.4 pts.

4*2/3*2/3*1=1.78 dead guardsmen, 7.1 pts.

This is assuming the best CT for durability. Cover doesn't do much for the marines here, they would still lose more. The typical weaponry used to attack these units is somewhere between this disparity in survivability and that of a lasgun, which still means significantly worse for the marine on average. Tac marines are fragile.

 Galas wrote:


This is DAKKADAKKA. Theres no Middle of the road. A unit can only be two things: Completely broken or totally and unusable crap!

That's because some users rely only on tournaments results. Tournaments are not the only 40k existing, they're a small part of it, in which WAAC players face each other. In an environment such that one of course units suck or are broken, people are only focused to win games, most of the times half games since tournaments have limits which make the games very different from real 40k games. In tournaments only 1/10 (or probably even less) of the units in the GW catalogue are part of the lists, everything else is considered useless.

Supercompetitive 40k is not the only 40k available. In those tournaments you see alliances between SM and conscripts for example, while any player that is interested in running a themed list would hate an option like this one. Or the 5+ stormravens, now they're banned but even before they weren't part of a 40k list, they were an attempt to win tournaments using a mistake that GW fixed in a couple of months. The supercompetitive 40k is not 40k, it's only a tiny part of it.

The Tac Marines should be the best troop choice for fluff reasons out there.
Their bolters can hurt anything in the 40k universe. They should be respected as mighty and fearful warriors. Long live the Emperor!

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

That's looks nice until the actual values are seen. That's merely a 5+ vs 6+ (a mere 16.7% increase? Pass), and T8 isn't going to be handled by Tactical Marines as they can't use the Lascannon like Devastators can. So what bonus is this really?

It's a made up one. Simple as that.

When you have 16 of them, that bonus means an extra few D6 of wounds againts vehicles in the first round of firing. That can mean one less enemy unit firing back, and diminished options for the opponent. And if youre going to poo-poo a 16% increase in firepower, it seems easy to poo-poo an 11% increase in points. It's nothing.

Devastators are great, but they use the Lascannon just like the Tacticals. They get to fire one at a 2+, which is nice. But everybody else is exactly the same as a tactical model.

They absolutely do not use Lascannons as well as Tactical Marines. They use them better.
1. Instead of 4 squads of Tactical Marines with Lascannons, I can get 3 squads of Devastators with 6 Lascannons and Cherubs. This actually ensures threats die unlike in your scenario.
2. Therefore, the redundancy becomes better, because you get more damage in the long run. Dead units and transports can't take objectives. Tactical Marines aren't good enough to do that.

I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this. The Tactical Marine doesn't fill any gaps because the unit entry has no role. It isn't super flexible, it isn't super durable, and it isn't defined. It doesn't DO anything I can't get for cheaper or flatout better elsewhere.

Here's a question for people complaining about tacs: if tacs will never be good enough unless they're the most cost-effective unit in the game at something, what thing in particular should they be the best at and what should they sacrifice to gain that status?

I always see people whining that tacs aren't "good enough", but I never see anyone say what "good enough" is.

Though if I were to take the complaints in aggregate it would seem they want tacs to be the best at everything. But I'm sure that's just people disagreeing on what they want to use them for, and insisting that their style in particular should take priority.

I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

You could make them be able to hold 3 special weapons like a number of imperial troop choices. That's where you start.

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

They should be left as they are. There is no need to change or fix them.
They are good and bad at everything. They are good at holding an objective, they are good at charging an enemy unit and hold their own in cc, they are good at a protracted fire fight. Simultaneously, they are bad at performing these tasks.
It all depends on how a (capable) General uses them.

That does seem to be GW's intention for them: to be good at everything but not the best at anything. There's always a better option for one particular role, but there are also always many worse options.

As far as special weapons, there's only two imperial troop choices I can think of that has more than two special weapons and that's a scion squad or scout squad (though I'm not as familiar with sisters or admech and I'm not sure about the scouts). Other than those, special weapon density is generally reserved for elite slots. And how many of those would be combi-weapons? Because those are a bigger deal now than they used to be.

That does seem to be GW's intention for them: to be good at everything but not the best at anything. There's always a better option for one particular role, but there are also always many worse options.

Indeed, there are specialists out there in a Marine army who can achieve some tasks better than normal Marines, like Devastators, Terminators, Assault Marines, Bikers, and others.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

You could make them be able to hold 3 special weapons like a number of imperial troop choices. That's where you start.

Would this be 3 special weapons per 10 or 3 per 5?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

That's looks nice until the actual values are seen. That's merely a 5+ vs 6+ (a mere 16.7% increase? Pass), and T8 isn't going to be handled by Tactical Marines as they can't use the Lascannon like Devastators can. So what bonus is this really?

It's a made up one. Simple as that.

When you have 16 of them, that bonus means an extra few D6 of wounds againts vehicles in the first round of firing. That can mean one less enemy unit firing back, and diminished options for the opponent. And if youre going to poo-poo a 16% increase in firepower, it seems easy to poo-poo an 11% increase in points. It's nothing.

Devastators are great, but they use the Lascannon just like the Tacticals. They get to fire one at a 2+, which is nice. But everybody else is exactly the same as a tactical model.

They absolutely do not use Lascannons as well as Tactical Marines. They use them better.
1. Instead of 4 squads of Tactical Marines with Lascannons, I can get 3 squads of Devastators with 6 Lascannons and Cherubs. This actually ensures threats die unlike in your scenario.
2. Therefore, the redundancy becomes better, because you get more damage in the long run. Dead units and transports can't take objectives. Tactical Marines aren't good enough to do that.

Right, thats why you take Devastators and Tacticals, you get MOAR Lascannons and kill even faster.

Scouts dont do AT or durability as good as tacticals for cost.

Yeah, scouts pay more points to get the same durability as tacticals, and that durability is only against shooting. If they don't pay it, they're worse against everything.

 ross-128 wrote:
Here's a question for people complaining about tacs: if tacs will never be good enough unless they're the most cost-effective unit in the game at something, what thing in particular should they be the best at and what should they sacrifice to gain that status?

I always see people whining that tacs aren't "good enough", but I never see anyone say what "good enough" is.

Though if I were to take the complaints in aggregate it would seem they want tacs to be the best at everything. But I'm sure that's just people disagreeing on what they want to use them for, and insisting that their style in particular should take priority.

No, they just need to break at even at some task. I don't care what the task is. Right now, they pay a lot of points to fail in every phase of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

That does seem to be GW's intention for them: to be good at everything but not the best at anything. There's always a better option for one particular role, but there are also always many worse options.

Indeed, there are specialists out there in a Marine army who can achieve some tasks better than normal Marines, like Devastators, Terminators, Assault Marines, Bikers, and others.

But they are all built off a flawed chassis: the base marine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

They should be left as they are. There is no need to change or fix them.
They are good and bad at everything. They are good at holding an objective, they are good at charging an enemy unit and hold their own in cc, they are good at a protracted fire fight. Simultaneously, they are bad at performing these tasks.
It all depends on how a (capable) General uses them.

Nope. Not at all. That's the problem. Their suckitude is independent of general. Some generals win in SPITE of bringing them.

I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

You might be. I personally haven't lost to a non-gladius tac heavy army since 4th ed. Tac heavy lists are stacking their lists for failure. They pay a lot of points to do nothing.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

You might be. I personally haven't lost to a non-gladius tac heavy army since 4th ed. Tac heavy lists are stacking their lists for failure. They pay a lot of points to do nothing.

I've lost a bunch to them.

In 5e, Leman Russes and Baneblades couldn't score, so all marine armies had to do was micromanage every model to stay 2" apart and then move and run to the objectives.

I don't remember 6th that well, but I do remember Leman Russes and Baneblades being solidly mediocre for their points - and I am certain I lost more than a few games to tactical marines.

In 7e my Leman Russes were so bad I gear-shifted into the Horus Heresy and just ran Baneblade companies, where I would blow huge chunks out of the tactical marines and then lose anyways because I had 1 scoring unit.

In 8e, the games have been rather close - which is a good thing, IMO. I'm sick of both losing (because I only ran superheavies) and getting accused of powergaming at the same time (because I only ran superheavies).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

You might be. I personally haven't lost to a non-gladius tac heavy army since 4th ed. Tac heavy lists are stacking their lists for failure. They pay a lot of points to do nothing.

I've lost a bunch to them.

In 5e, Leman Russes and Baneblades couldn't score, so all marine armies had to do was micromanage every model to stay 2" apart and then move and run to the objectives.

I don't remember 6th that well, but I do remember Leman Russes and Baneblades being solidly mediocre for their points - and I am certain I lost more than a few games to tactical marines.

In 7e my Leman Russes were so bad I gear-shifted into the Horus Heresy and just ran Baneblade companies, where I would blow huge chunks out of the tactical marines and then lose anyways because I had 1 scoring unit.

In 8e, the games have been rather close - which is a good thing, IMO. I'm sick of both losing (because I only ran superheavies) and getting accused of powergaming at the same time (because I only ran superheavies).

Oof. Superheavies are neat but they dont tend to give you much in the way of options once the battle starts. I find it really stifling when I use units like that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

You might be. I personally haven't lost to a non-gladius tac heavy army since 4th ed. Tac heavy lists are stacking their lists for failure. They pay a lot of points to do nothing.

I've lost a bunch to them.

In 5e, Leman Russes and Baneblades couldn't score, so all marine armies had to do was micromanage every model to stay 2" apart and then move and run to the objectives.

I don't remember 6th that well, but I do remember Leman Russes and Baneblades being solidly mediocre for their points - and I am certain I lost more than a few games to tactical marines.

In 7e my Leman Russes were so bad I gear-shifted into the Horus Heresy and just ran Baneblade companies, where I would blow huge chunks out of the tactical marines and then lose anyways because I had 1 scoring unit.

In 8e, the games have been rather close - which is a good thing, IMO. I'm sick of both losing (because I only ran superheavies) and getting accused of powergaming at the same time (because I only ran superheavies).

Oof. Superheavies are neat but they dont tend to give you much in the way of options once the battle starts. I find it really stifling when I use units like that.

I love the challenge; they're very unique units and operate completely differently from the rest of the field, even in this edition.

The problem is everyone hates you, and I'm not really sure why. :/

Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Audustum wrote:
Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Is that really the stigma though? I've happily played Baneblades in 40k since the rules for doing so came out in 1998. I played them in 2nd, where they took up 3 of the Platoon Support slots in an IG army (so you had to run 3 platoons). I played them in 3rd (when I started in earnest) when you had to play Armored Company to get any other tanks because Baneblades took up all 3 heavy support slots. I played them in 4th, same thing. I played them in 5th, when Baneblade Company first became an army in the Battle Missions book and I could run 3! I played them in 6th when Escalation dropped and the hatred dialed up to 11. I played them in 7th when they got their own FoC in the Horus Heresy, complete with a special tank commander who could ride in the lead Baneblade, and warlord traits, and whatnot. Now I play them in 8th, where there's a FOC for the Baneblade Company as well, and the hate is still dialed to 11 for some reason.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Is that really the stigma though? I've happily played Baneblades in 40k since the rules for doing so came out in 1998. I played them in 2nd, where they took up 3 of the Platoon Support slots in an IG army (so you had to run 3 platoons). I played them in 3rd (when I started in earnest) when you had to play Armored Company to get any other tanks because Baneblades took up all 3 heavy support slots. I played them in 4th, same thing. I played them in 5th, when Baneblade Company first became an army in the Battle Missions book and I could run 3! I played them in 6th when Escalation dropped and the hatred dialed up to 11. I played them in 7th when they got their own FoC in the Horus Heresy, complete with a special tank commander who could ride in the lead Baneblade, and warlord traits, and whatnot. Now I play them in 8th, where there's a FOC for the Baneblade Company as well, and the hate is still dialed to 11 for some reason.

Thats too bad, theyre more manageable now by probably every standard, than they were previously.

F the haters, you do you.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Is that really the stigma though? I've happily played Baneblades in 40k since the rules for doing so came out in 1998. I played them in 2nd, where they took up 3 of the Platoon Support slots in an IG army (so you had to run 3 platoons). I played them in 3rd (when I started in earnest) when you had to play Armored Company to get any other tanks because Baneblades took up all 3 heavy support slots. I played them in 4th, same thing. I played them in 5th, when Baneblade Company first became an army in the Battle Missions book and I could run 3! I played them in 6th when Escalation dropped and the hatred dialed up to 11. I played them in 7th when they got their own FoC in the Horus Heresy, complete with a special tank commander who could ride in the lead Baneblade, and warlord traits, and whatnot. Now I play them in 8th, where there's a FOC for the Baneblade Company as well, and the hate is still dialed to 11 for some reason.

I can only speak for my own experience, but the super-heavy hate seems to have become prevalent when you could field IK in normal games. Then it spilled over to all super s.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is everyone hates you, and I'm not really sure why. :/

Probably because in 7th, regardless of how powerful they were, they were incredibly boring to play against.

e.g. Knights:
- Had a 12" move, because no big model GW makes is allowed to come with a drawback.
- They ignored basically every rule that might impede them in some way.
- They could still be locked in combat and thus immune to enemy fire ("No, sergeant, we can't shoot that 3-story knight - we might hit our completely expendable men who don't exceed its foot level and who are completely doomed anyway if we don't intervene.").
- However, when locked in combat, it could still attack units outside of combat via Stomp.
- Speaking of breaking rules, Stomp was just a rules nightmare.
- They inevitably had D-weapons, which were just barrels of tedium.
- They had armour 12+, making them immune to all small arms and even many medium weapons. Because it's always just thrilling when half your army can do nothing but throw insults at the enemy.
- In spite of costing about 400pts they were actually among the most abstracted models in 40k. There were no systems to manage. No diverting power or any even remotely-interesting mechanics like that. They were just big blocks.
- They functioned at full capacity at all times until being destroyed. Frankly, I don't know why they even bothered making us roll on the damage table, given that 5 of the results were 'nothing happens'. Why is it that other vehicles' weapons - even ones embedded in armoured hull of a Land Raider - can be blown off, yet weapons attacked to a vulnerable arm are somehow immune to that? Why is it that their movement systems can't be damaged in the slightest?

To be clear, I think 8th has done a decent job of addressing most of these. However, back in 7th, playing against super-heavies in 7th was a snooozefest.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

Let us know how those tournaments go then, champ.

Martel732 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Here's a question for people complaining about tacs: if tacs will never be good enough unless they're the most cost-effective unit in the game at something, what thing in particular should they be the best at and what should they sacrifice to gain that status?

I always see people whining that tacs aren't "good enough", but I never see anyone say what "good enough" is.

Though if I were to take the complaints in aggregate it would seem they want tacs to be the best at everything. But I'm sure that's just people disagreeing on what they want to use them for, and insisting that their style in particular should take priority.

No, they just need to break at even at some task. I don't care what the task is. Right now, they pay a lot of points to fail in every phase of the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

That does seem to be GW's intention for them: to be good at everything but not the best at anything. There's always a better option for one particular role, but there are also always many worse options.

Indeed, there are specialists out there in a Marine army who can achieve some tasks better than normal Marines, like Devastators, Terminators, Assault Marines, Bikers, and others.

But they are all built off a flawed chassis: the base marine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

They should be left as they are. There is no need to change or fix them.
They are good and bad at everything. They are good at holding an objective, they are good at charging an enemy unit and hold their own in cc, they are good at a protracted fire fight. Simultaneously, they are bad at performing these tasks.
It all depends on how a (capable) General uses them.

Nope. Not at all. That's the problem. Their suckitude is independent of general. Some generals win in SPITE of bringing them.

Define break even. Does breaking even mean sharing the "best" spot with another unit? If there is one unit in the game that is better at that specific role due to being more focused, is that "breaking even?"

What if there are two or three? Or any number as long as the tradeoff is "better, but narrower focus"? How, exactly, will you know they have broken even?

And what in particular should they be more focused on?

You have often expressed disappointment that tacticals fall short of the best-in-slot units for a particular role, so how should they compare to best-in-slot for any single role, and is there any particular role they should focus on to the exclusion of others?

Keep in mind that if they are equal to or better than the (other) best-in-slot model, that would make them best-in-slot as well.

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, scouts pay more points to get the same durability as tacticals, and that durability is only against shooting. If they don't pay it, they're worse against everything.

And that's why you don't pay points for the camo cloak! It's a bad upgrade and they're already durable enough for the price! Why is this STILL being brought up like it matters? They're only mildly less durable without it! Don't pay for the useless expensive upgrades!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Vs. 3+ armor, a -3 gets 25% more successes than a -2.

Vs. T 8, strength 9 gets 33% more successes vs. S 8.

For 10 points more than Scouts, you get those bonusses and 3+ armor. Well worth it in my book.

That's looks nice until the actual values are seen. That's merely a 5+ vs 6+ (a mere 16.7% increase? Pass), and T8 isn't going to be handled by Tactical Marines as they can't use the Lascannon like Devastators can. So what bonus is this really?

It's a made up one. Simple as that.

When you have 16 of them, that bonus means an extra few D6 of wounds againts vehicles in the first round of firing. That can mean one less enemy unit firing back, and diminished options for the opponent. And if youre going to poo-poo a 16% increase in firepower, it seems easy to poo-poo an 11% increase in points. It's nothing.

Devastators are great, but they use the Lascannon just like the Tacticals. They get to fire one at a 2+, which is nice. But everybody else is exactly the same as a tactical model.

They absolutely do not use Lascannons as well as Tactical Marines. They use them better.
1. Instead of 4 squads of Tactical Marines with Lascannons, I can get 3 squads of Devastators with 6 Lascannons and Cherubs. This actually ensures threats die unlike in your scenario.
2. Therefore, the redundancy becomes better, because you get more damage in the long run. Dead units and transports can't take objectives. Tactical Marines aren't good enough to do that.

Right, thats why you take Devastators and Tacticals, you get MOAR Lascannons and kill even faster.

Scouts dont do AT or durability as good as tacticals for cost.

Yeah they do actually. ML + Snipers is just as good as a single Lascannon, if not better for the generalist role you're so in love with.

vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is everyone hates you, and I'm not really sure why. :/

Probably because in 7th, regardless of how powerful they were, they were incredibly boring to play against.

e.g. Knights:
- They ignored basically every rule that might impede them in some way.
- They could still be locked in combat and thus immune to enemy fire ("No, sergeant, we can't shoot that 3-story knight - we might hit our completely expendable men who don't exceed its foot level and who are completely doomed anyway if we don't intervene.").
- However, when locked in combat, it could still attack units outside of combat via Stomp.
- Speaking of breaking rules, Stomp was just a rules nightmare.
- They inevitably had D-weapons, which were just barrels of tedium.
- They had armour 12+, making them immune to all small arms and even many medium weapons. Because it's always just thrilling when half your army can do nothing but throw insults at the enemy.
- In spite of costing about 400pts they were actually among the most abstracted models in 40k. There were no systems to manage. No diverting power or any even remotely-interesting mechanics like that. They were just big blocks.
- They functioned at full capacity at all times until being destroyed. Frankly, I don't know why they even bothered making us roll on the damage table, given that 5 of the results were 'nothing happens'. Why is it that other vehicles' weapons - even ones embedded in armoured hull of a Land Raider - can be blown off, yet weapons attacked to a vulnerable arm are somehow immune to that? Why is it that their movement systems can't be damaged in the slightest?

To be clear, I think 8th has done a decent job of addressing most of these. However, back in 7th, playing against super-heavies in 7th was a snooozefest.

I don't think that was true at all. I'll go point-by-point:
1) What? No, I routinely was hemmed into my deployment zone by enemy armour and essentially turned into pillboxes. That's impediment if I ever saw one.
2) Baneblades absolutely did not lock anyone in combat; please don't generalize. (#NotAllSuperheavies)
3) Baneblades could stomp? Wow I played them wrong for a whole edition. (Actually, no, this is another generalization). Just gonna start a trend: #NotAllSuperheavies
4) #NotAllSuperheavies
5) Exactly 1 baneblade variant has exactly 1 D-weapon and it gave up a LOT to have that one large-blast shot.
6) Yes, this was a problem, though it's also fluffy, and I tried to warn my opponents ahead of time that I was bringing big tanks (did you ever play Armoured Company in literally any edition ever?)
7) Yes, that's true. This was an attempt to close the gap between superheavies and monstrous creatures that made gargantuan creatures ridiculously good, though not even this worked. Blame the MC rules not being granular enough, I suppose.
8) Again, this was an attempt to close the gap between things like the Heirophant, Harridan, Angrath, and the Squiggoth and things like the Baneblade, Knight, Warhound, and Stompa. This is because none of the other rules ever had those, but I suppose you were fine playing against carnifexes with your land raider?

Audustum wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Is that really the stigma though? I've happily played Baneblades in 40k since the rules for doing so came out in 1998. I played them in 2nd, where they took up 3 of the Platoon Support slots in an IG army (so you had to run 3 platoons). I played them in 3rd (when I started in earnest) when you had to play Armored Company to get any other tanks because Baneblades took up all 3 heavy support slots. I played them in 4th, same thing. I played them in 5th, when Baneblade Company first became an army in the Battle Missions book and I could run 3! I played them in 6th when Escalation dropped and the hatred dialed up to 11. I played them in 7th when they got their own FoC in the Horus Heresy, complete with a special tank commander who could ride in the lead Baneblade, and warlord traits, and whatnot. Now I play them in 8th, where there's a FOC for the Baneblade Company as well, and the hate is still dialed to 11 for some reason.

I can only speak for my own experience, but the super-heavy hate seems to have become prevalent when you could field IK in normal games. Then it spilled over to all super s.

I suppose, though I'm not even sure why IK got so much hate. I don't recall them being terribly OP or anything. Shocking to fight for the first time for sure, but easily managed.

Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Old bias and stigma about what 40k 'should be'. You do you and don't worry about it (Imperial Knight Players).

Is that really the stigma though? I've happily played Baneblades in 40k since the rules for doing so came out in 1998. I played them in 2nd, where they took up 3 of the Platoon Support slots in an IG army (so you had to run 3 platoons). I played them in 3rd (when I started in earnest) when you had to play Armored Company to get any other tanks because Baneblades took up all 3 heavy support slots. I played them in 4th, same thing. I played them in 5th, when Baneblade Company first became an army in the Battle Missions book and I could run 3! I played them in 6th when Escalation dropped and the hatred dialed up to 11. I played them in 7th when they got their own FoC in the Horus Heresy, complete with a special tank commander who could ride in the lead Baneblade, and warlord traits, and whatnot. Now I play them in 8th, where there's a FOC for the Baneblade Company as well, and the hate is still dialed to 11 for some reason.

Thats too bad, theyre more manageable now by probably every standard, than they were previously.

F the haters, you do you.

Thanks, I will try!

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I'm also curious about how tactical marines could be fixed, without just lowering their point cost ad infinitum.

You could make them be able to hold 3 special weapons like a number of imperial troop choices. That's where you start.

Would this be 3 special weapons per 10 or 3 per 5?

I say they get one weapon choice at 5 dudes, and when you reach 10 you get two extra purchases. 10 dudes is iconic, and looks better on the table when it comes to cohesiveness for the army. The Skitarii route would be better though. 2 at minimum and an extra at 10 is reasonable.

No limits on the weapon either. Devastators work because they not only get bonuses for their weapons (Signum and Cherub), but they get to do redundancy in an efficient manner.

There's literally nothing else you can do. I'm all for personally just deleting the entry itself.

"You have often expressed disappointment that tacticals fall short of the best-in-slot units for a particular role"

I don't think any marine models are best-in-slot to begin with. I'm talking about the whole game here, not marines. I think the generalist tax brings down a lot of marine units hard. Primaris is doubling down on this scheme, making them another failed concept.

I think the role they should honestly focus on is taking up more space. They should have fewer capabilties so they can have a lower price point, because its clear that the rules are never going to support generalists. This is why I think all the marine troops should burned in a dumpster at this point. Too expensive for bullet catchers, and too ineffective and removal other models for their cost and not effective enough at absorbing fire for their cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I must be a kick*** general then if I win the majority of my games with armies built around such terrible models.

You might be. I personally haven't lost to a non-gladius tac heavy army since 4th ed. Tac heavy lists are stacking their lists for failure. They pay a lot of points to do nothing.

I've lost a bunch to them.

In 5e, Leman Russes and Baneblades couldn't score, so all marine armies had to do was micromanage every model to stay 2" apart and then move and run to the objectives.

I don't remember 6th that well, but I do remember Leman Russes and Baneblades being solidly mediocre for their points - and I am certain I lost more than a few games to tactical marines.

In 7e my Leman Russes were so bad I gear-shifted into the Horus Heresy and just ran Baneblade companies, where I would blow huge chunks out of the tactical marines and then lose anyways because I had 1 scoring unit.

In 8e, the games have been rather close - which is a good thing, IMO. I'm sick of both losing (because I only ran superheavies) and getting accused of powergaming at the same time (because I only ran superheavies).

My BA always paid them a visit. And they couldn't stop me. Because tac marines.

I know it's going to get ignored/dismissed as L2P, but instead of saying
"My troops have too many capabilities"
instead say
"How do I leverage the fact that my troops have so many capabilities compared to the enemy's?"

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I know it's going to get ignored/dismissed as L2P, but instead of saying
"My troops have too many capabilities"
instead say
"How do I leverage the fact that my troops have so many capabilities compared to the enemy's?"

Been trying since 2nd ed. Opponents figure out how to deny this really quickly and easily. Because of poor throw weight in the shooting phase and poor model count. It's why I haven't lost to non-gladius tac heavy lists since 4th. I just go into auto-pilot anti-tac mode. There's nothing they can do. It doesn't matter what you try to leverage.

Every point you spend on tac marines is something I can ignore and leave to the mop up phase of the game. Bring enough tacs, and the entire game is a mop-up.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I know it's going to get ignored/dismissed as L2P, but instead of saying
"My troops have too many capabilities"
instead say
"How do I leverage the fact that my troops have so many capabilities compared to the enemy's?"

Been trying since 2nd ed. Opponents figure out how to deny this really quickly and easily. Because of poor throw weight in the shooting phase and poor model count. It's why I haven't lost to non-gladius tac heavy lists since 4th. I just go into auto-pilot anti-tac mode. There's nothing they can do. It doesn't matter what you try to leverage.

So wouldn't a "failure to leverage because my opponent outplayed me" be an outplay thing, rather than a "this unit is bad thing?"

It's not like the tacts are lacking for capability - you said it yourself, the problem is they have too many. I don't think that's a problem; I think instead people learn how to play around and deny/suppress/interfere with the tactical marine's ability to use its capabilities.

That's player skill, there, that you're trying to edit out, not a failure of the unit itself.

Units specialized into one capability might be easy to use: "Oh, it has 5 meltaguns, this is an antitank unit, it shoots tanks" (for example). Generalists have to leverage their advantages, and denying them from doing so is player skill.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I know it's going to get ignored/dismissed as L2P, but instead of saying
"My troops have too many capabilities"
instead say
"How do I leverage the fact that my troops have so many capabilities compared to the enemy's?"

You don't because the Tactical Marine pays to be generalist. Thats why other Marine units have had fluctuations but the Tactical Marine was always still near the bottom or actually there.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I know it's going to get ignored/dismissed as L2P, but instead of saying
"My troops have too many capabilities"
instead say
"How do I leverage the fact that my troops have so many capabilities compared to the enemy's?"

You don't because the Tactical Marine pays to be generalist. Thats why other Marine units have had fluctuations but the Tactical Marine was always still near the bottom or actually there.

So are you saying you find it impossible to leverage the entire breadth of the tactical marine's capabilities? Or are you saying it is actually objectively impossible?

Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

Martel732 wrote:
"You have often expressed disappointment that tacticals fall short of the best-in-slot units for a particular role"

I don't think any marine models are best-in-slot to begin with. I'm talking about the whole game here, not marines. I think the generalist tax brings down a lot of marine units hard. Primaris is doubling down on this scheme, making them another failed concept.

I think the role they should honestly focus on is taking up more space. They should have fewer capabilties so they can have a lower price point, because its clear that the rules are never going to support generalists. This is why I think all the marine troops should burned in a dumpster at this point. Too expensive for bullet catchers, and too ineffective and removal other models for their cost and not effective enough at absorbing fire for their cost.

I'm certainly not trying to argue whether any marine model is currently best-in-slot, I'm asking if they *should* be. There is how things are, there is how you wish them to be, and in between is how you get there. But first, you must identify your goals.

So, *should* marines be best-in-slot for any role and if so what should that role be?

And if what you personally want is a bunch of 2-5 point cannon fodder to fill space... Well you're definitely playing the wrong faction, maybe you should play a faction that actually suits your play style? One that actually has expendible cannon fodder for you to expend? Factions do tend to be associated with particular playstyles you know, there's a reason "horde custodes" isn't a thing.

I'm saying if you bring a tac heavy list my BA will wipe you up like a squeegee. You can't cause enough list degredation and my CC actually matters against you, because I'm killing 13 pt models minimum NOT FETHING 3 PT MODELS.

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

I have played against them and been beaten by them on more than one occasion when my opponents found a way to leverage their advantages against me. I have not used any in my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm saying if you bring a tac heavy list my BA will wipe you up like a squeegee. You can't cause enough list degredation and my CC actually matters against you, because I'm killing 13 pt models minimum NOT FETHING 3 PT MODELS.

That's probably true because I don't play marines (and would probably try to play the rhinos with tacts like Baneblades and just get murdered), but are you saying it's objectively impossible for a tactical marine player regardless of skill to leverage his units general capabilities against you?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

I have played against them and been beaten by them on more than one occasion when my opponents found a way to leverage their advantages against me. I have not used any in my army.

Can you elaborate on how tac marines were worth their pts vs LOW tanks?

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

I have played against them and been beaten by them on more than one occasion when my opponents found a way to leverage their advantages against me. I have not used any in my army.

Can you elaborate on how tac marines were worth their pts vs LOW tanks?

Did you want a battle report? I can write one up, but essentially a billion rhinos with tactical marines were too many points for me to efficiently shift by the end of the game off of the objectives. Still are, as I've not yet developed a counter, really, that I am satisfied with.

Here's some math:
vs a Rhino:
Baneblade gets 5.8 damage with its main gun, 2.3 damage with its demolisher cannon, 1.5 with its heavy bolters, and 0.6 from lascannons (I run them with one set of sponsons) if they don't move. That's 571 points to do damn near exactly 1 Rhino in, and that's if I didn't move and the Rhino has 0 cover.
If I move up to objectives, my firepower reduces by 33%. If I don't move up to objectives, then they only need to get 1 objective to win.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't think that was true at all. I'll go point-by-point:
2) Baneblades absolutely did not lock anyone in combat; please don't generalize. (#NotAllSuperheavies)

I literally said I was talking about Knights.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Baneblades could stomp? Wow I played them wrong for a whole edition. (Actually, no, this is another generalization). Just gonna start a trend: #NotAllSuperheavies

Yeah, it's almost as if I was talking about Knights. Oh, wait a minute, that's because I was.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

4) #NotAllSuperheavies

Yeah, you'd think I was talking about Knights or something.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

5) Exactly 1 baneblade variant has exactly 1 D-weapon and it gave up a LOT to have that one large-blast shot.

You know, I don't think I even used the word "baneblade" once in my entire post . . .

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

6) Yes, this was a problem, though it's also fluffy, and I tried to warn my opponents ahead of time that I was bringing big tanks (did you ever play Armoured Company in literally any edition ever?)

I appreciate that you warned them, but that doesn't really change my point. For example, let's say I wanted to use my Dark Eldar. Well, both of my troop choices are worthless beyond a singly Haywire Grenade on the sergeant and a crappy blaster or blast pistol shot. My HQs are likewise useless beyond haywire grenades. My Incubi, Grots andWracks are completely worthless. My Venoms can't touch you etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

7) Yes, that's true. This was an attempt to close the gap between superheavies and monstrous creatures that made gargantuan creatures ridiculously good, though not even this worked. Blame the MC rules not being granular enough, I suppose.

The MC rules were far from perfect, I agree. However, Gargantuan Creatures really should have had more granularity than 'none'.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8) Again, this was an attempt to close the gap between things like the Heirophant, Harridan, Angrath, and the Squiggoth and things like the Baneblade, Knight, Warhound, and Stompa. This is because none of the other rules ever had those, but I suppose you were fine playing against carnifexes with your land raider?

I don't even own a land raider. But since you ask, no, Carnifexes never bothered me. They had so few wounds and were so easy to injure that degradation would largely have bee wasted. If you want to talk about MCs that should have degraded, I think you need to look to larger beasts like the Riptide (which, if we're honest, probably shouldn't have been a MC in the first place).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I say they get one weapon choice at 5 dudes, and when you reach 10 you get two extra purchases. 10 dudes is iconic, and looks better on the table when it comes to cohesiveness for the army. The Skitarii route would be better though. 2 at minimum and an extra at 10 is reasonable.

Would it make more sense to give them 1 special weapon initially and then an additional special and a heavy at 10?

Or were you using special weapon to mean special or heavy weapon?

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't think that was true at all. I'll go point-by-point:
2) Baneblades absolutely did not lock anyone in combat; please don't generalize. (#NotAllSuperheavies)

I literally said I was talking about Knights.

Oh, then why are you bringing it up as an example of why people hated on my baneblades?

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Baneblades could stomp? Wow I played them wrong for a whole edition. (Actually, no, this is another generalization). Just gonna start a trend: #NotAllSuperheavies

Yeah, it's almost as if I was talking about Knights. Oh, wait a minute, that's because I was.

Oh, then why were you bringing it up as an example of why people hated on my baneblades?

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

4) #NotAllSuperheavies

Yeah, you'd think I was talking about Knights or something.

Why would you talk about knights when I am talking about baneblades?

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

5) Exactly 1 baneblade variant has exactly 1 D-weapon and it gave up a LOT to have that one large-blast shot.

You know, I don't think I even used the word "baneblade" once in my entire post . . .

But I was talking about the general hatred for superheavies, so why use so many examples from a specific type of superheavy? Not all of them were knights, and your list would be half as long or less if you just looked at the superheavy unit type and not Knights as a reason to hate them.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

6) Yes, this was a problem, though it's also fluffy, and I tried to warn my opponents ahead of time that I was bringing big tanks (did you ever play Armoured Company in literally any edition ever?)

I appreciate that you warned them, but that doesn't really change my point. For example, let's say I wanted to use my Dark Eldar. Well, both of my troop choices are worthless beyond a singly Haywire Grenade on the sergeant and a crappy blaster or blast pistol shot. My HQs are likewise useless beyond haywire grenades. My Incubi, Grots andWracks are completely worthless. My Venoms can't touch you etc.

So... what did you do against Armoured Company in every edition since 2nd? Did you hate them?

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

7) Yes, that's true. This was an attempt to close the gap between superheavies and monstrous creatures that made gargantuan creatures ridiculously good, though not even this worked. Blame the MC rules not being granular enough, I suppose.

The MC rules were far from perfect, I agree. However, Gargantuan Creatures really should have had more granularity than 'none'.

Probably should have, but I didn't see people frothing in the mouth with rage when Monstrous Creatures didn't have any granularity, so I reject that that's the reason they hated Baneblades/superheavies.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8) Again, this was an attempt to close the gap between things like the Heirophant, Harridan, Angrath, and the Squiggoth and things like the Baneblade, Knight, Warhound, and Stompa. This is because none of the other rules ever had those, but I suppose you were fine playing against carnifexes with your land raider?

I don't even own a land raider. But since you ask, no, Carnifexes never bothered me. They had so few wounds and were so easy to injure that degradation would largely have bee wasted. If you want to talk about MCs that should have degraded, I think you need to look to larger beasts like the Riptide (which, if we're honest, probably shouldn't have been a MC in the first place).

Baneblades had 9 'wounds', exactly 3 more than a carnifex... why should they 'degrade'?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Oh, then why are you bringing it up as an example of why people hated on my baneblades?

Oh, then why were you bringing it up as an example of why people hated on my baneblades?

Why would you talk about knights when I am talking about baneblades?

If you knew that I was talking about Knights and so these didn't apply at all, why comment on them in the first place?

And the reason I used Knights is because they were the superheavy I was most familiar with.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

But I was talking about the general hatred for superheavies, so why use so many examples from a specific type of superheavy?

Because they were the one I knew best.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Not all of them were knights, and your list would be half as long or less if you just looked at the superheavy unit type and not Knights as a reason to hate them.

My list might have been shorter, but it would still contain the most obnoxious aspects of superheavies bar Stomp.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So... what did you do against Armoured Company in every edition since 2nd? Did you hate them?

Honestly? I rarely ever saw them. When I did, they generally contained at least some infantry, so my small-arms and melee units weren't entirely worthless.

That said, I certainly wouldn't describe any of the few games I did have against an Armoured Company as being fun either.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Probably should have, but I didn't see people frothing in the mouth with rage when Monstrous Creatures didn't have any granularity, so I reject that that's the reason they hated Baneblades/superheavies.

Reject it all you want but I can tell you for a fact that this is what I found most tedious about them, and many others I've talked with have shared that view.

It might not be the only reason but it was definitely one of the main ones.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Baneblades had 9 'wounds', exactly 3 more than a carnifex... why should they 'degrade'?

Today's math lesson: 4 + 3 = 9.

That aside, let me turn this question around: A Baneblade is a tank with more than twice as many Hull Points as a Land Raider. If the Land Raider can degrade, why shouldn't the Baneblade also degrade?

Poly Ranger wrote:

 CplPunishment wrote:


Vox is a ripoff now. Save yourself 45 pts and buy another company commander instead for more orders..

I don't completely agree with that. Voxs give you a lot more flexibility. Say you have a few heavy weapons squads set up together in a certain location, you can set up a company commander nearby and as long as there is an infantry unit with a Vox babysitting them you can send your orders further to other units that may be more in need of them.
That's what I have done currently. Two areas with a concentration of HWSs 1 CC and 1 infantry squad with vox, and a main battle line with all the other infantry squads. When I've needed to I've been able to send all my orders to the main battle line because of the vox network.

An extra couple of platoon commanders would give me a couple more orders but not as high flexibility. So 6 of one half a dozen of the other (plus saves me elites slots :-p).

I said company commander, not platoon commander. And it sounds like you might be using vox casters incorrectly. I might need to double check, but I could have sworn they only affect units that have one.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Baneblades had 9 'wounds', exactly 3 more than a carnifex... why should they 'degrade'?

Today's math lesson: 4 + 3 = 9.

That aside, let me turn this question around: A Baneblade is a tank with more than twice as many Hull Points as a Land Raider. If the Land Raider can degrade, why shouldn't the Baneblade also degrade?

Sorry, should've said Tyrannofex or Tervigon or whichever one has 6 and doesn't degrade. They all blend together anyways, much like how superheavies do for you. So let me put your list down with all the Knight stuff removed:

- Had a 12" move, because no big model GW makes is allowed to come with a drawback. (I saw you edited this in)
- They had armour 12+, making them immune to all small arms and even many medium weapons. Because it's always just thrilling when half your army can do nothing but throw insults at the enemy.
- In spite of costing about 400pts they were actually among the most abstracted models in 40k. There were no systems to manage. No diverting power or any even remotely-interesting mechanics like that. They were just big blocks.
- They functioned at full capacity at all times until being destroyed. Frankly, I don't know why they even bothered making us roll on the damage table, given that 5 of the results were 'nothing happens'. Why is it that other vehicles' weapons - even ones embedded in armoured hull of a Land Raider can be blown off, yet weapons attacked to a vulnerable arm are somehow immune to that? Why is it that their movement systems can't be damaged in the slightest?

aaand that's it. Once we remove all the things that other unit types do in the game from the list of reasons to hate baneblades, it looks like this:





Oh, and as far as why a Land Raider should degrade when a Baneblade doesn't: I don't think a land raider should have either, if Tyrannofexes and Squiggoths didn't. Just because the rules for the Land Raider were ass doesn't mean the Baneblade's have to be too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

I have played against them and been beaten by them on more than one occasion when my opponents found a way to leverage their advantages against me. I have not used any in my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm saying if you bring a tac heavy list my BA will wipe you up like a squeegee. You can't cause enough list degredation and my CC actually matters against you, because I'm killing 13 pt models minimum NOT FETHING 3 PT MODELS.

That's probably true because I don't play marines (and would probably try to play the rhinos with tacts like Baneblades and just get murdered), but are you saying it's objectively impossible for a tactical marine player regardless of skill to leverage his units general capabilities against you?

They're welcome to try, but they objectively don't have the stopping power, the numbers, or the cc capability. There's really nothing to leverage if they are playing them legally. When i say they have too many capabilities, i really mean perceived capabilities. In gw's head they punch better than gretchin, but against real cc units they are just expensive gretchin. My units are faster, and so the tac player has no agency to be able to dictate the matchups.

Also, the more you gear the tacs, the faster they collapse. Maybe they can hide in razorspam in 8th. Maybe. But that's now razorbacks being good, not tacs.

 vipoid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

I don't think that was true at all. I'll go point-by-point:
2) Baneblades absolutely did not lock anyone in combat; please don't generalize. (#NotAllSuperheavies)

I literally said I was talking about Knights.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

3) Baneblades could stomp? Wow I played them wrong for a whole edition. (Actually, no, this is another generalization). Just gonna start a trend: #NotAllSuperheavies

Yeah, it's almost as if I was talking about Knights. Oh, wait a minute, that's because I was.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

4) #NotAllSuperheavies

Yeah, you'd think I was talking about Knights or something.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

5) Exactly 1 baneblade variant has exactly 1 D-weapon and it gave up a LOT to have that one large-blast shot.

You know, I don't think I even used the word "baneblade" once in my entire post . . .

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

6) Yes, this was a problem, though it's also fluffy, and I tried to warn my opponents ahead of time that I was bringing big tanks (did you ever play Armoured Company in literally any edition ever?)

I appreciate that you warned them, but that doesn't really change my point. For example, let's say I wanted to use my Dark Eldar. Well, both of my troop choices are worthless beyond a singly Haywire Grenade on the sergeant and a crappy blaster or blast pistol shot. My HQs are likewise useless beyond haywire grenades. My Incubi, Grots andWracks are completely worthless. My Venoms can't touch you etc.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

7) Yes, that's true. This was an attempt to close the gap between superheavies and monstrous creatures that made gargantuan creatures ridiculously good, though not even this worked. Blame the MC rules not being granular enough, I suppose.

The MC rules were far from perfect, I agree. However, Gargantuan Creatures really should have had more granularity than 'none'.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
8) Again, this was an attempt to close the gap between things like the Heirophant, Harridan, Angrath, and the Squiggoth and things like the Baneblade, Knight, Warhound, and Stompa. This is because none of the other rules ever had those, but I suppose you were fine playing against carnifexes with your land raider?

I don't even own a land raider. But since you ask, no, Carnifexes never bothered me. They had so few wounds and were so easy to injure that degradation would largely have bee wasted. If you want to talk about MCs that should have degraded, I think you need to look to larger beasts like the Riptide (which, if we're honest, probably shouldn't have been a MC in the first place).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I say they get one weapon choice at 5 dudes, and when you reach 10 you get two extra purchases. 10 dudes is iconic, and looks better on the table when it comes to cohesiveness for the army. The Skitarii route would be better though. 2 at minimum and an extra at 10 is reasonable.

Would it make more sense to give them 1 special weapon initially and then an additional special and a heavy at 10?

Or were you using special weapon to mean special or heavy weapon?

No, Special and Heavy are meant to be different.

However I'm all for mixing and matching. Want 2 specials and 1 heavy at the ten man squad? Go for it! I wouldn't ever do that but it would at least look better on the table and make more sense crunch-wise.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because one of those is subjective, and the other one I can prove false.

Have you played with tac marines this edition?

I have played against them and been beaten by them on more than one occasion when my opponents found a way to leverage their advantages against me. I have not used any in my army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm saying if you bring a tac heavy list my BA will wipe you up like a squeegee. You can't cause enough list degredation and my CC actually matters against you, because I'm killing 13 pt models minimum NOT FETHING 3 PT MODELS.

That's probably true because I don't play marines (and would probably try to play the rhinos with tacts like Baneblades and just get murdered), but are you saying it's objectively impossible for a tactical marine player regardless of skill to leverage his units general capabilities against you?

They're welcome to try, but they objectively don't have the stopping power, the numbers, or the cc capability. There's really nothing to leverage if they are playing them legally. When i say they have too many capabilities, i really mean perceived capabilities. In gw's head they punch better than gretchin, but against real cc units they are just expensive gretchin.

So you do think that tactical marines are objectively impossible for a tactical marine player to leverage his units generalist capabilities against you? Okay. I will give you a situation where they can do so:

Your units never move, shoot, or react at all. The tactical marines are free to leverage every single one of their capabilities without hindrance.

There, your "objective" opinion is proven to be not quite so objective after all.

As for your CC comment: I think you're wrong. I think they're objectively, measurably better than gretchin in CC.

 CplPunishment wrote:
I said company commander, not platoon commander. And it sounds like you might be using vox casters incorrectly. I might need to double check, but I could have sworn they only affect units that have one.

You are correct. For voxcasters to work, both the unit sending and unit receiving need one.

Hmm, IG Infantry Squads are decent or good but they aren't such a powerhouse that you'd call them the best.

Still, I like my Infantry because they can hold the line extremely well for their points. Any Squads that see actual combat, tend to suffer * a lot* of casualties but that's okay. It's not like the units (notice the plural) that killed them are usually getting their points back.

"Your units never move, shoot, or react at all. "

Yeah... I'm never going to do that. Creating an impossible scenario for your success is useless.

"As for your CC comment: I think you're wrong. I think they're objectively, measurably better than gretchin in CC.

They might kill .9 DC instead of .3 DC. Neither amount matters for the functionality of the squad, and so the DC rape train continues unabated into the next squad of helpless tac marines. I consistently murdered 6-8 tac squads with two units of DC in 5th. The return on investment there is so huge for my DC. If those had been guardsmen? I'm still behind at the end of the game, probably.

Let spell this is out in a way that might make more sense.

Marines pay for S4 and WS 3+. But only have one attack, so these stats are basically impossible to leverage in a MEANINGFUL way. You are going off the rails with the meaningful part.

Marines pay for BS 3+, but their default weapon is so weak that this stat is also wasted. It takes an absurd amount of bolter fire to accomplish anything MEANINGFUL. Conscripts with FRFSF CAN leverage their S3 guns to accomplish something meaningful because of their numbers and cost/gun. Tacs can't.

Marines pay for 3+ armor, but because of the above problems, they can't even leverage THAT, because no one is in a rush to get rid of them. Because they kill nothing and they don't matter. Yes, they can sit like an eggplant on an objective, but so can gretchin. For much cheaper. Which the Ork player can use to go buy units that DO something. And when I want that objective, there is no difference between tac marines and gretchin because I'm bringing the hammer.

Martel732 wrote:
"Your units never move, shoot, or react at all. "

Yeah... I'm never going to do that. Creating an impossible scenario for your success is useless.

"As for your CC comment: I think you're wrong. I think they're objectively, measurably better than gretchin in CC.

They might kill .9 DC instead of .3 DC. Neither amount matters for the functionality of the squad, and so the DC rape train continues unabated into the next squad of helpless tac marines. I consistently murdered 6-8 tac squads with two units of DC in 5th. The return on investment there is so huge for my DC. If those had been guardsmen? I'm still behind at the end of the game, probably.

Let spell this is out in a way that might make more sense.

Marines pay for S4 and WS 3+. But only have one attack, so these stats are basically impossible to leverage in a MEANINGFUL way. You are going off the rails with the meaningful part.

Marines pay for BS 3+, but their default weapon is so weak that this stat is also wasted. It takes an absurd amount of bolter fire to accomplish anything MEANINGFUL. Conscripts with FRFSF CAN leverage their S3 guns to accomplish something meaningful because of their numbers and cost/gun. Tacs can't.

Marines pay for 3+ armor, but because of the above problems, they can't even leverage THAT, because no one is in a rush to get rid of them. Because they kill nothing and they don't matter. Yes, they can sit like an eggplant on an objective, but so can gretchin. For much cheaper. Which the Ork player can use to go buy units that DO something. And when I want that objective, there is no difference between tac marines and gretchin because I'm bringing the hammer.

So what do you mean by meaningful?
Should a tac marine have more than a merely 'okay I guess' chance against a CC specialist like Death Company?

"Should a tac marine have more than a merely 'okay I guess' chance against a CC specialist like Death Company?"

No, but then they shouldn't be paying for WS 3+, either. Since it doesn't matter if they are WS 6+ or WS 3+ in practice. Because one attack. Hence, all these inefficiencies add up and make them a terrible choice.

By meaningful, I mean after one turn of CC or shooting, meaningful reductions are made in the enemy capabilities. This is important, because the enemy might be melting your face off at a rate of 1/4-1/3 of your list per turn. Tac marines basically never do this in my experience, or by the data.

Martel732 wrote:
"Should a tac marine have more than a merely 'okay I guess' chance against a CC specialist like Death Company?"

No, but then they shouldn't be paying for WS 3+, either. Since it doesn't matter if they are WS 6+ or WS 3+ in practice. Because one attack. Hence, all these inefficiencies add up and make them a terrible choice.

By meaningful, I mean after one turn of CC or shooting, meaningful reductions are made in the enemy capabilities. This is important, because the enemy might be melting your face off at a rate of 1/4-1/3 of your list per turn. Tac marines basically never do this in my experience, or by the data.

Why though? You realize if you give them WS3+ for free, they still stay useless against combat specialists (as you point out) but suddenly their efficiency jumps and they start to cream armies like tau. They're only supposed to be 'merely okay' in CC against tau, also, not suddenly amazing. They're generalists, 'merely okay' should be written as one of their special rules.

As for meaningful reductions in enemy capabilities after 1 turn of shooting - why? What do you mean by meaningful? You mean 1 dead marine? 10 dead marines? Should 'every' unit be capable of a meaningful reduction of enemy capabilities in a single turn of shooting, regardless of cost?

Meaningful chances from game to game, but usually it's in the form of silencing big guns. Tac marines don't silence anything for their points. Therefore the incoming firepower never goes down, and you run out of marines by turn 5ish.

" they start to cream armies like tau."

No, they won't. Because they won't make it to CC, which is their current state.

Go look at Jancoran's Tau list over in the Tau thread and then you tell me if your tacs have a chance in hell against it. I can't counter it with BA TAILORING for it, That's how crappy base marines are atm.

"They're generalists, 'merely okay' should be written as one of their special rules"

But they're actively poor in every phase of the game for their cost. They are not "okay". 10 tacs in a rhino cost at least 200 pts and might as well not even be there. The "merely okay" thing is a myth. Everything has to be compared to output for what you paid for it. Given that most tacticals never get the chance to actually fight the things they MIGHT be able to beat (and even then, it takes WAY too long to win), their output/pt sucks because marines are expensive.

Martel732 wrote:
Meaningful chances from game to game, but usually it's in the form of silencing big guns. Tac marines don't silence anything for their points. Therefore the incoming firepower never goes down, and you run out of marines by turn 5ish.

" they start to cream armies like tau."

No, they won't. Because they won't make it to CC, which is their current state.

Go look at Jancoran's Tau list over in the Tau thread and then you tell me if your tacs have a chance in hell against it. I can't counter it with BA TAILORING for it, That's how crappy base marines are atm.

"They're generalists, 'merely okay' should be written as one of their special rules"

But they're actively poor in every phase of the game for their cost. They are not "okay". 10 tacs in a rhino cost at least 200 pts and might as well not even be there. The "merely okay" thing is a myth. Everything has to be compared to output for what you paid for it. Given that most tacticals never get the chance to actually fight the things they MIGHT be able to beat (and even then, it takes WAY too long to win), their output/pt sucks because marines are expensive.

I disagree. I think they're pretty okay.

And yes I know you are upset with your BA, but remember, every change you make to tactical marines also changes Raven Guard tactical marines. Maybe your BA won't make it to combat, but a deepstrike + move then charge certainly will.