I'm guessing we'll get flooded by people complaining about the Dire Avengers and their overcosted Catapults. Then someone will compare their basic troopers as even worse than that.
At about 4-5 pages in we'll devolve into snide comments at each other.
Rydria wrote: The best troops in the game is quite interesting so I figured we may as well discuss what people think are currently the worst troops currently.
I'm going to put forward chaos space marines at least internally in the chaos codex they are by far the worst out of the 4 available troop options.
I think evaluating them purely internally isn't going to get anywhere.
Look at Tacticals for example. In comparison with Scouts, they generally lose out because scouts have an insanely awesome deployment ability. Seriously, their deployment would be broken if they were anything but scouts. Imagine berserkers with that ability for example. But if you take away scouts, then tacticals are a just fine all around unit. Special weapon, combi weapon, heavy weapon, and good rapid fire s4 weapons.
Man, now that I think about it, I wonder what you could accomplish with a whole army of forward deploying scouts just charging into combat after firing their shotguns.
Rydria wrote: The best troops in the game is quite interesting so I figured we may as well discuss what people think are currently the worst troops currently.
I'm going to put forward chaos space marines at least internally in the chaos codex they are by far the worst out of the 4 available troop options.
I think evaluating them purely internally isn't going to get anywhere.
Look at Tacticals for example. In comparison with Scouts, they generally lose out because scouts have an insanely awesome deployment ability. Seriously, their deployment would be broken if they were anything but scouts. Imagine berserkers with that ability for example. But if you take away scouts, then tacticals are a just fine all around unit. Special weapon, combi weapon, heavy weapon, and good rapid fire s4 weapons.
Man, now that I think about it, I wonder what you could accomplish with a whole army of forward deploying scouts just charging into combat after firing their shotguns.
Berserkers can get the scout deployment ability if you take them as alpha legion elites and they are terrifying. (But obviously they lose there troop status)
We do need a benchmark to go by what defines a bad troop ? Is a massively overshadowed troop choice bad ? I mean if you're 4th place out of 4 aren't you by definition awful.
Aren't Intercessors supposed to be worse than tacticals ?
They serve different roles. Tactical have superior firepower, mobility, and general utility, while intercessors are generally more durable point per point than tacticals unless the enemy is carrying multi-damage weapons.
Aren't Intercessors supposed to be worse than tacticals ?
Not really. They're far worse than Scouts, but have the benefit of being darn durable for holding an objective. You need something that does multiple wounds, and often times those weapons are wasted compared to better targets. After all, yeah you got the Autocannon and Grav Gun, but even Plasma is better served targeting something more dangerous. Therefore, Intercessors are the better objective holders and Scouts take them better. That leaves Tactical Marines out in the cold as a unit with no purpose whatsoever, because outside those two roles (which the other two choices do better), other units are just BETTER offensively. AND they need a transport, because the other methods of getting them moved (Raven Guard, Lias) are super wasted on them.
Ergo, I nominate Tactical Marines as easily one of the worst.
However, a close second goes to the opposite of the Loyalist Scum, which is the Vanilla Chaos Marine. They're only slightly better because of being able to double up on the same weapon at 10 dudes, but you aren't gonna take them to that size likely. Cultists are just BETTER for holding objectives in a similar manner to Guard Infantry units, and can be recycled.
However, the part that really drives them home as being bad is that, for the first time in a while, everything in the codex is so offensively great that you won't have any issues trying to take an objective from the enemy, so OS isn't an ability that will make them stand out whatsoever. Deep Strike your Terminators and Obliterators, Infiltrate stuff with Alpha Legion, and rush up the field with Rhinos of Noise, Plague, Berserker, and Rubric Marines. You don't NEED the Chaos Marine squad. They haven't a purpose!
My last submission is going to be a tie between the Grey Knight Terminator squad (where the models went up by 2 points!) and Eldar Storm Guardians (which are about the worst concept in fluff and crunch for the Eldar army). I'm not big on Gretchin either but the buy in is so cheap to hold your own objective I'll let them slide this once.
Rydria wrote: The best troops in the game is quite interesting so I figured we may as well discuss what people think are currently the worst troops currently.
I'm going to put forward chaos space marines at least internally in the chaos codex they are by far the worst out of the 4 available troop options.
I think evaluating them purely internally isn't going to get anywhere.
Look at Tacticals for example. In comparison with Scouts, they generally lose out because scouts have an insanely awesome deployment ability. Seriously, their deployment would be broken if they were anything but scouts. Imagine berserkers with that ability for example. But if you take away scouts, then tacticals are a just fine all around unit. Special weapon, combi weapon, heavy weapon, and good rapid fire s4 weapons.
Man, now that I think about it, I wonder what you could accomplish with a whole army of forward deploying scouts just charging into combat after firing their shotguns.
Berserkers can get the scout deployment ability if you take them as alpha legion elites and they are terrifying. (But obviously they lose there troop status)
We do need a benchmark to go by what defines a bad troop ? Is a massively overshadowed troop choice bad ? I mean if you're 4th place out of 4 aren't you by definition awful.
Not necessarily. I look at the following things when evaluating the unit:
1. Initial investment vs max investment
2. Mathhammer for various loadouts
3. What GW thinks the role is vs what their actual role is
4. Can I get a similar role in my army for cheaper or better
5. Same as #4, but I ask if I can ally in something like that instead
Battlefield roles don't matter because I can just use as many detachments as necessary (and it isn't hard to get an extra command point, and they really aren't necessary outside REALLY specific Strategems).
I dunno about the worst, but Chaos Space Marines certainly get a shout out for being pretty useless, especially considering the other in-faction options. Cult Troops are better objective campers and/or killier, cultists make better chaff; chaos has good options for every role and Chaos Space Marines are the worst option for all of them.
The only thing they're good at is filling troop slots if you DON'T have 30 pts to get boyz instead. But you should always have 30 pts to field boyz unless you're playing <60 pt games.
The only thing they're good at is filling troop slots if you DON'T have 30 pts to get boyz instead. But you should always have 30 pts to field boyz unless you're playing <60 pt games.
I thought they were 2 points. This is definitely an excellent contender. Investment to go in is cheap for a home objective, but might as well go all out with Shootas or just...something else.
I'd like to mention the Skitarii Vanguards and Rangers, they have decent guns but for 10 pts/model you'd expect better than T3 1W 4+/6++ Ld6, with no transports options whatsoever. Both variants lost some special rules in 8th too, like the Scout move, or the good AP on the Rangers's guns. Never take more than five in unit because even at this size you'll lose some to morale.
Compared with a 7 pts Kabalite Warrior I really feel ripped off :/ Hopefully the codex corrects this tragedy.
The only thing they're good at is filling troop slots if you DON'T have 30 pts to get boyz instead. But you should always have 30 pts to field boyz unless you're playing <60 pt games.
Gretchin are really bad I agree.
Wyches are also quite bad, and that's a shame since I love them.
I like grots. Admittedly I've mostly been playing PL games since 8th dropped, so I'm the wrong person to get into the nitty gritty of exactly how points-efficient they are, but for 5 PL, same as a min boyz mob, I can get thirty of them, plus a Runtherd, who goes a long way towards mitigating their shocking morale. They're great for swarming objectives, occasionally do something hilarious like kill a Terminator, and if someone's shooting grots, I don't care; it means they aren't shooting something else in my army.
If you're a points guy though, I will concede they are prob a bit overpriced. 2 ppm seems about right to me.
Necron warriors are quite bad, T4 4+sv w/ a RF1 24' s4 ap-1 1d gun with the only transport option in our codex that actually nerfs them if you take it. No customisation options, and most aura buffs only affect their RP rolls/survivability. 5" movement, and 12ppm, with a squad of 20 needed to even try to get RP.
I suppose they can be considered okay if RP is allowed to them, which seems to happen to some players, but others not. If they dont roll for RP they are a really sub-par unit.
Worst internal troop, and one of the worst external troops.
Not cheap enough to spam, too slow to use their damage output effectively, die to a strong breeze, not customisable enough to tailor to different armies/battle requirements. 240 points is a considerable chunk of an army per squad, if you want to run 2 effective squads its almost 1/4 of your army... :(
Bloodletters... They have a 5++ but cannot benefit from cover.
They only way to run them is a block of 30 with support making it awful expensive to use them.
Furthermore they cannot deep strike anymore so they will be footslogging over the table. (unless you want to summon but then you are not using them to fill a troop slot and that is what we are talking about here)
Only T3 so they will be blasted away before they reach anything and they can be battleshocked off the table.
I do not think we will see a lot of them... Mine are packed with my AOS stuff where they are still useful...
Are there any Troops choices that *haven't* been nominated by someone yet? Is it possible that the thing we're all missing here is that Troops aren't as good as other stuff, and that's exactly what makes them Troops?
Nazrak wrote: Are there any Troops choices that *haven't* been nominated by someone yet? Is it possible that the thing we're all missing here is that Troops aren't as good as other stuff, and that's exactly what makes them Troops?
Not nominated: Chaos cult marines, scouts, guardsmen, conscripts, ork boyz, tau troops etc etc
The only thing they're good at is filling troop slots if you DON'T have 30 pts to get boyz instead. But you should always have 30 pts to field boyz unless you're playing <60 pt games.
Gretchin are really bad I agree.
Wyches are also quite bad, and that's a shame since I love them.
Yeah, I've played several games trying to get Wyches to work now, and even with things like several buffs from PFP and combat drugs you can select yourself, they are still trash. The most offensive problem is that they don't get their inv save against pistols in CC.
Klowny wrote: Necron warriors are quite bad, T4 4+sv w/ a RF1 24' s4 ap-1 1d gun with the only transport option in our codex that actually nerfs them if you take it. No customisation options, and most aura buffs only affect their RP rolls/survivability. 5" movement, and 12ppm, with a squad of 20 needed to even try to get RP.
I suppose they can be considered okay if RP is allowed to them, which seems to happen to some players, but others not. If they dont roll for RP they are a really sub-par unit.
Worst internal troop, and one of the worst external troops.
Not cheap enough to spam, too slow to use their damage output effectively, die to a strong breeze, not customisable enough to tailor to different armies/battle requirements. 240 points is a considerable chunk of an army per squad, if you want to run 2 effective squads its almost 1/4 of your army... :(
I disagree with you, all games I played against Necrons the Warriors were really good, not unstoppable-broken good but still really good. My opponent drops them from a Night Scythe (or Doom Scythe don't remember), gets his Command Barge nearby to grant them BS2+, shoot at their target with a Triarch Stalker beforehand and there, you have 20 Warriors shooting twice at BS2+, rerolling ones to Hit. With S4 AP-1 it gets the job done.
Granted, they have the support of two units for this to be achievable. I don't know much about Necron list building but I believed it was all about boosting your Warriors and Immortals, seeing as they are pretty good ? I admit their transports options really sucks though, when you start to play loads of them.
Necrons is all about crypteks/ overlords to buff the large units up.
I'm seriously confused as to why people think Necrons are bad; in the mini-tournament I last played in, the Ron player whupped everyone's ass bar the tournament caliber guy playing Mechanicum w/ Cawl. That was something like 5 wins straight.
Interestingly enough, i've had some limited success with witches. The opponent moved 3 razorbacks within 20' of them. So, they disembarked, moved and made a charge tying up all 3 eventually. The raider ate overwatch. No escape rule and 4++ in mellee came in really handy. I took a blast pistol for the squad leader and it was chipping a couple wounds off a razor every turn. Not such an amazing feat of course - mainly because the opponent made a mistake by bunching up razorbacks near witches (they have a very long move for infantry indeed) - but they weren't useless - that's for sure. In fact, they seem to be better than other de infantry - at least for me.
I don't think there are nearly as many candidates for this as there are for "best Troops". There are a bunch of lackluster choices -- I agree that standard (Chaos) Marines are rarely something you're happy to take -- but there are a couple choices that are just so abysmally bad that they run away with this.
The obvious pick is going to be Dire Avengers. They're just absurdly overcosted by any standard.
Maybe they have a little competition, though I think they probably win. Eldar Rangers are also far too expensive for what they do. And then Slaanesh Daemonettes look really bad next to Bloodletters, and Bloodletters themselves aren't even something you want to take as a Troops choice (though you might consider summoning them). Though at least they don't cost 9 points anymore. Even internal to Eldar or Chaos these three are awful choices, and Eldar don't even have a particularly good Troops pick to compete with.
koooaei wrote: Interestingly enough, i've had some limited success with witches. The opponent moved 3 razorbacks within 20' of them. So, they disembarked, moved and made a charge tying up all 3 eventually. The raider ate overwatch. No escape rule and 4++ in mellee came in really handy. I took a blast pistol for the squad leader and it was chipping a couple wounds off a razor every turn. Not such an amazing feat of course - mainly because the opponent made a mistake by bunching up razorbacks near witches (they have a very long move for infantry indeed) - but they weren't useless - that's for sure. In fact, they seem to be better than other de infantry - at least for me.
Well I sometimes use them too, but only in full wych cult lists since I love themed lists. They're not useless, I agree, but even gretchin could score some points against competitive lists.
Other only DE infanty are kabalite warriors which are superior and have better synergy with the majority of the DE lists which are shooting oriented and have almost nothing against infantries but those poisoned shots, and wracks, another mediocre troop choice that can become decent with the haemonculus buff which makes them T5 for free and a decent CC unit overall since the haemy is by far the most performing DEHQ.
As much as I love wyches (I own 30+ models) I still consider them among the worst troops in 40k. People complain about tacticals and someone listed even necron warriors among the worst troops available, wyches are not even remotely viable as these units.
There's not very many troops that I'm not happy taking now. I personally don't care for my Chaos Cultists much any longer, because for just a few points more I get 3+ saves and much better attacks, even if it's on half the number of wounds. Cultists used to be a requirement just because regular Chaos Space Marines were so bad for so many more points. Now, there's reasons to take Cultists, but Chaos Space Marines are better than before for cheaper, so I'm fine taking them too.
CSM aren't awful in cases when you can't take cult troops. Especially for night lords. A couple min squads in a rhino to get this extra -ld to the opponent is neat. They won't kill all that much on their own but the bonuses are respectable.
Klowny wrote: Necron warriors are quite bad, T4 4+sv w/ a RF1 24' s4 ap-1 1d gun with the only transport option in our codex that actually nerfs them if you take it. No customisation options, and most aura buffs only affect their RP rolls/survivability. 5" movement, and 12ppm, with a squad of 20 needed to even try to get RP.
I suppose they can be considered okay if RP is allowed to them, which seems to happen to some players, but others not. If they dont roll for RP they are a really sub-par unit.
Worst internal troop, and one of the worst external troops.
Not cheap enough to spam, too slow to use their damage output effectively, die to a strong breeze, not customisable enough to tailor to different armies/battle requirements. 240 points is a considerable chunk of an army per squad, if you want to run 2 effective squads its almost 1/4 of your army... :(
I disagree with you, all games I played against Necrons the Warriors were really good, not unstoppable-broken good but still really good. My opponent drops them from a Night Scythe (or Doom Scythe don't remember), gets his Command Barge nearby to grant them BS2+, shoot at their target with a Triarch Stalker beforehand and there, you have 20 Warriors shooting twice at BS2+, rerolling ones to Hit. With S4 AP-1 it gets the job done.
Granted, they have the support of two units for this to be achievable. I don't know much about Necron list building but I believed it was all about boosting your Warriors and Immortals, seeing as they are pretty good ? I admit their transports options really sucks though, when you start to play loads of them.
zerosignal wrote:Necrons is all about crypteks/ overlords to buff the large units up.
I'm seriously confused as to why people think Necrons are bad; in the mini-tournament I last played in, the Ron player whupped everyone's ass bar the tournament caliber guy playing Mechanicum w/ Cawl. That was something like 5 wins straight.
Yep I mean they can be good, that combo is over 500 points to get 40 s4 ap-1 1D shots, not terrible but that's over 1/4 of your army.
There's nothing inherently wrong with necrons, were just overcosted for what we do. We're still viable in casual settings (which I assume your tourney was) and if opponents don't know how to play against us, but overall both competitive tournament and a lot of casual settings (see dakka's post for our win rate) we are bottom teir.
There's nothing inherently wrong with necrons, were just overcosted for what we do. We're still viable in casual settings (which I assume your tourney was) and if opponents don't know how to play against us, but overall both competitive tournament and a lot of casual settings (see dakka's post for our win rate) we are bottom teir.
This is why I've shelved my Necrons waiting for better days to come.
Necron Warriors are not bad with their 4+ save. But the 5+ RP doesnt safe them. If the enemy targets a Warrior unit (in a larger game), the unit will be gone.
A 20 model buffed necron warriors unit is almost unkillable. A cryptek nearby gets +1 to RP, thats a 50% chance. They cryptek also gives a 5+ invuln sv. A ghost ark lets you do RP rolls for slain models, which means you get two RP rolls for one slain model. Thats a 75% chance that a warrior gets up again. Those who dont reanimate arent lost, they can be reanimated next turn, slain models arent removed. You can remove losses from the back of the unit, and place reanimated models in front of the unit, making it move forward faster. And if they get within 12" their shots double. Which model get a AP-1, rapid fire 1 weapon for 12ppm ??
Tacticals are stronger this edition than they've ever been, really. They're definitely not the worst unit-- actually, I'd say scouts are usually worse than tacticals unless you use them in a highly specialized way, and in that case they just don't fill the roles tacticals can.
Melissia wrote: Tacticals are stronger this edition than they've ever been, really. They're definitely not the worst unit-- actually, I'd say scouts are usually worse than tacticals unless you use them in a highly specialized way, and in that case they just don't fill the roles tacticals can.
I don't find chaos marines that bad really. 2x5 man sqds giving you 4 special weapons (combis on champ) in a rhino isn't half bad, plus you're filling your other slots with cultists to get the CPs. Certainly have a use.
Melissia wrote: Tacticals are stronger this edition than they've ever been, really. They're definitely not the worst unit-- actually, I'd say scouts are usually worse than tacticals unless you use them in a highly specialized way, and in that case they just don't fill the roles tacticals can.
The 3 worst units have already been mentioned.
Dire Avengers
Rangers
Tactical Squads
I think tactical squads definitely need to be on this list. They are pretty terrible for their points and I much prefer scouts because, at the end of the day, I really just need to 1) get the cp from a battalion detachment and 2) screen my more important units and possibly grab a couple of objectives. Point for point, scouts are way better at this than tactical squads which have been pretty disappointing in pretty much every game I've used them.
koooaei wrote: Interestingly enough, i've had some limited success with witches. The opponent moved 3 razorbacks within 20' of them. So, they disembarked, moved and made a charge tying up all 3 eventually. The raider ate overwatch. No escape rule and 4++ in mellee came in really handy. I took a blast pistol for the squad leader and it was chipping a couple wounds off a razor every turn. Not such an amazing feat of course - mainly because the opponent made a mistake by bunching up razorbacks near witches (they have a very long move for infantry indeed) - but they weren't useless - that's for sure. In fact, they seem to be better than other de infantry - at least for me.
Tactical Marines are at worst 30% overpriced. They're absolutely worth at least 10 points apiece, and most people would probably be pretty happy to take them at 11. They're definitely not in the same category as Dire Avengers, and I think you can find quite a few other Troops choices that are worse off.
I think Gretchin rate pretty highly for poor troop choices.
T2 6+ save models with laspistols. yes they are cheap, but in the ork codex so are Boyz, so why do I want 2 gretchin, especially when I need to pay for an elite model to babysit them or watch them to evaporate to morale. They are basically terrible versions of conscipts.
At equal points they are the same durability as 5 tactical marines against S4 Ap 0 shooting. Both take~ 30 hits to kill all models before morale. The big difference is you don't need to kill all the gretchin. Those 21 Gretchin Killing 12 ensures you wipe out the rest in morale unless you pay to have a unit babysit them (warboss or Runtherd)
If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.
sossen wrote: If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.
They aren't bad for hteir points, they don't need a discount ,and yes, actually, you should, because then they become too powerful for their points-- which is what you're wanting, not for them to be good, but for them to be objectively better than everything else.
Sisters of Battle are usually three-four points less than marines, because they lose -1ws, -1s, -1t, and a substantial amount of special rules and access to special weapons options (no plasma, grav, lascannon, or ML, no power fist, lightning claws, or thunder hammers, etc). Making Sisters one point less than marines instead of the current four basically gaks all over sisters, and makes sisters completely unplayable in the new space marine heavy meta you're creating.
Dionysodorus wrote: Tactical Marines are at worst 30% overpriced. They're absolutely worth at least 10 points apiece
So Sisters of Battle should be seven points apiece?
I think everyone thinks that standard Sisters are in a good spot, so... no? I offered that as the lowest price that anyone could plausibly think Marines should cost -- this is assigning very little value to their extra CC potential, and probably assuming a meta full of fairly high-strength weapons and relatively few bolters. I'm not going to defend it as the best possible price for them. I'd be inclined to give 11 points a shot, though. Sisters would still shoot 22% better while being only 8% less durable in the face of S4 attacks.
sossen wrote: If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.
But the other units aren't great for their points either, for much the same reason (the specialists are better than the generalists).
IG squads are outshined by conscripts (durability specialists) and scions (damage specialists). Guard gets these in the troops slot is part of the reason they're so good right now. Even if you made them balanced, Veterans will still be better.
SoB squads are outshined by Dominion squads, because why get 3/5 special weapons when you can get 5/5 and a free special move for like 1 pt.
Other troops suffer from the 'not specialist' syndrome within their own armies just as badly as Space Marine Tactical Marines.
Dionysodorus wrote: Tactical Marines are at worst 30% overpriced. They're absolutely worth at least 10 points apiece
So Sisters of Battle should be seven points apiece?
I think everyone thinks that standard Sisters are in a good spot, so... no? I offered that as the lowest price that anyone could plausibly think Marines should cost -- this is assigning very little value to their extra CC potential, and probably assuming a meta full of fairly high-strength weapons and relatively few bolters. I'm not going to defend it as the best possible price for them. I'd be inclined to give 11 points a shot, though. Sisters would still shoot 22% better while being only 8% less durable in the face of S4 attacks.
Standard Sisters aren't even in lists in the SOB tactics thread because they're too generalist and the Dominions are more specialized.
So no, they're in an awful spot. I'm kind of bitter about it too because I love the idea of standard sister squads, but there's simply no reason not to field the specialists, much like tacts.
sossen wrote: If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.
They aren't bad for hteir points, they don't need a discount ,and yes, actually, you should, because then they become too powerful for their points-- which is what you're wanting, not for them to be good, but for them to be objectively better than everything else.
Sisters of Battle are usually three-four points less than marines, because they lose -1ws, -1s, -1t, and a substantial amount of special rules and access to special weapons options (no plasma, grav, lascannon, or ML, no power fist, lightning claws, or thunder hammers, etc). Making Sisters one point less than marines instead of the current four basically gaks all over sisters, and makes sisters completely unplayable in the new space marine heavy meta you're creating.
Lets separate the two:
Are they bad for their points? Maybe, you disagree, the results and mathhammer imply that they are.
If they are bad for their points and are given a 1 pt discount, does that necessarily make them OP? No, a <10% pt discount is very unlikely to make a bad unit OP. Does it necessitate discounts for other units? That only depends on if those units are bad or not in their own right.
Standard Sisters aren't even in lists in the SOB tactics thread because they're too generalist and the Dominions are more specialized.
So no, they're in an awful spot. I'm kind of bitter about it too because I love the idea of standard sister squads, but there's simply no reason not to field the specialists, much like tacts.
This is clearly a question of internal balance and not about how Sisters actually stack up on the field. Like, yes, as long as we insist on using the same prices for tactical marines and devastator marines, then we have very little reason to ever take tactical marines except for trying to put detachments together. Battle Sisters still perform very well and are clearly one of the top Troops picks in the game. Dominions are just crazy good.
sossen wrote: If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.
I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.
They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.
What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.
Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.
Dire Avengers: Horribly overpriced. They're essentially as good as Fire Warriors, with a few things juggled here or there. However, they aren't actually complete garbage, or at least wouldn't be if they were priced appropriately.
Storm Guardians: The best I can say about them is that they suck less than they did in 7e. That's not saying much.
Termagants: All they have going for them is being cheap, and Rippers do that better. As attackers, either Hormagaunts or Genestealers do it far better, and if you want to shoot, you're coming at it the wrong way. As objective-holders, Warriors do it better and provide their own synapse to boot.
Tac Marines and standard Chaos Marines are pretty bleh too, but they have some utility, even in their slots. The above are just outclassed - whatever you want them to do, something else in the same slot does it better and they're puke compared to their equivalents from other codices.
I'd agree on the specialist/generalist angle, though. I like generalists in principle, but GW consistently makes them pay more for their jack-of-all-trades nature than it's actually worth on the tabletop.
Dionysodorus wrote: while being only 8% less durable in the face of S4 attacks.
10 bolter rounds (standard tactical or sisters squad volley before upgrades) against sisters deals about one and a half (1.481) wounds. 10 bolter rounds against marines deals basically one (1.111) wound, which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.
33% is a lot more vulnerable than 8%.
And bear in mind, you can do the same damage to sisters with standard plasma as you do against marines with overcharged. Assault cannons also wound sisters on a 2+, which is terrifying with how many TLAC units there are out there-- and sisters already need to get in short range to begin with. Battle Sisters are also uniquely vulnerable to basic power swords or... any melee, really, they fall apart like tissue paper, and no, tacticals do not.
Using Tacticals over Battle Sisters provides a marked improvement in unit performance. You can just do so much more with Tacticals than you can ever hope to with basic Battle Sisters. Which is why Sisters players don't use battle sisters unless we have to to gain CP or ObSec.
The only thing they're good at is filling troop slots if you DON'T have 30 pts to get boyz instead. But you should always have 30 pts to field boyz unless you're playing <60 pt games.
The answer to the OP's question was, is, and shall forever be, grots.
Though, in honestly, they are able to effectively ignore morale via warbossess/runtherds, but in the end, they don't have any kind of combat effectiveness whatsoever.
In the past, their best feature was providing a cover save to units behind them, but that's not a thing anymore.
I suppose there's something to be said for having 30 point troops choices, but many detachments don't even require troops.
This is a game where all arounder type units tend to suffer because they are not efficient in their role. Giving troops Ob sec helps them a bit, but in the environment today where you can easily spam your specialist units most troop choices suffer.
sossen wrote: If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.
I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.
They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.
What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.
Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.
I'm not going to ignore you, but I will say this:
If all you want is changing the equipment options, then sure, you can have an extra heavy or special per 5. Same as sisters. You get 2 specials or 1 special / 1 heavy for the squad of any size, plus the sergeant's weapon.
The only thing they're good at is filling troop slots if you DON'T have 30 pts to get boyz instead. But you should always have 30 pts to field boyz unless you're playing <60 pt games.
The answer to the OP's question was, is, and shall forever be, grots.
Though, in honestly, they are able to effectively ignore morale via warbossess/runtherds, but in the end, they don't have any kind of combat effectiveness whatsoever.
In the past, their best feature was providing a cover save to units behind them, but that's not a thing anymore.
I suppose there's something to be said for having 30 point troops choices, but many detachments don't even require troops.
The quoted stat line also gave them a +1 LD buff, they are only LD 4.
sossen wrote: If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.
I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.
They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.
What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.
Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.
I'm not going to ignore you, but I will say this:
If all you want is changing the equipment options, then sure, you can have an extra heavy or special per 5. Same as sisters. You get 2 specials or 1 special / 1 heavy for the squad of any size, plus the sergeant's weapon.
Tactical marines fixed?
Kinda. At 10 man squads they get an extra purchase like Skitarii. It's my main proposal to fix the regular Sister squad as well.
Equipment options were always their issue. Think about it:
1. Before the 6th edition codex, the Chaos Marine had more utility like Grey Hunters. The 4th edition Tactical Marine also had the option of using a Trait to get a second special weapon, which made them see a little use (though not much more).
2. The extra attack was only part of this. It was because:
3. You could make a generalist unit be able to specialize somewhat at a task
4. These units were taken.
5. Skitarii were doing okay as well until power creep got more ridiculous. I was actually planning to take a pure army to Vegas until I lost all my models because I actually believed in the army enough. That's more anecdotal though and I probably would've done terribly haha!
6. Look at the regular Battle Sister in the same manner. Equipment is done better than the Marine, but you have Dominions and Command Squads too.
Dionysodorus wrote: Tactical Marines are at worst 30% overpriced. They're absolutely worth at least 10 points apiece
So Sisters of Battle should be seven points apiece?
They should at worst be 1 point less than a standard marine. Considering they have better options and can take 3 specials and have a 6++ save. Maybe they should be the same price.
The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.
Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?
Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.
Sternguard can carry all combiweapons, so the entire squad can be specialized. Company Veterans can have all but the sarge have non-combi special weapons.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.
Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?
Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.
Sternguard have Bolters that don't suck, LD, and an extra attack.
What I want is for the Tactical Marine to be the troop choice of Sternguard, and Assault Marines to be the potential choice for Vanguard. Those are really the two main units GW has gotten wrong on a consistent basis. Everything else has fluctuated and mostly the internal balance doesn't suck now, but we are still getting issues (Grey Knight Terminators and Chaos Marines aren't fixed).
Dionysodorus wrote: while being only 8% less durable in the face of S4 attacks.
10 bolter rounds (standard tactical or sisters squad volley before upgrades) against sisters deals about one and a half (1.481) wounds. 10 bolter rounds against marines deals basically one (1.111) wound, which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.
33% is a lot more vulnerable than 8%.
And bear in mind, you can do the same damage to sisters with standard plasma as you do against marines with overcharged. Assault cannons also wound sisters on a 2+, which is terrifying with how many TLAC units there are out there-- and sisters already need to get in short range to begin with. Battle Sisters are also uniquely vulnerable to basic power swords or... any melee, really, they fall apart like tissue paper, and no, tacticals do not.
Using Tacticals over Battle Sisters provides a marked improvement in unit performance. You can just do so much more with Tacticals than you can ever hope to with basic Battle Sisters. Which is why Sisters players don't use battle sisters unless we have to to gain CP or ObSec.
I was talking about their durability per-point. Sorry, I thought this was clear when I said that the Sisters would still shoot 22% better than 11 point Marines, even though the individual models are all BS3+ and armed with bolters. Yes, the Sisters take 33% more wounds than Marines per-model. But of course if they cost 81% of what the Marines do then you only expect to lose 9% more points' worth of models.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.
Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?
Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.
Sternguard have Bolters that don't suck, LD, and an extra attack.
What I want is for the Tactical Marine to be the troop choice of Sternguard, and Assault Marines to be the potential choice for Vanguard. Those are really the two main units GW has gotten wrong on a consistent basis. Everything else has fluctuated and mostly the internal balance doesn't suck now, but we are still getting issues (Grey Knight Terminators and Chaos Marines aren't fixed).
You don't see the problem with Tac Marines becoming "these are sternguard but troops?"
As soon as you put elite units in the troops slot, you make their elite-slot versions pointless.
In general - GW charges too much for toughness and saves and not enough for a wound. Doesn't charge enough for BS upgrades ether. Most weapons are too cheap also.
Dionysodorus wrote: while being only 8% less durable in the face of S4 attacks.
10 bolter rounds (standard tactical or sisters squad volley before upgrades) against sisters deals about one and a half (1.481) wounds. 10 bolter rounds against marines deals basically one (1.111) wound, which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.
33% is a lot more vulnerable than 8%.
And bear in mind, you can do the same damage to sisters with standard plasma as you do against marines with overcharged. Assault cannons also wound sisters on a 2+, which is terrifying with how many TLAC units there are out there-- and sisters already need to get in short range to begin with. Battle Sisters are also uniquely vulnerable to basic power swords or... any melee, really, they fall apart like tissue paper, and no, tacticals do not.
Using Tacticals over Battle Sisters provides a marked improvement in unit performance. You can just do so much more with Tacticals than you can ever hope to with basic Battle Sisters. Which is why Sisters players don't use battle sisters unless we have to to gain CP or ObSec.
I was talking about their durability per-point. Sorry, I thought this was clear when I said that the Sisters would still shoot 22% better than 11 point Marines, even though the individual models are all BS3+ and armed with bolters. Yes, the Sisters take 33% more wounds than Marines per-model. But of course if they cost 81% of what the Marines do then you only expect to lose 9% more points' worth of models.
Don't forget that a reduction in defense is also a reduction in offense, because over the course of the game the number of shots a model fires is reduced when it dies obviously.
100 Marine bolter shots at 24" is 1300 points
100 Sororitas bolter shots at 24" is 900 points.
Reduce the Sororitas by 9% per turn and the Marines by 0% per turn (to represent the 9% durability reduction) and you end up with 100 Marine bolter shots for 1300 points and 46 degraded Sororitas bolter shots after six turns for 900 points, which means the Sororitas actually payed way more per shot at listbuilding.
sossen wrote: If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.
I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.
They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.
What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.
Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.
I actually like this. I'd be a lot more inclined to take tacs if I could get 2 special weapons. For example, 2 plasma guns then a combi-plasma on the sergeant. If taking 10 man lets me take 2 plasma guns and 2 lascannons even better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think what it comes down to has already been mentioned, 40k is a specialist unit game and generalist units like tac squads, ig troops, etc. tend to suffer.
Even the fix slayer posted is really just letting you specialize tac squads into something like we can dev squads.
sossen wrote: If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.
I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.
They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.
What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.
Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.
I actually like this. I'd be a lot more inclined to take tacs if I could get 2 special weapons. For example, 2 plasma guns then a combi-plasma on the sergeant. If taking 10 man lets me take 2 plasma guns and 2 lascannons even better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think what it comes down to has already been mentioned, 40k is a specialist unit game and generalist units like tac squads, ig troops, etc. tend to suffer.
Even the fix slayer posted is really just letting you specialize tac squads into something like we can dev squads.
The problem is that that squad is literally Sternguard, essentially.
Don't forget that a reduction in defense is also a reduction in offense, because over the course of the game the number of shots a model fires is reduced when it dies obviously.
100 Marine bolter shots at 24" is 1300 points
100 Sororitas bolter shots at 24" is 900 points.
Reduce the Sororitas by 9% per turn and the Marines by 0% per turn (to represent the 9% durability reduction) and you end up with 100 Marine bolter shots for 1300 points and 46 degraded Sororitas bolter shots after six turns for 900 points, which means the Sororitas actually payed way more per shot at listbuilding.
This is a bizarre and completely wrongheaded approach to trying to think through this. You can't represent a difference in durability like this and then conclude something about how many shots you're getting over the course of a game -- you get a very different result if you actually model a certain amount of incoming fire each turn, because it results in our shooting being front-loaded instead of 1300 points of Marines firing at full efficiency all game. You're also completely ignoring the other side's losses; the Sisters are inflicting more casualties on the enemy starting from turn 1, because they have 400 extra points of stuff elsewhere and the collections we're interested in are shooting identically, so they expect to take less incoming fire as the game goes on.
sterngaurd aren't very good ether. Their special issue bolters aren't bad - but they lose them when they upgrade to combis.
They need a special rule that allows them to shoot special ammo out of combis AND OR the ability to shoot both weapons without -1 to hit penalty. Reduction in drop pod cost would go a long way too.
sossen wrote: If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.
I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.
They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.
What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.
Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.
I actually like this. I'd be a lot more inclined to take tacs if I could get 2 special weapons. For example, 2 plasma guns then a combi-plasma on the sergeant. If taking 10 man lets me take 2 plasma guns and 2 lascannons even better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think what it comes down to has already been mentioned, 40k is a specialist unit game and generalist units like tac squads, ig troops, etc. tend to suffer.
Even the fix slayer posted is really just letting you specialize tac squads into something like we can dev squads.
The problem is that that squad is literally Sternguard, essentially.
But it's not. I can kit sternguard out with all combi-plasma, combi-melta, or just keep their regular bolters that don't suck. They have more attacks for CC and higher leadership. They still have a role and a tac squad that is a little more specialized won't be stepping on sternguard toes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: sterngaurd aren't very good ether. Their special issue bolters aren't bad - but they lose them when they upgrade to combis.
They need a special rule that allows them to shoot special ammo out of combis AND OR the ability to shoot both weapons without -1 to hit penalty. Reduction in drop pod cost would go a long way too.
I do think it's silly they suddenly can't take the special ammo in a combi weapon. It just doesn't make any sense. And drop pods price increase was a little much.
Personally, I haven't played against all armies or anything, but I think one of the worst troops is the pink horror. at 8 points you get a S3T3 model with 18' S3 AP0 shooting, and the psychic ability is only worth while at over 10 models, and even then only goes off 33% of the time anyway. Sure they get the 4++ save, but every time I have used them any sort of volume of fire puts them down relatively easily then moral usually finishes them unless you waste a CP to save them. Also their save is not improved via cover. I suspect blue horrors are probably worse as they have all the disadvantages of pink, without the shooting, and are still 5 points, while the brimstones are the same but cheaper. Brimstones are awful units but for the price which is what makes them good because you can block deep strikers for cheap or hold objectives for cheap. Pink horrors which are only marginally better than a brimestone are 8 points, almost three times as much. Hands down I think Pink maybe Blue, horrors are the worst troop unit.
Then I'm still not sure how you got to either 8 or 9 percent; sisters at 9ppm vs marines at 11ppm take 15% more damage per point by my calculation (marines are 18% more costly while taking 33.3% less damage, 33-18=15% difference).
As for damage, assuming same points (99 points, or 9 tacs at 11ppm vs 11 battle sisters at 9ppm, both of which are valid if unorthodox squad sizes):
18 bolter shots vs T3 3+ save: 2.667 kills 22 bolter shots vs T4 3+ save: 2.444 kills
The tacticals will do more damage to sisters point per point before upgrades in a pure shooting competition (in melee, their advantage is even larger, killing twice as many sisters as sisters are capable of killing marines, in spite of their 18% price difference). Point per point, 11 point marines would be flat out better than 9 point sisters in every possible way. So if marines got a reduction to 11 points, why should sisters have to be stuck at 9-- to make whiny marine players who are incapable of using their units properly feel better about themselves?
Melissia wrote: Then I'm still not sure how you got to either 8 or 9 percent; sisters at 9ppm vs marines at 11ppm take 15% more damage per point by my calculation (marines are 18% more costly while taking 33.3% less damage, 33-18=15% difference).
As for damage, assuming same points (99 points, or 9 tacs at 11ppm vs 11 battle sisters at 9ppm, both of which are valid if unorthodox squad sizes):
18 bolter shots vs T3 3+ save: 2.667 kills
22 bolter shots vs T4 3+ save: 2.444 kills
The tacticals will do more damage to sisters point per point before upgrades in a pure shooting competition (in melee, their advantage is even larger, nearly two times better).
Point per point, 11 point marines would be flat out better than 9 point sisters. So if marines got a reduction to 11 points, why should sisters have to be stuck at 9-- to make whiny marine players who are incapable of using their units properly feel better about themselves?
Marines don't take 33% less damage than Sisters against S4. They take 25% less damage than Sisters -- they're wounded on only 3 of the 4 rolls that would put a wound on a Sister. Sisters take 33% more damage than Marines. You've switched the basis of comparison. You get the number you're looking for here by taking 11/9 * 3/4, which gives you that Sisters are about 92% as durable as (11 point) Marines against S4 attacks, or that Marines are about 109% as durable as Sisters (this is just one over the other result).
You then do this shootout calculation and weirdly conclude something about tacticals doing more damage point per point even though you were only looking at kills. If we actually look at what your calculation says about how each side is doing, "point per point", we see that the Marines are killing 24 points of Sisters while the Sisters are killing almost 27 points of (11 point) Marines -- the Sisters are coming out ahead. Edit: Sorry, I did the Marines' points with 13 just now. And this is S4 shooting, where, if Sisters are balanced against Marines, the Marines should be coming out on top, since the Sisters are relatively more durable in the face of higher-strength weaponry.
p5freak wrote: A 20 model buffed necron warriors unit is almost unkillable. A cryptek nearby gets +1 to RP, thats a 50% chance. They cryptek also gives a 5+ invuln sv. A ghost ark lets you do RP rolls for slain models, which means you get two RP rolls for one slain model. Thats a 75% chance that a warrior gets up again. Those who dont reanimate arent lost, they can be reanimated next turn, slain models arent removed. You can remove losses from the back of the unit, and place reanimated models in front of the unit, making it move forward faster. And if they get within 12" their shots double. Which model get a AP-1, rapid fire 1 weapon for 12ppm ??
In theory yes this is true, however the vast majority of weapons pointed at warriors do not have ap-2, just huge amount of shots, so the 5++ is pointless.. I stopped bringing ghost arks as they never made it past t1. 20 warriors is actually quite easy to murder in one turn, not granting their RP.
I understand that a lot of people playing necrons don't know how to deal with RP but trust me, once you know how to deal with them you almost never get RP. Once you focus fire you knock the wind out of our sails
Basically, if you want marines to be 11 points you'll have to drop them to T3. If you want them to be 9 points you'll have to drop them to T3, S3, and WS4+. ATSKNF might end up on the chopping block too.
Melissia wrote: Then I'm still not sure how you got to either 8 or 9 percent; sisters at 9ppm vs marines at 11ppm take 15% more damage per point by my calculation (marines are 18% more costly while taking 33.3% less damage, 33-18=15% difference).
As for damage, assuming same points (99 points, or 9 tacs at 11ppm vs 11 battle sisters at 9ppm, both of which are valid if unorthodox squad sizes):
18 bolter shots vs T3 3+ save: 2.667 kills 22 bolter shots vs T4 3+ save: 2.444 kills
The tacticals will do more damage to sisters point per point before upgrades in a pure shooting competition (in melee, their advantage is even larger, nearly two times better).
Point per point, 11 point marines would be flat out better than 9 point sisters. So if marines got a reduction to 11 points, why should sisters have to be stuck at 9-- to make whiny marine players who are incapable of using their units properly feel better about themselves?
Marines don't take 33% less damage than Sisters against T4. They take 25% less damage than Sisters -- they're wounded on only 3 of the 4 rolls that would put a wound on a Sister. Sisters take 33% more damage than Marines. You've switched the basis of comparison. You get the number you're looking for here by taking 11/9 * 3/4, which gives you that Sisters are about 92% as durable as Marines against S4 attacks, or that Marines are about 109% as durable as Sisters (this is just one over the other result).
You then do this shootout calculation and weirdly conclude something about tacticals doing more damage point per point even though you were only looking at kills. If we actually look at what your calculation says about how each side is doing, "point per point", we see that the Marines are killing 24 points of Sisters while the Sisters are killing almost 27 points of (11 point) Marines -- the Sisters are coming out ahead. Edit: Sorry, I did the Marines' points with 13 just now. And this is S4 shooting, where, if Sisters are balanced against Marines, the Marines should be coming out on top, since the Sisters are relatively more durable in the face of higher-strength weaponry.
What? Sisters are less durable against assault cannons / multilasers / autocannons / S3 powerfists / Missile pods / non-overcharged plasma / tau plasma / everything else strength 6 and 7 than marines...
... and anything heavier is antitank weaponry, in most cases.
What? Sisters are less durable against assault cannons / multilasers / autocannons / S3 powerfists / Missile pods / non-overcharged plasma / tau plasma / everything else strength 6 and 7 than marines...
... and anything heavier is antitank weaponry, in most cases.
Once again, I'm talking per-point. I have a hard time believing this was not clear from my post. At 11 points, Marines would be about as durable as Sisters per-point against S6 and S7, and then less durable against S5 and S8+.
Dionysodorus wrote: Marines don't take 33% less damage than Sisters against T4.
Show your math, then.
I quote from the math I used:
10 bolter rounds (standard tactical or sisters squad volley before upgrades) against sisters deals about one and a half (1.481) wounds. 10 bolter rounds against marines deals basically one (1.111) wound, which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.
(I do not actually round any of these numbers until the end, but the differences are minute, so I round to 3 decimal places for ease of
display)
10*(2/3)=6.667 hits.
Vs T3: 6.667*(2/3)=4.444 wounds. 3+ save: 4.444*(1/3)=1.481 kills
Vs T4: 6.667*(2/3)=3.333 wounds. 3+ save: 3.333*(1/3)=1.111 kills
1.481-1.111=0.37 actual increase in damage taken by 10 bolter shots in comparison to tacticals.
Converted in to percent: 0.37/1.111= 33.3% increase in damage taken by boltguns in comparison to tacticals.
In other words, if a tactical squad took 1.481 damage instead of 1.111, it would be a 33% increase in the damage it took, thus demonstrating the value of T4 over T3.
Dionysodorus wrote: Marines don't take 33% less damage than Sisters against T4.
Show your math, then.
I quote from the math I used:
10 bolter rounds (standard tactical or sisters squad volley before upgrades) against sisters deals about one and a half (1.481) wounds. 10 bolter rounds against marines deals basically one (1.111) wound, which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.
(I do not actually round any of these numbers until the end, but the differences are minute, so I round to 3 decimal places for ease of
display)
10*(2/3)=6.667 hits.
Vs T3: 6.667*(2/3)=4.444 wounds. 3+ save: 4.444*(1/3)=1.481 kills
Vs T4: 6.667*(2/3)=3.333 wounds. 3+ save: 3.333*(1/3)=1.111 kills
1.481-1.111=0.37 actual increase in damage taken by 10 bolter shots in comparison to tacticals.
Converted in to percent: 0.37/1.111= 33.3% increase in damage taken by boltguns in comparison to tacticals.
In other words, if a tactical squad took 1.481 damage instead of 1.111, it would be a 33% increase in the damage it took, thus demonstrating the value of T4 over T3.
Yes, I agree with all of this. This is not what you said earlier. Earlier you said that Marines take 33% less damage, not that Sisters take 33% more. I explained this. Your switching of the basis of comparison in this way gave you the wrong number for durability.
Edit: Just to be clear, the issue here is that 3/4 is 75%, or 25% less than 100%. 4/3 is 133%, or 33% more than 100%.
I think a lot of the misconceptions surrounding this discussion have to do with misunderstanding the math behind it. I will try to whip up some graphs over the weekend to demonstrate what the issue is.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.
Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?
Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.
Sternguard have Bolters that don't suck, LD, and an extra attack.
What I want is for the Tactical Marine to be the troop choice of Sternguard, and Assault Marines to be the potential choice for Vanguard. Those are really the two main units GW has gotten wrong on a consistent basis. Everything else has fluctuated and mostly the internal balance doesn't suck now, but we are still getting issues (Grey Knight Terminators and Chaos Marines aren't fixed).
You don't see the problem with Tac Marines becoming "these are sternguard but troops?"
As soon as you put elite units in the troops slot, you make their elite-slot versions pointless.
Not really?
It's their analogue to the Elite slot in the same manner as Assault Marines to Vanguard, but that's a different topic right there (and I have my fixes for them if you're at all interested). So you would expect them to be kitted out similarly.
If you're going solely for Special Weapons and Heavy Weapons, Sternguard are maybe 4-5 points more for the extra Attack, LD, and Special Issue Boltgun. That's not a bad deal really in the first place. So you're paying for a more "elite" version of the unit, which is how it should be. They're same durability but Sternguard are better offensively even without special weapons.
In fact, Sternguard are almost perfectly balanced outside their Combi-Weapons not using Special Ammo for no good reason, and their Storm Bolters not being special issue.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.
Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?
Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.
Sternguard have Bolters that don't suck, LD, and an extra attack.
What I want is for the Tactical Marine to be the troop choice of Sternguard, and Assault Marines to be the potential choice for Vanguard. Those are really the two main units GW has gotten wrong on a consistent basis. Everything else has fluctuated and mostly the internal balance doesn't suck now, but we are still getting issues (Grey Knight Terminators and Chaos Marines aren't fixed).
You don't see the problem with Tac Marines becoming "these are sternguard but troops?"
As soon as you put elite units in the troops slot, you make their elite-slot versions pointless.
Not really?
It's their analogue to the Elite slot in the same manner as Assault Marines to Vanguard, but that's a different topic right there (and I have my fixes for them if you're at all interested). So you would expect them to be kitted out similarly.
If you're going solely for Special Weapons and Heavy Weapons, Sternguard are maybe 4-5 points more for the extra Attack, LD, and Special Issue Boltgun. That's not a bad deal really in the first place. So you're paying for a more "elite" version of the unit, which is how it should be. They're same durability but Sternguard are better offensively even without special weapons.
In fact, Sternguard are almost perfectly balanced outside their Combi-Weapons not using Special Ammo for no good reason, and their Storm Bolters not being special issue.
Martel would probably disagree... but here's a question:
Why is it okay for Sternguard to pay 4-5 points for an extra attack, LD, and special issue boltgun (all of which are generalist upgrades) but it's not okay for tacts to pay to be generalists? Would tacts be good if you simply gave them 2-3 points more and +1 Atk and LD?
Actually, if you'll look at the quote I gave, I said:
which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.
Tacticals as the basis of comparison, because the contention here is that people are arguing tacticals suck and yet that battle sisters are great. Tacticals take noticably less damage per point, and have substantially better assault characteristics, plus better leadership and bonuses from chapter tactics (which all marines get, vs sisters getting very, very limited acts of faith) and unique stratagems on top of that. And tacticals have massively better variety in weapon upgrades as well.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is it just sounds like you want cheaper Sternguard - because sternguard can get 2/5 or 3/10 (or even more) special weapons.
Did you want the tacticals to step on the Sternguard's toes? Or SOB to step on the Dominion's toes?
Specialist units exist, and if you start bringing troops up to near the level of specialists, you'd end up with no specialists, because they don't give you free CP just for being taken, nor do they have objective secured.
Sternguard have Bolters that don't suck, LD, and an extra attack.
What I want is for the Tactical Marine to be the troop choice of Sternguard, and Assault Marines to be the potential choice for Vanguard. Those are really the two main units GW has gotten wrong on a consistent basis. Everything else has fluctuated and mostly the internal balance doesn't suck now, but we are still getting issues (Grey Knight Terminators and Chaos Marines aren't fixed).
You don't see the problem with Tac Marines becoming "these are sternguard but troops?"
As soon as you put elite units in the troops slot, you make their elite-slot versions pointless.
Not really?
It's their analogue to the Elite slot in the same manner as Assault Marines to Vanguard, but that's a different topic right there (and I have my fixes for them if you're at all interested). So you would expect them to be kitted out similarly.
If you're going solely for Special Weapons and Heavy Weapons, Sternguard are maybe 4-5 points more for the extra Attack, LD, and Special Issue Boltgun. That's not a bad deal really in the first place. So you're paying for a more "elite" version of the unit, which is how it should be. They're same durability but Sternguard are better offensively even without special weapons.
In fact, Sternguard are almost perfectly balanced outside their Combi-Weapons not using Special Ammo for no good reason, and their Storm Bolters not being special issue.
Martel would probably disagree... but here's a question:
Why is it okay for Sternguard to pay 4-5 points for an extra attack, LD, and special issue boltgun (all of which are generalist upgrades) but it's not okay for tacts to pay to be generalists? Would tacts be good if you simply gave them 2-3 points more and +1 Atk and LD?
I actually think they need more LD fluffwise, because these are dudes that have fought a lot, and went through being Scouts, Devastators, and Assault Marines. However I don't know how much battling is worth an extra LD in terms of fluff, so I mostly ignore that thought.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also they'd be mildly better but still terrible.
Melissia wrote: Actually, if you'll look at the quote I gave, I said:
which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.
Tacticals as the basis of comparison, because the contention here is that people are arguing tacticals suck and yet that battle sisters are great. Tacticals take noticably less damage per point, and have substantially better assault characteristics, plus better leadership and bonuses from chapter tactics (which all marines get, vs sisters getting very, very limited acts of faith) and unique stratagems on top of that. And tacticals have massively better variety in weapon upgrades as well.
Okay but what about if instead of going and finding some other post of yours, you actually look at the thing I was replying to, where your only use of "33%" was in the parenthetical: "(marines are 18% more costly while taking 33.3% less damage, 33-18=15% difference)". You were objecting to my claim that the Sisters were only about 8% less durable than Marines against S4, per point. Incidentally, I don't think your actual method for getting that durability number is right either, though if you'd used the right number in context (25%) you would have gotten about the right answer by coincidence.
I was explaining the obvious way in which your objection was wrong. I'm not saying you're forever terrible at math. Probably it was just a silly mistake that one time and you're otherwise very good about keeping straight which is the numerator and which the denominator! I don't really care. I care that we can hopefully now agree that Sisters are only about 8% less durable against S4 attacks, per point.
The problem is all I see are calls to make tactical marines into a pure shooting unit, which they were never meant to be.
How about 1 special CC weapon and 1 special shooting weapon per 5, with the option of an additional 'heavy' CC weapon and 'heavy' shooting weapon per 10?
You'd end up with a unit that could have 1 power sword and 1 thunder hammer (plus sergeant)
Or a unit that could have 1 plasma gun plus one lascannon (plus sergeant)
Or a unit that could have one plasma gun, one power axe, one lascannon, and one thunderhammer (plus sergeant)
I think that keeps them generalists without making them into a super one-thing-only unit (e.g. shooting)
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is all I see are calls to make tactical marines into a pure shooting unit, which they were never meant to be.
How about 1 special CC weapon and 1 special shooting weapon per 5, with the option of an additional 'heavy' CC weapon and 'heavy' shooting weapon per 10?
You'd end up with a unit that could have 1 power sword and 1 thunder hammer (plus sergeant)
Or a unit that could have 1 plasma gun plus one lascannon (plus sergeant)
Or a unit that could have one plasma gun, one power axe, one lascannon, and one thunderhammer (plus sergeant)
I think that keeps them generalists without making them into a super one-thing-only unit (e.g. shooting)
This I could kinda live with, but it looks real haphazard (like as if my nephew put them together), and that's really what Grey Hunters do, so we are kinda taking their unit entry which helps prove my point of why they work and Tactical Marines don't.
Also keep in mind they've never done anything BUT shoot, yet Grey Hunters always did both.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is all I see are calls to make tactical marines into a pure shooting unit, which they were never meant to be.
How about 1 special CC weapon and 1 special shooting weapon per 5, with the option of an additional 'heavy' CC weapon and 'heavy' shooting weapon per 10?
You'd end up with a unit that could have 1 power sword and 1 thunder hammer (plus sergeant)
Or a unit that could have 1 plasma gun plus one lascannon (plus sergeant)
Or a unit that could have one plasma gun, one power axe, one lascannon, and one thunderhammer (plus sergeant)
I think that keeps them generalists without making them into a super one-thing-only unit (e.g. shooting)
The way to do this. is not to make them sub par at everything. You make them Good at everything.
The idea of a space marine is much better represented by intercessors than a tac marine ever was. They are tough - have good CC ability - only place they really lack is shooting but their rifle is probably the best standard rifle available to a troop choice. We can't complain about that. Their cost is another issue. I like their statline - for the points though - there is no way they are worth the point-cost of 7 consripts. They are better pointed than tactical marines at least.
Define good. Do they have to be as good at shooting as Tau? As good at melee as Tyranids? Do they have to be as fast as Eldar and hold objectives as stubbornly as Guard?
ross-128 wrote: Define good. Do they have to be as good at shooting as Tau? As good at melee as Tyranids? Do they have to be as fast as Eldar and hold objectives as stubbornly as Guard?
They should expect to win in point for point situations they are not specialized against. At the expensive of paying more points per model and being eliminated by heavy firepower at the same rate as hordes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.
A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.
A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.
None of the units you listed here are specialist. Specialist are like - units that can take 3+ heavy or special weapons. Or every unit has or can take special close combat weapons.
They are the jack of all trades, but the master of none.
Finally, bolters can hurt any unit out there which wasnt the case in the previous editions.
CAN hurt, but probably won't. They have gotten objectively worse vs hordes, which was their intended target. I'd argue they aren't the jack of anything. Turn limit is a real problem for bolters.
Melissia wrote: Tacticals are stronger this edition than they've ever been, really. They're definitely not the worst unit-- actually, I'd say scouts are usually worse than tacticals unless you use them in a highly specialized way, and in that case they just don't fill the roles tacticals can.
The 3 worst units have already been mentioned.
Dire Avengers
Rangers
Tactical Squads
I'm in the same boat as Melissia.
Tacticals do not belong to the three worst units. They are good at everything, but specialists can often do it better.
None of the units you listed here are specialist. Specialist are like - units that can take 3+ heavy or special weapons. Or every unit has or can take special close combat weapons.
What do you mean they're not specialist? Fire Warriors are generalists? Crusader squads?
ross-128 wrote: Define good. Do they have to be as good at shooting as Tau? As good at melee as Tyranids? Do they have to be as fast as Eldar and hold objectives as stubbornly as Guard?
They should expect to win in point for point situations they are not specialized against. At the expensive of paying more points per model and being eliminated by heavy firepower at the same rate as hordes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.
A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.
A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.
None of the units you listed here are specialist. Specialist are like - units that can take 3+ heavy or special weapons. Or every unit has or can take special close combat weapons.
So, combining those two statements am I to assume that they should beat crusaders in melee point for point since you seem to believe they are not a melee specialist, and that they should out-shoot fire warriors point for point since you seem to believe they are not a shooting specialist?
Well, I sure hope at least some people can see why that would be a problem.
Marines don't have true specialists. Which is why they fail as an army at a basal level. They need gimmicks that piss people off to be effective. Like Rowboat rerolls. Suddenly, they are able to overcome the fact that everything is overpriced.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.
A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.
A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.
Cruadaer Squads are actually better at shooting too because you can get all three (Heavy, Special, Combi) at minimum size, and then you add CCW dudes and Neos (kinda cheap in a manner bullet catchers) to taste.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.
A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.
A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.
Cruadaer Squads are actually better at shooting too because you can get all three (Heavy, Special, Combi) at minimum size, and then you add CCW dudes and Neos (kinda cheap in a manner bullet catchers) to taste.
Yes, that's a sign of incompetence at GW rules writing I think - I am actually okay with letting tactical marines have their 2nd special or heavy at min size. That's not too drastic of a change.
I actually kinda like Grots haha. Always have done. Might just be because they're the epitome of the underdog, not only as far as the "meta", but also within the actual rules and fluff of their own army.
A unit where a "buff" to their morale means buying a character that literally murders them if they try to run away.
A unit that (and this is something new that I really liked) has as their only special rule - "Surprisingly Dangerous in Large Numbers!". A rule that, in full sized units, gives the grots the same attack accuracy as Scions (both shooting and in melee). But still leaves them with just 2 Strength and Toughness, what I assume is among the lowest stats in the game.
Gotta love 'em.
Especially when a full squad of 30 for 90 points, manages to kill a couple of tarpitted terminators, making their points back and more.
I think there's a difference between being the worst troops in the game, and being -intentionally- the worst troops in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: Unless it's Ministorum Crusaders. They only get power swords and storm shields, no guns at all.
Yeh, I assumed the person who brought up "melee specialist crusader squads" were talking about... y'know, Crusaders.
So when that guy then said they -weren't- specialists, and someone else said they're good at shooting (I assume by throwing their shields at people), I guess there's another crusader squad out there somewhere I didn't know about.
They really should let crusaders throw their shields at people though.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The problem is a generalist can't be good at everything, they have to be mediocre at everything, because the specialists should do them better.
A Crusader squad should be better at CC than a tactical squad by a good margin.
A Tau Firewarrior squad should outshoot a tactical squad by a good margin.
Cruadaer Squads are actually better at shooting too because you can get all three (Heavy, Special, Combi) at minimum size, and then you add CCW dudes and Neos (kinda cheap in a manner bullet catchers) to taste.
Yes, that's a sign of incompetence at GW rules writing I think - I am actually okay with letting tactical marines have their 2nd special or heavy at min size. That's not too drastic of a change.
Are we sure it was the Crusader Squad that was poorly designed, or the Tactical Marine squad in the first place? Nobody complains they are too good...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Niiru wrote: I actually kinda like Grots haha. Always have done. Might just be because they're the epitome of the underdog, not only as far as the "meta", but also within the actual rules and fluff of their own army.
A unit where a "buff" to their morale means buying a character that literally murders them if they try to run away.
A unit that (and this is something new that I really liked) has as their only special rule - "Surprisingly Dangerous in Large Numbers!". A rule that, in full sized units, gives the grots the same attack accuracy as Scions (both shooting and in melee). But still leaves them with just 2 Strength and Toughness, what I assume is among the lowest stats in the game.
Gotta love 'em.
Especially when a full squad of 30 for 90 points, manages to kill a couple of tarpitted terminators, making their points back and more.
I think there's a difference between being the worst troops in the game, and being -intentionally- the worst troops in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: Unless it's Ministorum Crusaders. They only get power swords and storm shields, no guns at all.
Yeh, I assumed the person who brought up "melee specialist crusader squads" were talking about... y'know, Crusaders.
So when that guy then said they -weren't- specialists, and someone else said they're good at shooting (I assume by throwing their shields at people), I guess there's another crusader squad out there somewhere I didn't know about.
They really should let crusaders throw their shields at people though.
A Space Wolves character gets to throw his hammer at people for no good reason. I'm behind this change.
Imperial Guard Veterans. Why?
-They cost 50% more than the basic Guardsman (and remember that the basic Guardsman is still considered ancy on the costing now that he cannot be blobbed)
-For this the gain the total benefit of +1BS
-They lost all three of the doctrines available to them, in other words one of two things that people took them for and the one that gave them a unique slot
-They lost the ability to take multiple special weapons, the other thing that people took them for
-Laughably, he swapped places with the Storm Trooper, now taking up a special slot instead of a troops slot whilst literal specialist operations commando troops whom recieved special training and are quite literally the gak and whom can do anything from mobile air drops to stealth insertion became regular bod troops.
-His transport options are a fugly box on boxes that is still overpriced or a now even more ridiculously overpriced IFV (sheesh, it was stupidly expensive LAST edition, and now they nerfed it AND increased its price?! Still looks better than a Taurox though).
No. Veterans used to be a really good choice, but now they are useless, keeping in trend with GW nerfing everything that was good and buffing everything that was bad.
TAC Marines. So expensive for what you get. They have basically no offense. You're paying for defense. And their defense isn't as good as a ton of wounds.
master of ordinance wrote: Imperial Guard Veterans. Why?
-They cost 50% more than the basic Guardsman (and remember that the basic Guardsman is still considered ancy on the costing now that he cannot be blobbed)
-For this the gain the total benefit of +1BS
-They lost all three of the doctrines available to them, in other words one of two things that people took them for and the one that gave them a unique slot
-They lost the ability to take multiple special weapons, the other thing that people took them for
-Laughably, he swapped places with the Storm Trooper, now taking up a special slot instead of a troops slot whilst literal specialist operations commando troops whom recieved special training and are quite literally the gak and whom can do anything from mobile air drops to stealth insertion became regular bod troops.
-His transport options are a fugly box on boxes that is still overpriced or a now even more ridiculously overpriced IFV (sheesh, it was stupidly expensive LAST edition, and now they nerfed it AND increased its price?! Still looks better than a Taurox though).
No. Veterans used to be a really good choice, but now they are useless, keeping in trend with GW nerfing everything that was good and buffing everything that was bad.
The only thing I will argue with is the whole 50% thing.
That's 2 frickin points. 2. You act as though it's a significant amount.
master of ordinance wrote: Imperial Guard Veterans. Why?
-They cost 50% more than the basic Guardsman (and remember that the basic Guardsman is still considered ancy on the costing now that he cannot be blobbed)
-For this the gain the total benefit of +1BS
-They lost all three of the doctrines available to them, in other words one of two things that people took them for and the one that gave them a unique slot
-They lost the ability to take multiple special weapons, the other thing that people took them force
-Laughably, he swapped places with the Storm Trooper, now taking up a special slot instead of a troops slot whilst literal specialist operations commando troops whom recieved special training and are quite literally the gak and whom can do anything from mobile air drops to stealth insertion became regular bod troops.
-His transport options are a fugly box on boxes that is still overpriced or a now even more ridiculously overpriced IFV (sheesh, it was stupidly expensive LAST edition, and now they nerfed it AND increased its price?! Still looks better than a Taurox though).
No. Veterans used to be a really good choice, but now they are useless, keeping in trend with GW nerfing everything that was good and buffing everything that was bad.
The only thing I will argue with is the whole 50% thing.
That's 2 frickin points. 2. You act as though it's a significant amount.
2pts is a segnificant amount on basic horde infantry 2pts discount was a huge buff for chaos daemons on daemonettes, bloodletters and plague bearers. So i can imagine paying 2pts for +1bs makes what is a solid unit aweful.
This I could kinda live with, but it looks real haphazard (like as if my nephew put them together), and that's really what Grey Hunters do, so we are kinda taking their unit entry which helps prove my point of why they work and Tactical Marines don't.
Also keep in mind they've never done anything BUT shoot, yet Grey Hunters always did both.
Grey hunters and blood claws work for SW because they're the only troops available since scouts are elites. And they have a decent synergy with as assault oriented army.
Grey hunters are tactical marines with +1 attack in close combat since they can have a chainsword for free but they can only take flamers, plasma guns or melta guns as shooty upgrades. No heavy weapons options. And they cost +1ppm compared to tactical marines. No SW player says they're among the worst troops in the game.
SM players are misguided by comparing their tacticals to other overpowered units in their codex, because they have a lot of broken options. Tac marines are not oustanding but far from being among the worst troops in the game.
Kroot suck pretty bad, can't give any reason to choose them over Fire Warriors, and for supposedly being the Tau's "melee" troops, they're absolutely horrible at melee combat - I'd rather, once again, take a Fire Warrior team into melee combat.
This I could kinda live with, but it looks real haphazard (like as if my nephew put them together), and that's really what Grey Hunters do, so we are kinda taking their unit entry which helps prove my point of why they work and Tactical Marines don't.
Also keep in mind they've never done anything BUT shoot, yet Grey Hunters always did both.
Grey hunters and blood claws work for SW because they're the only troops available since scouts are elites. And they have a decent synergy with as assault oriented army.
Grey hunters are tactical marines with +1 attack in close combat since they can have a chainsword for free but they can only take flamers, plasma guns or melta guns as shooty upgrades. No heavy weapons options. And they cost +1ppm compared to tactical marines. No SW player says they're among the worst troops in the game.
SM players are misguided by comparing their tacticals to other overpowered units in their codex, because they have a lot of broken options. Tac marines are not oustanding but far from being among the worst troops in the game.
Grey Hunters work because they don't actually HAVE that only option for the Heavy Weapon. The unit doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't. You get two Special Weapons, a Combi, and 2 attacks on each model, and you usually Drop Pod them. Remember how I talked about the issue of loadouts for Tactical Marines being their ultimate issue? You can't even bother trying to camp Grey Hunters, as their options don't fool you into thinking you can accomplish that. Of course if they has the option for Lascannons, some people would insist on doing that even though Long Fangs would do that significantly better.
So no, nobody complained about Grey Hunters because they're actually decent.
. Vetersn where troops back in the previous editions due to the platoon construction format. IG players had a chocie troop wise of a large platoon, of bog standard infantry, or small squads of veterns. in this edition they aren't. I can follow the logic of "vets as elites" the PROBLEM comes in where you have Scions, whom can do everything veterns can but better. and are TROOPs.
I'm hoping that the new IG/AM codex addresses the issue, "regimental tactics and stratigiums" could be eneugh to make veterns a compeitive choice again.
I'd either vote kroot or eldar guardians myself. Both are fragile and lacking in firepower, making them fairly pointless.
While I agree tac squads or their CSM counter parts aren't worth using, I don't consider them the worst. Which says a lot about how bad troops remain this edition.
Tactical marines are fine if you are using them as a cheap unit to open up razorbacks - which are good. Keep them MSU late game objective grabbers - that can jump out and do fairly solid damage at 12" if necessary (or after the Razorback is destroyed).
Chaos Marines are worse because they lack Razorbacks and therefore lack any obvious gameplay niche.
I've always thought Guardians were bad - but right now their only purpose is to make Dire Avengers look even worse. But really one or the other should not exist. Its always been stupid to have units which are essentially the same. One will always be better than the other.
I can't work out if grots are that bad. Intuitively they are not great, but never seen anyone run them in strength.
Why is tac squad being worst even a conversation? Tac marines can't be the worst, because Chaos Space Marine exist, and for as long as I've been a part of this game Chaos Marines have ALWAYS been worse.
My vote absolutely goes down with Grots. Not just for being worse than conscripts and cultist (even though they are), but they're worse that normal guardsmen. For one less point they have -1 to M, WS, T, S, and Sv (and then there's the 4 ld...) and a a gun not even worth talking. Funny, that NOW grot blastas are pistols when they've been 12" assault since 4th now that assault would have actually been useful. No synergies except with the runtherd, who his own set of problems (seriously, why does he kill 1d3 grots when a commissar only executes one dude?). Yes, the have Surprisingly Dangerous, but the 60 points to get that would be better spend on 10 boys who'd be better as a camping units if only because of t4.
Wyches I'd say are my runner up. It's one thing to be bad at something that's not your job or being okay for everything, but Wyches are actually bad at their job.
Tyel wrote: Tactical marines are fine if you are using them as a cheap unit to open up razorbacks - which are good. Keep them MSU late game objective grabbers - that can jump out and do fairly solid damage at 12" if necessary (or after the Razorback is destroyed).
Chaos Marines are worse because they lack Razorbacks and therefore lack any obvious gameplay niche.
I've always thought Guardians were bad - but right now their only purpose is to make Dire Avengers look even worse. But really one or the other should not exist. Its always been stupid to have units which are essentially the same. One will always be better than the other.
I can't work out if grots are that bad. Intuitively they are not great, but never seen anyone run them in strength.
Scouts unlock Razorbacks now. That argument doesn't work.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah; to be fair, you could buy 40pts of IG infantry and unlock a Razorback if you're desperate.
Thought they had to be of the same faction.
Conscript Razorbacks here I come!
They do to ride in it.
They don't just to have it in the army. You could have an IG army with 5 Infantry Squads, a Company Commander, and a Primaris Psyker for 270 points, and then take 7 razorbacks as the dedicated transports for said battalion because they all share the Imperium keyword.
The IG just can't embark.
EDIT: It's worth noting that it's cheaper to take infantry squads to unlock razorbacks; conscripts are more expensive at their base squad size than Guardsmen are.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah; to be fair, you could buy 40pts of IG infantry and unlock a Razorback if you're desperate.
Thought they had to be of the same faction.
Conscript Razorbacks here I come!
They do to ride in it.
They don't just to have it in the army. You could have an IG army with 5 Infantry Squads, a Company Commander, and a Primaris Psyker for 270 points, and then take 7 razorbacks as the dedicated transports for said battalion because they all share the Imperium keyword.
The IG just can't embark.
EDIT:
It's worth noting that it's cheaper to take infantry squads to unlock razorbacks; conscripts are more expensive at their base squad size than Guardsmen are.
Probably easier to babysit with a Commisar and bubblewrap things in your backline with the Conscripts at that point though, especially if you were planning to buy an upgrade for those Infantry squads.
This I could kinda live with, but it looks real haphazard (like as if my nephew put them together), and that's really what Grey Hunters do, so we are kinda taking their unit entry which helps prove my point of why they work and Tactical Marines don't.
Also keep in mind they've never done anything BUT shoot, yet Grey Hunters always did both.
Grey hunters and blood claws work for SW because they're the only troops available since scouts are elites. And they have a decent synergy with as assault oriented army.
Grey hunters are tactical marines with +1 attack in close combat since they can have a chainsword for free but they can only take flamers, plasma guns or melta guns as shooty upgrades. No heavy weapons options. And they cost +1ppm compared to tactical marines. No SW player says they're among the worst troops in the game.
SM players are misguided by comparing their tacticals to other overpowered units in their codex, because they have a lot of broken options. Tac marines are not oustanding but far from being among the worst troops in the game.
Grey Hunters work because they don't actually HAVE that only option for the Heavy Weapon. The unit doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't. You get two Special Weapons, a Combi, and 2 attacks on each model, and you usually Drop Pod them. Remember how I talked about the issue of loadouts for Tactical Marines being their ultimate issue? You can't even bother trying to camp Grey Hunters, as their options don't fool you into thinking you can accomplish that. Of course if they has the option for Lascannons, some people would insist on doing that even though Long Fangs would do that significantly better.
So no, nobody complained about Grey Hunters because they're actually decent.
Well just bring tac marines without heavy weapons then, they would even be cheaper than grey hunters and by the same logic they should be decent
Rhinos, razorbacks, stormravens, guilliman. Some other units like devastators, scouts, predators, storm talons, etc... are not overpowered but very good/undercosted too.
This I could kinda live with, but it looks real haphazard (like as if my nephew put them together), and that's really what Grey Hunters do, so we are kinda taking their unit entry which helps prove my point of why they work and Tactical Marines don't.
Also keep in mind they've never done anything BUT shoot, yet Grey Hunters always did both.
Grey hunters and blood claws work for SW because they're the only troops available since scouts are elites. And they have a decent synergy with as assault oriented army.
Grey hunters are tactical marines with +1 attack in close combat since they can have a chainsword for free but they can only take flamers, plasma guns or melta guns as shooty upgrades. No heavy weapons options. And they cost +1ppm compared to tactical marines. No SW player says they're among the worst troops in the game.
SM players are misguided by comparing their tacticals to other overpowered units in their codex, because they have a lot of broken options. Tac marines are not oustanding but far from being among the worst troops in the game.
Grey Hunters work because they don't actually HAVE that only option for the Heavy Weapon. The unit doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't. You get two Special Weapons, a Combi, and 2 attacks on each model, and you usually Drop Pod them. Remember how I talked about the issue of loadouts for Tactical Marines being their ultimate issue? You can't even bother trying to camp Grey Hunters, as their options don't fool you into thinking you can accomplish that. Of course if they has the option for Lascannons, some people would insist on doing that even though Long Fangs would do that significantly better.
So no, nobody complained about Grey Hunters because they're actually decent.
Well just bring tac marines without heavy weapons then, they would even be cheaper than grey hunters and by the same logic they should be decent
Rhinos, razorbacks, stormravens, guilliman. Some other units like devastators, scouts, predators, storm talons, etc... are not overpowered but very good/undercosted too.
No they would NOT be decent because I outlined how Grey Hunters do everything better. Holy crap it's like you don't read posts.
"Rhinos, razorbacks, stormravens, guilliman. Some other units like devastators, scouts, predators, storm talons, etc... are not overpowered but very good/undercosted too."
I pretty much agree with nothing on that list. Stormravens are really good at killing stuff but you pay a LOT and they no longer count for tabling. Devastator undercosted? What? Predators? Predators suck.
Not at all. Think the other end. Everyone is so skilled vs marines and their forced generalist approach that they are trivial to neuter. Another way to think of it: whatever you try to do with tac marines, I've faced units in other lists that do it much better. So why would I be threatened?
Martel732 wrote: How much do they cost? Marines are paying 13 pts to do nothing.
Nothing? Wow. You must have literally brain-dead marine players.
Most tactical marines in my meta at least do more than literally nothing.
That says more about your area than anything, as it sounds almost filthy casual. We're doing competitive gaming here and have statistics to back us up.
Remember the phrase PEDM and you'll be good. Math wins in the end.
bondoid wrote: Jeese, all of you space marine players argueing for tacticals being the worst is a laugh riot.
Tactical marines are no by means the best troop unit...but they are no where near the level of crap that is the worst.
Wyches are the worst, hands down.
Runners up being Dire Avengers, Grots, Storm Guardians
I understand Dark Eldar aren't a highly played army, so maybe you guys havent experienced how bad wyches are,
but they are that bad.
Even at half their points cost they wouldn't be good.
This seems like an exaggeration. A 5-woman unit of Wyches with +1 Atk from Combat Drugs, an Agonizer on the Hekatrix, and Hydra Gauntlets on one model expect to kill about 40 points of Marines when they shoot and charge. Currently this unit costs 53 points. If Wyches were 5 points each, the unit would cost 33 points. They'd almost make their points back by shooting and charging a naked Infantry squad at that price (and this isn't something they're even supposed to be good against given how many of their attacks don't care about toughness or re-roll wounds). And of course they also have a significant utility role in preventing enemy infantry from falling back. Wyches are not good currently, because they require a transport and DE transports aren't worth taking just for their guns, but I don't think it's plausible that they're 100% over-costed. I think I'd happily take them at 7 points apiece.
A 5 man tactical squad with a special weapon and a combi weapon isn't bad. Its got decent firepower, can be specialized to be pretty good at a particular role. The various chapter tactics and objective secured also help.
65 points for a unit of 5, They can carry two good weapons, have good grenades, and at T4 and 3+ save they are fairly survivable, especially if they are in cover.
Are there better options in the codex, yes. Would you take them if you didnt have to, no. Would you be better off taking scouts, ya probably.
Let me tell you about wyches. They are 9 points each, (one point less than a genestealer, 3 points more than an Ork.
They have WS 3+, but are S/T 3 with one attack base and a 6+ save.
In close combat, offensively, they are slightly better than a guardsmen. (but cost more than twice as much)
Their pistols more often than not count as S3 rather than S4.
Combat drugs is a decent rule, but only 2 out of every 6 units can have one that is worth taking.
Their 4+ invulnerable save in combat is worthless now that they not only die to overwatch, they get shot to death by pistols.
Their only force multiplier option, The Succubus, cant fit in either of their two transport options without neutering the squads combat ability even further (by removing their ability to take special CC weapons)
You end up spending 100+ points on a unit that is supposed to be good at CC (it has no shooting potential) but in reality hits slightly harder than a unit of guardsmen and with worse durability.
An ork is better basically across the board for far less points. Compared to the similarly costed genestealer, the genestealers has the ability to charge after running, better S/T, double the attacks, a better save, AP -1, AP -4 on 6s.... Probably the best 1 point ever imagined.
bondoid wrote: Jeese, all of you space marine players argueing for tacticals being the worst is a laugh riot.
Tactical marines are no by means the best troop unit...but they are no where near the level of crap that is the worst.
Wyches are the worst, hands down.
Runners up being Dire Avengers, Grots, Storm Guardians
I understand Dark Eldar aren't a highly played army, so maybe you guys havent experienced how bad wyches are,
but they are that bad.
Even at half their points cost they wouldn't be good.
This seems like an exaggeration. A 5-woman unit of Wyches with +1 Atk from Combat Drugs, an Agonizer on the Hekatrix, and Hydra Gauntlets on one model expect to kill about 40 points of Marines when they shoot and charge. Currently this unit costs 53 points. If Wyches were 5 points each, the unit would cost 33 points. They'd almost make their points back by shooting and charging a naked Infantry squad at that price (and this isn't something they're even supposed to be good against given how many of their attacks don't care about toughness or re-roll wounds). And of course they also have a significant utility role in preventing enemy infantry from falling back. Wyches are not good currently, because they require a transport and DE transports aren't worth taking just for their guns, but I don't think it's plausible that they're 100% over-costed. I think I'd happily take them at 7 points apiece.
Aye but only 1 out of 6 wych units can take the +1 Atk drug.
But even so,
Compare 100 points of ork boys, wyches, and genestealers in combat against a 10 man tactical squad.
Orks (16)
Between shooting and charging will kill 6 of the Marines in one turn.
The Marines (4) fight back will kill 1.1
The Marines (4) shoot and kill 1.1
The Marines (4) fight and kill 1.1
The Orks fight back and kill the rest of the space marines.
The Orks win the combat before their next turn.
The Orks lost 18 points of models. The orks have the rest of the game to continue to fight other targets.
Wyches (11) (+1 attack drug)
Between shooting and charging will kill 3.7 of the Marines in one turn.
The marines (6) fighting back kill 1.3 wyches,
The marines (6) shoot and kill 2.2 wyches
The marines (6) fight and kill another 1.3 wyches.
The Wyches (5) fight back and kill 1.1 Marine
The Wyches (5) shoot and kill .55 marines.
The Wyches (5) fight and kill 1.1 Marine.
The Marines (4) Fight back and kill .88 Wyches
The Marines (4) shoot and kill 1.48 Wyches
The Marines (4) Fight and kill .88 Wyches
The Wyches (2) Fight back and kill .44 Marines
The Wyches (2) Shoot and kill .22 Marines
The Wyches (2) Fight and kill .44 Marines
The Marines (2) Fight Back and kill .44 wyches
The Marines (2) Shoot and kill .74 wyches
The Marines (2) Fight and kill .44 Wyches
The Marines win the combat after the entire game.
Genestealers (10)
Will kill 6 of the marines in first turn.
Marines (4) fight back and kill .88 genestealer
Marines (4) shoot and kill .88 genestealer
Marines (4) Fight and kill .88 genestealer
Genestearlers (7) fight back and kill 4.08 marines
Genestealers win before there next turn.
The Genestealers lost 30 points of models. They have the rest of the game to continue to fight other targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Die to Overwatch? 20 Bolters on Overwatch is 1.8 Wyches dead. That's nohting!
Flamers are a thing, but even ignoring overwatch they suck.
Compared to other CC troops they are vastly outmatched for their price
bondoid wrote: You've seen wyches in competitive gaming?
A 5 man tactical squad with a special weapon and a combi weapon isn't bad. Its got decent firepower, can be specialized to be pretty good at a particular role. The various chapter tactics and objective secured also help.
65 points for a unit of 5, They can carry two good weapons, have good grenades, and at T4 and 3+ save they are fairly survivable, especially if they are in cover.
Are there better options in the codex, yes. Would you take them if you didnt have to, no. Would you be better off taking scouts, ya probably.
Let me tell you about wyches. They are 9 points each, (one point less than a genestealer, 3 points more than an Ork.
They have WS 3+, but are S/T 3 with one attack base and a 6+ save.
In close combat, offensively, they are slightly better than a guardsmen. (but cost more than twice as much)
Their pistols more often than not count as S3 rather than S4.
Combat drugs is a decent rule, but only 2 out of every 6 units can have one that is worth taking.
Their 4+ invulnerable save in combat is worthless now that they not only die to overwatch, they get shot to death by pistols.
Their only force multiplier option, The Succubus, cant fit in either of their two transport options without neutering the squads combat ability even further (by removing their ability to take special CC weapons)
You end up spending 100+ points on a unit that is supposed to be good at CC (it has no shooting potential) but in reality hits slightly harder than a unit of guardsmen and with worse durability.
An ork is better basically across the board for far less points. Compared to the similarly costed genestealer, the genestealers has the ability to charge after running, better S/T, double the attacks, a better save, AP -1, AP -4 on 6s.... Probably the best 1 point ever imagined.
This simply doesn't read like an honest argument. You don't mention that Wyches actually get 2 attacks each. You don't mention that they have much better weapon options than Orks, being able to take 2 decent and cheap CC weapons in a squad of 5. You talk up Marine grenades and don't mention that Wyches actually have much better anti-infantry grenades. You don't discuss their synergy with transports (while making a big deal about their vulnerability to Overwatch). You don't mention that Genestealers actually cost 12 points. You would be more persuasive if you didn't seem to be trying to trick people into believing you.
I've been having decent success with Tac Marines. Always been a Salamander player and their new CT makes MSUTac marines pretty effective. 90 points for an extremely efficient Lascannon (reroll to hit and wound with the CT) and 4 ablative wounds with light anti-horde capabilities.
Plop them in cover and the enemy force will need to dedicate a non-trivial level of fire power against them. Dedicated assault units are still a concern.
Counter balance them with some heavier presences on the board, and they are going to output a significant level of damage throughout the game.
No they would NOT be decent because I outlined how Grey Hunters do everything better. Holy crap it's like you don't read posts.
"Grey Hunters work because they don't actually HAVE that only option for the Heavy Weapon. The unit doesn't pretend to be anything it isn't. You get two Special Weapons, a Combi, and 2 attacks on each model, and you usually Drop Pod them. Remember how I talked about the issue of loadouts for Tactical Marines being their ultimate issue? You can't even bother trying to camp Grey Hunters, as their options don't fool you into thinking you can accomplish that."
Forgive me, can't you equip tac marines with two special weapons and a combi? They would be identical to grey hunters with one lesser attack but 1pppm cheaper. Where's the big difference? Drop pods are also gone now, there's no reason to take them anymore, especially if you want to carry troops. SW tipycally bring units of 5-6 grey hunters with a single special weapon and eventually a combi in razorbacks and that single attack at S4 with no AP that tacticals don't have means 1-2 more dead orks in close combat, not a huge different and appropriate for a unit that costs 5-6 points more than a specular SM one.
You're basically saying that grey hunters are better because they don't have the heavy weapon option and players are not fooled into bringing them in a role that doesn't suit them. You can play tacticals in the same way: same weapons, same transports. Just don't equip them with that heavy weapon
The real reason why grey hunters don't look awful is that SW don't have the SM gimmicks, and nothing looks overpowered in their army, making feel their troops a solid option.
Dionysodorus wrote: This simply doesn't read like an honest argument. You don't mention that Wyches actually get 2 attacks each. You don't mention that they have much better weapon options than Orks, being able to take 2 decent and cheap CC weapons in a squad of 5. You talk up Marine grenades and don't mention that Wyches actually have much better anti-infantry grenades. You don't discuss their synergy with transports (while making a big deal about their vulnerability to Overwatch). You don't mention that Genestealers actually cost 12 points. You would be more persuasive if you didn't seem to be trying to trick people into believing you.
Not really seeing why its a trick. Is the maths wrong?
If you take the 5 man squad, one agoniser, one hydra gauntlet, take the +1 attack drug and a venom to avoid shooting at you get across the table, send the Venom in to avoid overwatch and then charge in turn 3 for the 2+ WS buff then yes, you can kill about 3 marines with combined shooting and assault.
This still doesn't seem like a major feat however for a unit which would have been wiped at any point it was outside the Venom if it targeted by 16 boltgun shots.
It might be worth it against an MSU tactical squad. Target anything larger though and you are likely to get bogged down beaten down. Lose the venom and have to eat the overwatch? More wyches are dead, even without a flamer.
Everything is in moderation though. If they were 5 points they probably would be worth spamming. I think comparing their melee attack to guardsmen is also a bit dubious.
And if you take multiple squads you can't get the +1 attack or strength ability on every unit.
This simply doesn't read like an honest argument. You don't mention that Wyches actually get 2 attacks each. You don't mention that they have much better weapon options than Orks, being able to take 2 decent and cheap CC weapons in a squad of 5. You talk up Marine grenades and don't mention that Wyches actually have much better anti-infantry grenades. You don't discuss their synergy with transports (while making a big deal about their vulnerability to Overwatch).
Have you ever tried wyches in 8th edition or in the prevoius one?
Hydra gauntlets are way too expensive for what they do (tipycally 1 more wound). In CC wyches are terrible, their best tool is the blast pistol. Even with the succubus buff and the combat drug they're still a few bodies with a few low strenght attack, the majority of them, if not all of them, with no AP. The succubus herself got nerfed.
5 wyches costs 45 points with no upgrades. The typical unit is 5 of them including the heaktirx with agoniser and blast pistol in a venom with 2 splinter cannons. We're talking about 154 points for a T5 vehicle (necessary since drukhari have only poisoned shots and lances basically) and 5 T3 wounds with 11 attacks at S3/4 in total. 5 tac marines in a razorback with twin assault cannon are 165 points and they're 10000 better. Not to mention that drukhari lists end up with several drops and typically go second, it can be a big deal since the entire army is very squishy.
Dionysodorus wrote: This simply doesn't read like an honest argument. You don't mention that Wyches actually get 2 attacks each. You don't mention that they have much better weapon options than Orks, being able to take 2 decent and cheap CC weapons in a squad of 5. You talk up Marine grenades and don't mention that Wyches actually have much better anti-infantry grenades. You don't discuss their synergy with transports (while making a big deal about their vulnerability to Overwatch). You don't mention that Genestealers actually cost 12 points. You would be more persuasive if you didn't seem to be trying to trick people into believing you.
Not really seeing why its a trick. Is the maths wrong?
If you take the 5 man squad, one agoniser, one hydra gauntlet, take the +1 attack drug and a venom to avoid shooting at you get across the table, send the Venom in to avoid overwatch and then charge in turn 3 for the 2+ WS buff then yes, you can kill about 3 marines with combined shooting and assault.
This still doesn't seem like a major feat however for a unit which would have been wiped at any point it was outside the Venom if it targeted by 16 boltgun shots.
It might be worth it against an MSU tactical squad. Target anything larger though and you are likely to get bogged down beaten down. Lose the venom and have to eat the overwatch? More wyches are dead, even without a flamer.
Everything is in moderation though. If they were 5 points they probably would be worth spamming. I think comparing their melee attack to guardsmen is also a bit dubious.
And if you take multiple squads you can't get the +1 attack or strength ability on every unit.
I mean, in the in the post you're replying to I give a couple examples of how that post was extremely misleading. The poster was pretending that Wyches don't basically get 2 attacks base because of their weapons, and then 3 if they have the right drugs. The poster's been pretending that you're bringing squads of naked Wyches, comparing these to Boyz and Genestealers, when obviously their impact is mostly due to the Agonizer and Hydra Gauntlets. The poster was ignoring that their grenades account for a significant share of their shooting output. He didn't mention how you can use Venoms to avoid Overwatch and was talking as if Genestealers cost only 10 points all-in.
I'm not sure that the limited availability of combat drugs is a big deal. Are you really taking that many squads with access to them and which all want +1S and +1A? But, yeah, it means you're not going to want to put together a brigade based on 6 Wyches squads with no other combat drug units.
And I think you're under-selling the Venom a bit and over-stating the unit's reliance on it not getting shot down. You have other options for getting them into combat even without that particular Venom. The Venom itself is not a bad use of 80 points. And Wyches are cheap enough that shooting at their Venom is not something that your opponent is going to be very happy to do -- obviously your Blasterborn or your Ravagers or whatever are going to be much higher priorities.
But I think we basically agree. Like I've said, Wyches at 9 points are too expensive. I've said that I think 7 would be a pretty competitive price for them. 5 just seems way too low; they're not good currently but they're not that bad.
Martel732 wrote: How much do they cost? Marines are paying 13 pts to do nothing.
No. Now bolters can damage any unit out there.
You've still only got 6 turns. 3 turns, really, to do most of your work. I stand by my position.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vilehydra wrote: I've been having decent success with Tac Marines. Always been a Salamander player and their new CT makes MSUTac marines pretty effective. 90 points for an extremely efficient Lascannon (reroll to hit and wound with the CT) and 4 ablative wounds with light anti-horde capabilities.
Plop them in cover and the enemy force will need to dedicate a non-trivial level of fire power against them. Dedicated assault units are still a concern.
Counter balance them with some heavier presences on the board, and they are going to output a significant level of damage throughout the game.
No, they're not. At least, not for what you paid. You aren't forcing the enemy to do anything. As I described above, tac marines can easily be ignored until the mop-up phase of the match.
The worst Troop in the game right now are actually Eldar Windriders. They've been my core Troop since I started playing Eldar in 4th edition.
Windriders are so bad as Troops in 8th that they aren't even Troops, they've been moved to Fast Attack. So I cannot build a Saim-Hann Battalion at all.
Sure I can use an Outrider detachment, but that is -2CP. I can't wait until the Eldar codex fixes this horrible issue. Overall I'm fine with the rules and points cost of Windriders, but being denied the ideal Battle-forged detachment without resorting to purchasing more models is too far.
Galef wrote: The worst Troop in the game right now are actually Eldar Windriders. They've been my core Troop since I started playing Eldar in 4th edition.
Windriders are so bad as Troops in 8th that they aren't even Troops, they've been moved to Fast Attack. So I cannot build a Saim-Hann Battalion at all.
Sure I can use an Outrider detachment, but that is -2CP. I can't wait until the Eldar codex fixes this horrible issue. Overall I'm fine with the rules and points cost of Windriders, but being denied the ideal Battle-forged detachment without resorting to purchasing more models is too far.
-
You know, this just strikes me as petulant. All other troops choices and discussion aside...
... your army is perfectly viable and fluffy in the new edition, with all the bells and whistles (seriously, Saim Hann ain't struggling locally) and you're worried about 2 CP? And you think that's a horrible issue? Just trying to get your position clear.
You guyz are diliberately forgetting the No escape rule that witches possess and that probably costs 2-3 points a piece on it's own. It's amazing when the stars are right. They do have a niche which is the main thing that differentiates them from things like dire avengers and grots. And arguably tactical marines - but tactical marines at least have passable statlines.
Galef wrote: The worst Troop in the game right now are actually Eldar Windriders. They've been my core Troop since I started playing Eldar in 4th edition.
Windriders are so bad as Troops in 8th that they aren't even Troops, they've been moved to Fast Attack. So I cannot build a Saim-Hann Battalion at all.
Sure I can use an Outrider detachment, but that is -2CP. I can't wait until the Eldar codex fixes this horrible issue. Overall I'm fine with the rules and points cost of Windriders, but being denied the ideal Battle-forged detachment without resorting to purchasing more models is too far.
-
You mean like space marine bike players, or raven wing players or Deathwing Players? The loss of command points for needing to use detachments that aren't optimal for CP is part of the balance of playing a specialized army. I see no reason why this should be "fixed".
DE Drazhar, he is 140pts for a melee character with a worthless aura, S4 and 4 attacks.
A unit of Incubi (they are the same model basically and has same weapon, just Incubi are 1 less Str)
Inubi are 90pts for 16 attacks and same amount of wounds, for 140pts thats 8 of them making that 25 attacks.......
For a character he literally is dbl the cost of what his rules are, and why is his aura bad? it gives him and Inubi +1 to hit, sadly they already get +1 to hit due to PFP (Drazhar is alrady 2+ to hit) and sense you cant go lower than 2+ unless there are other mods (and not likely honestly for melee for them) they dont get his aura
You know, there's a sm player here who is also very negative about tactical marines. And he was very butthurt annoyed when i said that tactical marines win out point-for-point vs ork boyz pretty much every time if there are no other factors like characters, vehicles.
So, we've played a couple games of 5 marines vs 12 ork boyz with a nob (tried both shootas and sluggas) and all 3 times there were no chances for the boyz. The tactics were pretty simple - marines keep distance for a couple turns and kill 1-3 boyz a turn. Boyz have to move forward - even if they're shootas - cause shootas in cover are much worse at shooting point-for-point than marines in 2+ cover. Than after a couple turns marines engage in close firefight within 12'. By that time there are 4-7 orks left and they start taking morale casualties. By the time orks reach marines - if they do at all - there are not enough orks to wipe the remaining marines before those kill boyz in mellee.
So, why is that marines that are considered to be a sub-par unit win out vs a very good infantry unit every time when taken in a vacuum? Cause they get to use their superior abilities and there are no other factors. In real games you generally can't afford to 'kite' like this. You got to kill more or be more resilient to score a point longer. However, i still think that marines can earn 3 out of 5 for what they do and what they're pretty much supposed to do - score points, provide some bolter potshots, bauble wrap and most importantly provide CP. Killing something with tactical marines is just an afterthought - just like with ork big/mek gunz. You aren't paying for the killing.
In that scenario, more aspects of the marines matter. But against many, many weapon systems marines give up points very quickly. Too quickly. If you paying tac marine prices and not killing, you are falling behind. That's the problem.
You're paying too much for those cps. That's my issue.
" if there are no other factors like characters, vehicles."
I think this is how they are priced. But reality bites them in the ass every time.
Considering you dismissed razorbacks, storm ravens, and guilliman as not being strong enough for your taste, I think a more likely explanation is your expectations are too high.
ross-128 wrote: Considering you dismissed razorbacks, storm ravens, and guilliman as not being strong enough for your taste, I think a more likely explanation is your expectations are too high.
I don't think razors and ravens are overpowered after the faq. That's different than dismissing them. I don't think those units are strong enough to compensate for marines having to buy inefficient statlines over and over repeated through the army. Rowboat is a crutch for one chapter only, and even that scheme is easier to work around that horde lists, imo.
ross-128 wrote: Considering you dismissed razorbacks, storm ravens, and guilliman as not being strong enough for your taste, I think a more likely explanation is your expectations are too high
Yeah, Martel doesn't want balance, he wants marines to be overpowered to compensate for something.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I'm guessing we'll get flooded by people complaining about the Dire Avengers and their overcosted Catapults. Then someone will compare their basic troopers as even worse than that.
At about 4-5 pages in we'll devolve into snide comments at each other.
You called it MechaEmperor.
Cheers,
CB
PS: ...although Dire Avengers are quite high in the points cost and only see the field in Force Point games.
Are we talking about the people who say they make tacs work by using them to "open up razorbacks" because those people don't seem to understand that a predator also opens up a razorback slot - this is where about 50% of tac support comes from. The rest seems to come from super casual players who take 10 man tac squads in rhinos with 3 weapons choices and a power fist and plasma pistol on the Sargent (these people don't really care about winning so much).
I'm not super convinced that razorbacks are even that good. I've defeated several razor spam lists already by locking them down with assault. Marines can't screen like the IG, and don't fly like the Eldar. Why are razors so good? The can get a Rowboat buff? *Gimmick Alert*. Your twin assault cannons can't kill enough marines fast enough in my experience.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not super convinced that razorbacks are even that good. I've defeated several razor spam lists already by locking them down with assault. Marines can't screen like the IG, and don't fly like the Eldar. Why are razors so good? The can get a Rowboat buff? *Gimmick Alert*. Your twin assault cannons can't kill enough marines fast enough in my experience.
Assault cannons are bad because they don't kill Marines fast enough.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not super convinced that razorbacks are even that good. I've defeated several razor spam lists already by locking them down with assault. Marines can't screen like the IG, and don't fly like the Eldar. Why are razors so good? The can get a Rowboat buff? *Gimmick Alert*. Your twin assault cannons can't kill enough marines fast enough in my experience.
It's been my experience that Razorbacks are what people shoe-horn into lists because they're the cheapest marine answer to MSU. For 100 points you can get 12 shots that wound a lot of MSU on 2s, and definitely 3s. The -1 AP also negates the save of conscripts, boyz.
Although, i've noticed that the lists which can run razorbacks would probably be better off just running Fire Raptors. The volume of fire those put out for their price is ridiculous. Granted you have to pay the FW tax, but it's tournament legal.
Razorbacks serve as a compliment to dreadnoughts, generally those would look good in a dark angels list.
1. Layer of conscripts
2. Razors
3. Dreadnoughts
4. Dark Shroud
5. Azrael
Razors work well in this list. But they're not the cure-all people advertise them to be.
They're not bad. But I can actually overrun razorbacks with marines. I CAN'T overrun IG artillery with marines. See the difference? Also remember that razorbacks are frequently moving FORWARD to objectives, which increases their susceptibility to assault and shorter range weapons like multimeltas.
Quit trying to make this a simple problem. It's a very COMPLEX problem. Basal marines are bad because of complex interactions in the game.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not super convinced that razorbacks are even that good. I've defeated several razor spam lists already by locking them down with assault. Marines can't screen like the IG, and don't fly like the Eldar. Why are razors so good? The can get a Rowboat buff? *Gimmick Alert*. Your twin assault cannons can't kill enough marines fast enough in my experience.
Marines can screen very well with scouts. 55 Points for an infiltrating screen that pushes deepstrike units up to 27" away from anything you care about, really nerfs useful first turn assaults. Now those scouts die relatively quickly to assault etc. But then whatever assaults them is in range of all your RB shooting. As for not killing marines fast enough. With Rowboat, they average killing 4.5 marines each, unless they move to shoot. at which point they kill 4.
Razorbacks are effective firepower and relatively tough for their points - but they have a huge weakeness that gets exploited every time I play with them. I've basically stopped using them.
Their biggest issue is that they are -1 to hit when they move. The second issue is that if they get assaulted they can't shot. (this is a pretty huge weakness) Effectively they don't want to move - or be assaulted - but their primary weapon is 24" range. This weapon range problem exposes them to their weaknesses every game.
Which is why BA can run over them pretty effectively. They put themselves in jump melta range. Or the move out of their screening position. Marines can screen with scouts, but it's a far flimsier screen than other lists.
I want marines to be viable without gimmicks. Rowboat is a gimmick. He's another gladius, invis censtar, or skyhammer. Not available to all marines.
Chapter master + Lieutenant is available to all marines and basically replicates the same buff. If you don't want to do that then what you are saying is "I want marines to function differently then every other army that can only compete by using their strongest combos of units." I'd love to have lots of different lists be viable, but right now almost every faction has a limited set of viable builds. Marines are far from the worst.
Also at this point because imperium is an army, if you make every part of it have powerful options you break imperium (more than it already is) which is a problem with the faction rules in 8th.
Any captain or chapter master can give you a mini-rowboat. Captain will let you re-roll ones on everything, chapter master gives full re-rolls on everything. Just doesn't have the other rowboat goodies like +3CP and imperium-wide auras.
Xenomancers wrote: Razorbacks are effective firepower and relatively tough for their points - but they have a huge weakeness that gets exploited every time I play with them. I've basically stopped using them.
Their biggest issue is that they are -1 to hit when they move. The second issue is that if they get assaulted they can't shot. (this is a pretty huge weakness) Effectively they don't want to move - or be assaulted - but their primary weapon is 24" range. This weapon range problem exposes them to their weaknesses every game.
Yup they need re-rolls to hit, then the -2 is not really a huge deal. (hit almost 75% of the time at that point).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I'm looking into using Dante, but he's a turd compared to Rowboat. Again, gimmick-time.
No army currently works with out what you consider a gimmick. Dante is also 145 points cheaper than Rowboat not even considering that you need another HQ in addition to Rowboat unless you are playing all super heavies or all flyers + superheavies.
Martel732 wrote: Let's assume that's true. There's still no reason to ever use tactical marines. You can get razorbacks from taking ANY unit.
Dante still sucks in comparison.
I'm not saying he is as good, but he is also not bad and is way less expensive. As for tactical marines, you are right you don't need to take them. I think a lot of that depends on what chapter. They are actually decent for say salamanders, and certainly not near the worst troop unit in the game. They are easily better than Dire Avengers, Gretchin, wytches, and probably several others. If for no other reason that they have chapter tactics right now.
That said they are far from the best troops in the game as well, and probably closer to the bottom units than those on top.
Probably by sheer number of other troops they are not the worst, but they are far lower than many realize, due to complex interactions such as poor table coverage and poor firepower/pt.
Not yet, you will get chapter tactics or equivalent soon, including more psychic powers, stratagems, and relics.
Dante is a solid multiplier in that he can deep strike to provide a reroll bubble. This is how i use Draigo.
Anyway, this is the gimmick edition. And it's made worse for armies like GK and BA because we get lumped in with all marines, who have Azrael, and Guilliman, although Guilliman is more of an IG multiplier than an SM multiplier.
my thought it that the worst troops are in this order.
1. Dire Avengers (4+ save Gardians with 7 point weapon inferior to bolter(free))
2. Gardians (t3 5+ save and We've got shotguns? that rend on 6's? WTF)
3. Tactical marines (look at these stats! here take a bolter)
after that there is a huge list of crap troops that aren't much better than a tactical marine but they are still better.
koooaei wrote: You guyz are diliberately forgetting the No escape rule that witches possess and that probably costs 2-3 points a piece on it's own. It's amazing when the stars are right. They do have a niche which is the main thing that differentiates them from things like dire avengers and grots. And arguably tactical marines - but tactical marines at least have passable statlines.
You say that about Wyches, but you mentioned using the No Escape rule on a Razorback, which is an invalid target. In my experience, the rule is good, but it's so limited, because once you're restricted to using it on infantry, it just doesn't matter as much. That, in combination with the rest of Wych deficiencies (that everyone else has pointed out) makes them pretty irredeemably bad. They probably aren't the worst troop choice, but they're in my top 3. I'd rather have a mediocre TAC tactical marine unit than Wyches, which can't really do anything well.
I wouldn't consider your faction's main HQ pick to be a "gimmick", unless you consider anything other than unsupported naked tacticals to be a "gimmick".
The thing is, broadly speaking it seems GW has reworked space marines (and tau) to work more like imperial guard in how their officers interact with their troops. There is a word for Imperial Guard troops who have lost their officer support: "losing".
While Tau and SM still aren't quite as severe on that front, since their troops are still somewhat useful unsupported, they have been moved in that direction enough that any serious strategy has to include officers and has to account for their abilities. You won't know what a tactical is really capable of until you've determined what officer and chapter tactic he has.
I'm not sure why GW is trying to make other factions imitate IG's command structure (other than "character models get more markup"), but that's what they've done: a little bit of IG strategy has crept into many other factions in 8th.
koooaei wrote: You guyz are diliberately forgetting the No escape rule that witches possess and that probably costs 2-3 points a piece on it's own. It's amazing when the stars are right. They do have a niche which is the main thing that differentiates them from things like dire avengers and grots. And arguably tactical marines - but tactical marines at least have passable statlines.
You say that about Wyches, but you mentioned using the No Escape rule on a Razorback, which is an invalid target. In my experience, the rule is good, but it's so limited, because once you're restricted to using it on infantry, it just doesn't matter as much. That, in combination with the rest of Wych deficiencies (that everyone else has pointed out) makes them pretty irredeemably bad. They probably aren't the worst troop choice, but they're in my top 3. I'd rather have a mediocre TAC tactical marine unit than Wyches, which can't really do anything well.
I don't know how you can rate a unit that has a purpose and does it cheaply lower than a unit that has no purpose and does it not cheaply like tactical marines.
ross-128 wrote: I wouldn't consider your faction's main HQ pick to be a "gimmick", unless you consider anything other than unsupported naked tacticals to be a "gimmick".
koooaei wrote: You guyz are diliberately forgetting the No escape rule that witches possess and that probably costs 2-3 points a piece on it's own. It's amazing when the stars are right. They do have a niche which is the main thing that differentiates them from things like dire avengers and grots. And arguably tactical marines - but tactical marines at least have passable statlines.
You say that about Wyches, but you mentioned using the No Escape rule on a Razorback, which is an invalid target. In my experience, the rule is good, but it's so limited, because once you're restricted to using it on infantry, it just doesn't matter as much. That, in combination with the rest of Wych deficiencies (that everyone else has pointed out) makes them pretty irredeemably bad. They probably aren't the worst troop choice, but they're in my top 3. I'd rather have a mediocre TAC tactical marine unit than Wyches, which can't really do anything well.
I don't know how you can rate a unit that has a purpose and does it cheaply lower than a unit that has no purpose and does it not cheaply like tactical marines.
Purpose of tactical marines, camp objectives in cover, fire their single heavy weapon. Not sure how they have no purpose. They are actually relatively good at camping in cover to get a 2+, and firing a single lascannon or missile at things. Not super cheap, and not top level competitive but far from the worst things. What is the purpose of wyches? Try to tie things up in combat, if they can make it there?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: I wouldn't consider your faction's main HQ pick to be a "gimmick", unless you consider anything other than unsupported naked tacticals to be a "gimmick".
The thing is, broadly speaking it seems GW has reworked space marines (and tau) to work more like imperial guard in how their officers interact with their troops. There is a word for Imperial Guard troops who have lost their officer support: "losing".
While Tau and SM still aren't quite as severe on that front, since their troops are still somewhat useful unsupported, they have been moved in that direction enough that any serious strategy has to include officers and has to account for their abilities. You won't know what a tactical is really capable of until you've determined what officer and chapter tactic he has.
I'm not sure why GW is trying to make other factions imitate IG's command structure (other than "character models get more markup"), but that's what they've done: a little bit of IG strategy has crept into many other factions in 8th.
Because if characters don't buff things, they are pretty useless unless they are super beasts in CC by themselves. Almost all characters in this edition are support characters or smite bots. I mean if you took away the aura buffs all SMHQs are basically garbage.
Tyel wrote: I struggle with the idea that wyches have a role but razorbacks are too weak for the current meta.
I don't think they are too weak, I just think they are highly overrated. They seem kinda average to me. They economical, but frequently move and are turned off by any assault. They have failed to stop my BA several times now; the same BA that have yet to eve n get close vs IG or Mechdar.
Tyel wrote: I struggle with the idea that wyches have a role but razorbacks are too weak for the current meta.
I'd rather have 3 units of Wyches than 1 Drazhar, he is the worst thing in DE codex IMO. BUT sense this is about troop.............. Wyches are the worst in DE codex.
Witches can make it into combat - they have Raiders which are probably the best all around transport in this game. 5++ save with 10 wounds makes it tougher than a razorback. It gets no negative for moving and shooting with it's awesome assault weapons and it moves fast AF and has the fly special rule (Open top too but this doesn't help witches). It's also got decent close combat ability so going in and taking overwatch for your witch squad has a nice bonus of maybe killing a modle or 2 as well. Plus! if the witches lock the unit - you can't shoot at the freaking raider. THAT'S CALLED SYNERGY PEOPLE.
Tyel wrote: I struggle with the idea that wyches have a role but razorbacks are too weak for the current meta.
I don't think they are too weak, I just think they are highly overrated. They seem kinda average to me. They economical, but frequently move and are turned off by any assault. They have failed to stop my BA several times now; the same BA that have yet to eve n get close vs IG or Mechdar.
Extremely over rated. If you over load them in your list - a good opponent will just bum rush you to take away your shooting for the rest of the game. Is there a strategy that nulifies a 50 man conscript unit like this? NOPE.
Xenomancers wrote: Witches can make it into combat - they have Raiders which are probably the best all around transport in this game. 5++ save with 10 wounds makes it tougher than a razorback. It gets no negative for moving and shooting with it's awesome assault weapons and it moves fast AF and has the fly special rule (Open top too but this doesn't help witches). It's also got decent close combat ability so going in and taking overwatch for your witch squad has a nice bonus of maybe killing a modle or 2 as well. Plus! if the witches lock the unit - you can't shoot at the freaking raider. THAT'S CALLED SYNERGY PEOPLE.
Tyel wrote: I struggle with the idea that wyches have a role but razorbacks are too weak for the current meta.
I don't think they are too weak, I just think they are highly overrated. They seem kinda average to me. They economical, but frequently move and are turned off by any assault. They have failed to stop my BA several times now; the same BA that have yet to eve n get close vs IG or Mechdar.
Extremely over rated. If you over load them in your list - a good opponent will just bum rush you to take away your shooting for the rest of the game. Is there a strategy that nulifies a 50 man conscript unit like this? NOPE.
Wait, wuhhhh... Raiders? Raiders are decent, but I'd take a Venom over them any day (unless I needed the transport capacity). Also, it has one WEAPON singular -- a weapon that you certainly can't rely on to hit, even with it being a 3+. The Raider isn't bad, but it's not even the best DE transport, let alone the best transport in the game. And circling back, I'll agree with Breng; Wyches and Razorbacks don't belong in the same conversation.
Yeah, we played it wrong with witches tying up razors. I still think that a witch squad with a blastpistol in a transport are better than kabalite warriors in a transport. Kabalites literally do nothing you ain't getting elsewhere allready. And yet people bash on witches that can at least tie up something and have 6+++, 4++ in mellee and t4 from drugs (for 1 squad at least).
koooaei wrote: Yeah, we played it wrong with witches tying up razors. I still think that a witch squad with a blastpistol in a transport are better than kabalite warriors in a transport. Kabalites literally do nothing you ain't getting elsewhere allready. And yet people bash on witches that can at least tie up something and have 4++ and t4 from drugs (for 1 squad at least).
Kalabite Warriors have a Chosen equivalent which pretty much makes them bad.
That said they're cheap to buy into though. You can't say that for Tactical Marines.
koooaei wrote: You guyz are diliberately forgetting the No escape rule that witches possess and that probably costs 2-3 points a piece on it's own. It's amazing when the stars are right. They do have a niche which is the main thing that differentiates them from things like dire avengers and grots. And arguably tactical marines - but tactical marines at least have passable statlines.
You say that about Wyches, but you mentioned using the No Escape rule on a Razorback, which is an invalid target. In my experience, the rule is good, but it's so limited, because once you're restricted to using it on infantry, it just doesn't matter as much. That, in combination with the rest of Wych deficiencies (that everyone else has pointed out) makes them pretty irredeemably bad. They probably aren't the worst troop choice, but they're in my top 3. I'd rather have a mediocre TAC tactical marine unit than Wyches, which can't really do anything well.
I don't know how you can rate a unit that has a purpose and does it cheaply lower than a unit that has no purpose and does it not cheaply like tactical marines.
Purpose of tactical marines, camp objectives in cover, fire their single heavy weapon. Not sure how they have no purpose. They are actually relatively good at camping in cover to get a 2+, and firing a single lascannon or missile at things. Not super cheap, and not top level competitive but far from the worst things. What is the purpose of wyches? Try to tie things up in combat, if they can make it there?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ross-128 wrote: I wouldn't consider your faction's main HQ pick to be a "gimmick", unless you consider anything other than unsupported naked tacticals to be a "gimmick".
The thing is, broadly speaking it seems GW has reworked space marines (and tau) to work more like imperial guard in how their officers interact with their troops. There is a word for Imperial Guard troops who have lost their officer support: "losing".
While Tau and SM still aren't quite as severe on that front, since their troops are still somewhat useful unsupported, they have been moved in that direction enough that any serious strategy has to include officers and has to account for their abilities. You won't know what a tactical is really capable of until you've determined what officer and chapter tactic he has.
I'm not sure why GW is trying to make other factions imitate IG's command structure (other than "character models get more markup"), but that's what they've done: a little bit of IG strategy has crept into many other factions in 8th.
Because if characters don't buff things, they are pretty useless unless they are super beasts in CC by themselves. Almost all characters in this edition are support characters or smite bots. I mean if you took away the aura buffs all SMHQs are basically garbage.
Devastators do that role you mentioned and do it better.
Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
koooaei wrote: Yeah, we played it wrong with witches tying up razors. I still think that a witch squad with a blastpistol in a transport are better than kabalite warriors in a transport. Kabalites literally do nothing you ain't getting elsewhere allready. And yet people bash on witches that can at least tie up something and have 6+++, 4++ in mellee and t4 from drugs (for 1 squad at least).
No...... Trueborn are better than both (tho they are not troops), they have same attacks as Wyches, 4 specials and 2 heavy weapons if you like. Kabals are still better than Wychs b.c you can sit in Raiders/Venoms for a few turns pumping out shots and still able to have an Agoniser to get a couple wounds in. Over all Wychs dont do damage.
Breng77 wrote: Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
That's a bigger concern to me playing marines. If the ig blob gets to an objective, they will win that battle anyway.
I'm going to throw a different unit into the ring as a terrible troop choice. That unit is Blue Horrors. Yes I know Brimstones are amazing, but it's because Brimstones are amazing that Blues suck so bad. Why would you ever take a blue for 2 more points (66% increase) for +1 str, -1 attack, and not dying when casting smite (you only need 1 for that). Even splitting is pointless because you could have just bought 2 brims to have that additional melee attack all the time. Pink Horrors cost 60% more than a blue, but they do have a shooting attack and have a bump to smitting at 10.
I just personally see no point in ever taking a blue beyond the 1 in a brim squad.
Xenomancers wrote: Witches can make it into combat - they have Raiders which are probably the best all around transport in this game. 5++ save with 10 wounds makes it tougher than a razorback. It gets no negative for moving and shooting with it's awesome assault weapons and it moves fast AF and has the fly special rule (Open top too but this doesn't help witches). It's also got decent close combat ability so going in and taking overwatch for your witch squad has a nice bonus of maybe killing a modle or 2 as well. Plus! if the witches lock the unit - you can't shoot at the freaking raider. THAT'S CALLED SYNERGY PEOPLE.
Tyel wrote: I struggle with the idea that wyches have a role but razorbacks are too weak for the current meta.
I don't think they are too weak, I just think they are highly overrated. They seem kinda average to me. They economical, but frequently move and are turned off by any assault. They have failed to stop my BA several times now; the same BA that have yet to eve n get close vs IG or Mechdar.
Extremely over rated. If you over load them in your list - a good opponent will just bum rush you to take away your shooting for the rest of the game. Is there a strategy that nulifies a 50 man conscript unit like this? NOPE.
Wait, wuhhhh... Raiders? Raiders are decent, but I'd take a Venom over them any day (unless I needed the transport capacity). Also, it has one WEAPON singular -- a weapon that you certainly can't rely on to hit, even with it being a 3+. The Raider isn't bad, but it's not even the best DE transport, let alone the best transport in the game. And circling back, I'll agree with Breng; Wyches and Razorbacks don't belong in the same conversation.
venom is only 5 man capacity. Sure witches belong in the conversation of razors. Melle units destroy razors - a unit of 10 could easily prevent it from falling back. Also - I said all around transport - being able to hold 10 models is a pretty important feature. And dark lances arent mediocre weapons - they are great weapons. Disintegrators have multiple shots too.
Breng77 wrote: Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
Literally anyone can kill 5 Marines. They aren't holding the objective better even though they've got a rule that would take that assumption.
Breng77 wrote: Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
Literally anyone can kill 5 Marines. They aren't holding the objective better even though they've got a rule that would take that assumption.
Literally anyone can kill 20 boyz. Whats your point?
Literally anyone can kill anyone in this game, that's kinda the point. Marines are generally harder to kill than most other units mentioned though. With a 2+ cover save it'd take either a large amount of low-grade firepower, or a decent amount of high AP fire.
I'm used to playing as eldar and orks, though in my youth I played as tyranids. As far as basic units goes, Marines were always the annoying hard to kill sods that would mow me down with their long range powerful shootiness. (Well ok, eldar also had decent shootiness, but they also die pretty easily).
Edit:
Just to add, I'm not saying TACs are super good. Few troops choices are super good. Troops are meant to be an average, relatively cheap, source of bodies that support your elites/gunline/etc. TAC's aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible. They certainly aren't the worst troops. They're in the middle.
Marines don't have enough powerful long range shooting because everything is so damn expensive. The only way to squeeze enough oomph out seems to be Girlyman, who is denied to all other chapters.
"Just to add, I'm not saying TACs are super good. Few troops choices are super good. Troops are meant to be an average, relatively cheap, source of bodies that support your elites/gunline/etc. TAC's aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible. They certainly aren't the worst troops. They're in the middle."
I think this is a tempting conclusion, but their table coverage sucks. Also, remember that only half of objectives will be in cover if you opponent doesn't want them in cover.
Tacs don't really support anything. If I could a tac marine as a casualty for other squads, THEN they'd be support. As they are, they just get ignored until it's mop-up time.
"Just to add, I'm not saying TACs are super good. Few troops choices are super good. Troops are meant to be an average, relatively cheap, source of bodies that support your elites/gunline/etc. TAC's aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible. They certainly aren't the worst troops. They're in the middle."
Super good troop choices shouldnt exist. Its a contradiction in terms.
Otherwise, the fluff has some flaws.
"Just to add, I'm not saying TACs are super good. Few troops choices are super good. Troops are meant to be an average, relatively cheap, source of bodies that support your elites/gunline/etc. TAC's aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible. They certainly aren't the worst troops. They're in the middle."
Super good troop choices shouldnt exist. Its a contradiction in terms.
Otherwise, the fluff has some flaws.
But they should at least be worth taking. That's what Tactical Marines and Storm Guardians aren't.
"Just to add, I'm not saying TACs are super good. Few troops choices are super good. Troops are meant to be an average, relatively cheap, source of bodies that support your elites/gunline/etc. TAC's aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible. They certainly aren't the worst troops. They're in the middle."
Super good troop choices shouldnt exist. Its a contradiction in terms.
Otherwise, the fluff has some flaws.
But they should at least be worth taking. That's what Tactical Marines and Storm Guardians aren't.
Indeed, Storm Guardians are geared towards cc but not good enough to take them.
The controversal about Tactical Marines seems to go on.
venom is only 5 man capacity. Sure witches belong in the conversation of razors. Melle units destroy razors - a unit of 10 could easily prevent it from falling back. Also - I said all around transport - being able to hold 10 models is a pretty important feature. And dark lances arent mediocre weapons - they are great weapons. Disintegrators have multiple shots too.
The problem with 10 wyches in a raider is their cost, they are expensive for drukhari standards and far from being deadly. 5 wyches in venoms are way more common since a wych cult army should spam at least 5 units of wyches. The 10 man squad (actually 9) may work only if joined by the succubus which makes the unit even more expensive. Raiders are T5 4+ transports and drukhari always start second due to their high number of drops, never forget this. That's why venoms are handy.
1.8 dead wyches in overwatch is actually a big deal, it means almost half squad dead. Always charge with their transport.
Kabalite warriors are way more useful, they're cheaper than wyches, shooty like the rest of the army and drukhari need those poisoned shots since they don't have other tools against infantries. Kabalite warriors can also include a blaster for only 15 points that gives them versatility.
Wyches could work in a full wych cult army, and since I love the theme I sometimes play it, but succubus, reavers and now even beasts were nerfed and hellions are still weak, so those wyches are actually far from being a decent troop choice. They're not garbage but not particularly effective, mediocre is the right word to define them.
Amishprn86 wrote: If your charging with your Wcyhes 1st out of LoS your playing DE wrong.
PS: All DE melee units are niche, this includes wychs, they all have 1-2 rolls and as soon as you take them out of those roles they are bad.
I'm not sure I understand this statement. Charging out of LoS??? It can't be the average situation, even with a terrain full of buildings it's not that easy to do it.
Amishprn86 wrote: If your charging with your Wcyhes 1st out of LoS your playing DE wrong.
PS: All DE melee units are niche, this includes wyches, they all have 1-2 rolls and as soon as you take them out of those roles they are bad.
I'm not sure I understand this statement. Charging out of LoS??? It can't be the average situation, even with a terrain full of buildings it's not that easy to do it.
I'm not saying its common, i'm saying if your Wcyhes are charging 1st and not out of LoS your doing it wrong. Use your vehicles to charge 1st, or beasts or something that wont die/take wounds or doesnt care if they do take wounds.
PS, every table should have enough terrain to give LoS blocking, firing lanes and general cover, otherwise its just a who goes 1st and shoots better game.. In a normal game there should be ways to charge out of LoS, sure you might not always get to but the options should still be there somewhere.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I agree with you but as you said it's not that easy to do it every time.
DE vehicles are also paper things so it's quite common that you have some wyches without their transport that are forced to assault on their own, otherwise they would be obliterated next turn.
Breng77 wrote: Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
Literally anyone can kill 5 Marines. They aren't holding the objective better even though they've got a rule that would take that assumption.
They absolutely are the objective better, as it is no more difficult to kill the considerably more expensive devastator squad. So given that their durability per point is better than the devastator squad (unless you take only 1 heavy weapon, at which point the squads are the same), and they have a rule that means unless another unit with that rule is near the objective they claim it no matter what, means they are better at camping an objective than a devastator squad. Especially because many units have to kill all 5 to take the objective away whereas they only need to kill enough devastators to outnumber them. If you went equal points of models a 5 man devastator squad with say 4 lascannons is more expensive than a 10 man Tactical squad with a heavy weapon and possibly a special weapon. So it has double the wounds for the same points.
The big difference is if you don't expect that objective to try to be claimed by other units. At that point you could argue for trying to do more damage from your back field (on forward objectives tacticals are much better because they can take special weapons, and are much more likely to compete for control against other units.
I'm not arguing that taking a 10 man tactical squad as an objective camper is a great idea, only that they are better at it than most other marine options for the points. The problem is that it takes sacrificing killing power elsewhere to do this, and right now the edition tends to be about killing especially as many boards don't have enough terrain.
venom is only 5 man capacity. Sure witches belong in the conversation of razors. Melle units destroy razors - a unit of 10 could easily prevent it from falling back. Also - I said all around transport - being able to hold 10 models is a pretty important feature. And dark lances arent mediocre weapons - they are great weapons. Disintegrators have multiple shots too.
The problem with 10 wyches in a raider is their cost, they are expensive for drukhari standards and far from being deadly. 5 wyches in venoms are way more common since a wych cult army should spam at least 5 units of wyches. The 10 man squad (actually 9) may work only if joined by the succubus which makes the unit even more expensive. Raiders are T5 4+ transports and drukhari always start second due to their high number of drops, never forget this. That's why venoms are handy.
1.8 dead wyches in overwatch is actually a big deal, it means almost half squad dead. Always charge with their transport.
Kabalite warriors are way more useful, they're cheaper than wyches, shooty like the rest of the army and drukhari need those poisoned shots since they don't have other tools against infantries. Kabalite warriors can also include a blaster for only 15 points that gives them versatility.
Wyches could work in a full wych cult army, and since I love the theme I sometimes play it, but succubus, reavers and now even beasts were nerfed and hellions are still weak, so those wyches are actually far from being a decent troop choice. They're not garbage but not particularly effective, mediocre is the right word to define them.
Wyches become a far better investment when you're running 5 in a raider. My standard troop unit for DE currently is a raider containing 5 wyches with hydra, BP, Ago, and Phantasm, and 5 wracks with electrocorrosive/hexrifle and ossefactor. That fills 2 troop slots, has zero morale issues, puts out a decent amount of hurt on whatever you need it to and still benefits from everything that the wyches have to offer - namely the Hekatrix and No Escape.
When I run a full wych cult army (which surprisingly does work pretty well in an environment that is more thematic/TAC rather than the kind of fluff impaling WAAC tournament lists) I will run that unit as 2x5 wyches, and I've occasionally toyed with Incubi as the killers rather than wracks, but I've become addicted to battalions so wracks are my go-to.
Breng77 wrote: Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
Literally anyone can kill 5 Marines. They aren't holding the objective better even though they've got a rule that would take that assumption.
They absolutely are the objective better, as it is no more difficult to kill the considerably more expensive devastator squad. So given that their durability per point is better than the devastator squad (unless you take only 1 heavy weapon, at which point the squads are the same), and they have a rule that means unless another unit with that rule is near the objective they claim it no matter what, means they are better at camping an objective than a devastator squad. Especially because many units have to kill all 5 to take the objective away whereas they only need to kill enough devastators to outnumber them. If you went equal points of models a 5 man devastator squad with say 4 lascannons is more expensive than a 10 man Tactical squad with a heavy weapon and possibly a special weapon. So it has double the wounds for the same points.
The big difference is if you don't expect that objective to try to be claimed by other units. At that point you could argue for trying to do more damage from your back field (on forward objectives tacticals are much better because they can take special weapons, and are much more likely to compete for control against other units.
I'm not arguing that taking a 10 man tactical squad as an objective camper is a great idea, only that they are better at it than most other marine options for the points. The problem is that it takes sacrificing killing power elsewhere to do this, and right now the edition tends to be about killing especially as many boards don't have enough terrain.
OS only matters when getting the objectives on your opponent's side, because the opponent will want to kill opposition entirely to make sure there's no retaliation to take them back. OS doesn't work for dead units, and 5 Marines, as I've said, isn't hard to kill.
So if you're camping 5 Tactical Marines on a home objective, you pay for a useless ability, as would most camping troops. You might as well then go for Devastators (Signum + Cherub + more Lascannons) or Scouts (get a Sniper Rifle with your ML and get units deader).
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
Breng77 wrote: Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
Literally anyone can kill 5 Marines. They aren't holding the objective better even though they've got a rule that would take that assumption.
They absolutely are the objective better, as it is no more difficult to kill the considerably more expensive devastator squad. So given that their durability per point is better than the devastator squad (unless you take only 1 heavy weapon, at which point the squads are the same), and they have a rule that means unless another unit with that rule is near the objective they claim it no matter what, means they are better at camping an objective than a devastator squad. Especially because many units have to kill all 5 to take the objective away whereas they only need to kill enough devastators to outnumber them. If you went equal points of models a 5 man devastator squad with say 4 lascannons is more expensive than a 10 man Tactical squad with a heavy weapon and possibly a special weapon. So it has double the wounds for the same points.
The big difference is if you don't expect that objective to try to be claimed by other units. At that point you could argue for trying to do more damage from your back field (on forward objectives tacticals are much better because they can take special weapons, and are much more likely to compete for control against other units.
I'm not arguing that taking a 10 man tactical squad as an objective camper is a great idea, only that they are better at it than most other marine options for the points. The problem is that it takes sacrificing killing power elsewhere to do this, and right now the edition tends to be about killing especially as many boards don't have enough terrain.
OS only matters when getting the objectives on your opponent's side, because the opponent will want to kill opposition entirely to make sure there's no retaliation to take them back. OS doesn't work for dead units, and 5 Marines, as I've said, isn't hard to kill.
So if you're camping 5 Tactical Marines on a home objective, you pay for a useless ability, as would most camping troops. You might as well then go for Devastators (Signum + Cherub + more Lascannons) or Scouts (get a Sniper Rifle with your ML and get units deader).
You obviously play a different game than I do, where home objectives are never contested. I contest them all the time. So yeah OS matters.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
1. Those Tactical Marines won't do practical damage to your tanks, and honestly if they weren't camping on an objective they wouldn't be targeted. Devastators would be targeted because they're actually dangerous. See the pattern there? You ignore the units that don't matter.
2. That's not swingy. The common loadout here is 5 Marines + Lascannon, which is 90 points. How much is the Scion squad with 2 Plasma Guns and 1-2 Plasma Pistols?
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
I don't play vs many superheavy tanks. However, ut seems pretty trivial for you to blow me off the objectives if I don't do something about your tanks. It's like trying to sit back and hold objectives vs 7th ed scatbikes.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
1. Those Tactical Marines won't do practical damage to your tanks, and honestly if they weren't camping on an objective they wouldn't be targeted. Devastators would be targeted because they're actually dangerous. See the pattern there? You ignore the units that don't matter. 2. That's not swingy. The common loadout here is 5 Marines + Lascannon, which is 90 points. How much is the Scion squad with 2 Plasma Guns and 1-2 Plasma Pistols?
I can't afford plasma on my scions while still simultaneously supporting my big tanks. So it's 90 points of bolters + 2+ save (presumably the objective is in cover) + lascannon vs 50 points of 4 Hot-Shot Lasguns and 3+ save + a Hot-Shot Laspistol or Bolt Pistol. I do have one power sword on one unit, to hit 2000 points flat. I can do the math if you like. To be fair if I were list tailoring I'd not even take the lascannon, since that just makes them more expensive and less good in this scenario. That said, I understand that most TAC lists are going to bring some kind of heavy weapon and a lascannon is fine.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
I don't play vs many superheavy tanks. However, ut seems pretty trivial for you to blow me off the objectives if I don't do something about your tanks. It's like trying to sit back and hold objectives vs 7th ed scatbikes.
It would be if I have LoS. Objective placement before the game is part of the strategy, and if you saw an army like mine I'd hope you'd have the good sense to deploy them out of LoS. That's why I bring scions and not infantry squads (who are cheaper and therefore could get upgrades): most opponents put the objectives in really finnickey places and I have to drop on them rather than just walking upfield.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
1. Those Tactical Marines won't do practical damage to your tanks, and honestly if they weren't camping on an objective they wouldn't be targeted. Devastators would be targeted because they're actually dangerous. See the pattern there? You ignore the units that don't matter.
2. That's not swingy. The common loadout here is 5 Marines + Lascannon, which is 90 points. How much is the Scion squad with 2 Plasma Guns and 1-2 Plasma Pistols?
I can't afford plasma on my scions while still simultaneously supporting my big tanks. So it's 90 points of bolters + 2+ save (presumably the objective is in cover) + lascannon vs 50 points of 4 Hot-Shot Lasguns and 3+ save + a Hot-Shot Laspistol or Bolt Pistol. I do have one power sword on one unit, to hit 2000 points flat. I can do the math if you like. To be fair if I were list tailoring I'd not even take the lascannon, since that just makes them more expensive and less good in this scenario. That said, I understand that most TAC lists are going to bring some kind of heavy weapon and a lascannon is fine.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
I don't play vs many superheavy tanks. However, ut seems pretty trivial for you to blow me off the objectives if I don't do something about your tanks. It's like trying to sit back and hold objectives vs 7th ed scatbikes.
It would be if I have LoS. Objective placement before the game is part of the strategy, and if you saw an army like mine I'd hope you'd have the good sense to deploy them out of LoS. That's why I bring scions and not infantry squads (who are cheaper and therefore could get upgrades): most opponents put the objectives in really finnickey places and I have to drop on them rather than just walking upfield.
So you want to compare 90 points of Tactical Marines to a squad with no upgrades?
Also I don't believe you. You post your list and I'll find room from taking away useless upgrades. They might not be useless to you and they might even be fluffy, but you creating a bad unit is your own fault. You don't HAVE to take the unit like that. If anything, you should make the Scions first and then build the rest of the Tank army.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
1. Those Tactical Marines won't do practical damage to your tanks, and honestly if they weren't camping on an objective they wouldn't be targeted. Devastators would be targeted because they're actually dangerous. See the pattern there? You ignore the units that don't matter. 2. That's not swingy. The common loadout here is 5 Marines + Lascannon, which is 90 points. How much is the Scion squad with 2 Plasma Guns and 1-2 Plasma Pistols?
I can't afford plasma on my scions while still simultaneously supporting my big tanks. So it's 90 points of bolters + 2+ save (presumably the objective is in cover) + lascannon vs 50 points of 4 Hot-Shot Lasguns and 3+ save + a Hot-Shot Laspistol or Bolt Pistol. I do have one power sword on one unit, to hit 2000 points flat. I can do the math if you like. To be fair if I were list tailoring I'd not even take the lascannon, since that just makes them more expensive and less good in this scenario. That said, I understand that most TAC lists are going to bring some kind of heavy weapon and a lascannon is fine.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
I don't play vs many superheavy tanks. However, ut seems pretty trivial for you to blow me off the objectives if I don't do something about your tanks. It's like trying to sit back and hold objectives vs 7th ed scatbikes.
It would be if I have LoS. Objective placement before the game is part of the strategy, and if you saw an army like mine I'd hope you'd have the good sense to deploy them out of LoS. That's why I bring scions and not infantry squads (who are cheaper and therefore could get upgrades): most opponents put the objectives in really finnickey places and I have to drop on them rather than just walking upfield.
So you want to compare 90 points of Tactical Marines to a squad with no upgrades?
Also I don't believe you. You post your list and I'll find room from taking away useless upgrades. They might not be useless to you and they might even be fluffy, but you creating a bad unit is your own fault. You don't HAVE to take the unit like that. If anything, you should make the Scions first and then build the rest of the Tank army.
EDIT: Things are broken at work, gonna write it in.
2nd Concordian ISHTR 5th Company: 2000 points
Super-Heavy Detachment: Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Battalion Detachment: HQ: Primaris Psyker w/ Force Stave 40
Dedicated Transport: Trojan w/ Heavy Bolter, Pintle Storm Bolter 100
Martel732 wrote:You are assuming that putting them out of LoS is even possible. Board conditions seem to be one of the biggest divergences in these discussions.
That's not unsurprising considering how diverse boards can be. Around here we try to get as much LOS blocking terrain as possible in each DZ, and then one piece in the middle, but not much around the sides (ruins, hills, etc rather than full on buildings, monuments, or cliffs).
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's worth noting that the only non-mandatory weaponry in that list are some of the lascannons on the superheavies, the 0-pt tempestor command rod which replaces a 1 pt pistol, the pintle storm bolters (which are super good for their points, like, really good) and the one power sword on the one sergeant.
Wyches become a far better investment when you're running 5 in a raider. My standard troop unit for DE currently is a raider containing 5 wyches with hydra, BP, Ago, and Phantasm, and 5 wracks with electrocorrosive/hexrifle and ossefactor. That fills 2 troop slots, has zero morale issues, puts out a decent amount of hurt on whatever you need it to and still benefits from everything that the wyches have to offer - namely the Hekatrix and No Escape.
When I run a full wych cult army (which surprisingly does work pretty well in an environment that is more thematic/TAC rather than the kind of fluff impaling WAAC tournament lists) I will run that unit as 2x5 wyches, and I've occasionally toyed with Incubi as the killers rather than wracks, but I've become addicted to battalions so wracks are my go-to.
In my wych cult list I run 2x9 wyches with 1 agoniser and 1 blast pistol in raiders, both units joined by a succubus and 3x5 wyches in venoms, also these units with blast pistol and agoniser. Then 2x6 reavers with 2 blasters and talons each and 3 ravagers with dark lances. I know reavers are not amazing and I could run more wyches/scourges/beasts/flyers, maybe another raider with incubi but I love the models, they absolutely fit the theme, and I don't actually own other wyches, the beastpack or any flyers. Hellions are one the units that I hate most, so not an option for me
In a dedicated list wyches could be average/decent I think, but generally speaking they're still terrible. Tac marines, compared to them, are gold
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
1. Those Tactical Marines won't do practical damage to your tanks, and honestly if they weren't camping on an objective they wouldn't be targeted. Devastators would be targeted because they're actually dangerous. See the pattern there? You ignore the units that don't matter.
2. That's not swingy. The common loadout here is 5 Marines + Lascannon, which is 90 points. How much is the Scion squad with 2 Plasma Guns and 1-2 Plasma Pistols?
I can't afford plasma on my scions while still simultaneously supporting my big tanks. So it's 90 points of bolters + 2+ save (presumably the objective is in cover) + lascannon vs 50 points of 4 Hot-Shot Lasguns and 3+ save + a Hot-Shot Laspistol or Bolt Pistol. I do have one power sword on one unit, to hit 2000 points flat. I can do the math if you like. To be fair if I were list tailoring I'd not even take the lascannon, since that just makes them more expensive and less good in this scenario. That said, I understand that most TAC lists are going to bring some kind of heavy weapon and a lascannon is fine.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
I don't play vs many superheavy tanks. However, ut seems pretty trivial for you to blow me off the objectives if I don't do something about your tanks. It's like trying to sit back and hold objectives vs 7th ed scatbikes.
It would be if I have LoS. Objective placement before the game is part of the strategy, and if you saw an army like mine I'd hope you'd have the good sense to deploy them out of LoS. That's why I bring scions and not infantry squads (who are cheaper and therefore could get upgrades): most opponents put the objectives in really finnickey places and I have to drop on them rather than just walking upfield.
So you want to compare 90 points of Tactical Marines to a squad with no upgrades?
Also I don't believe you. You post your list and I'll find room from taking away useless upgrades. They might not be useless to you and they might even be fluffy, but you creating a bad unit is your own fault. You don't HAVE to take the unit like that. If anything, you should make the Scions first and then build the rest of the Tank army.
EDIT: Things are broken at work, gonna write it in.
2nd Concordian ISHTR 5th Company: 2000 points
Super-Heavy Detachment: Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Battalion Detachment: HQ: Primaris Psyker w/ Force Stave 40
Dedicated Transport: Trojan w/ Heavy Bolter, Pintle Storm Bolter 100
Martel732 wrote:You are assuming that putting them out of LoS is even possible. Board conditions seem to be one of the biggest divergences in these discussions.
That's not unsurprising considering how diverse boards can be. Around here we try to get as much LOS blocking terrain as possible in each DZ, and then one piece in the middle, but not much around the sides (ruins, hills, etc rather than full on buildings, monuments, or cliffs).
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's worth noting that the only non-mandatory weaponry in that list are some of the lascannons on the superheavies, the 0-pt tempestor command rod which replaces a 1 pt pistol, the pintle storm bolters (which are super good for their points, like, really good) and the one power sword on the one sergeant.
I'll be back home in a few hours so I can get to work on that. However the initial standout is the Trojan, which I know nothing of the rules.
Wyches become a far better investment when you're running 5 in a raider. My standard troop unit for DE currently is a raider containing 5 wyches with hydra, BP, Ago, and Phantasm, and 5 wracks with electrocorrosive/hexrifle and ossefactor. That fills 2 troop slots, has zero morale issues, puts out a decent amount of hurt on whatever you need it to and still benefits from everything that the wyches have to offer - namely the Hekatrix and No Escape.
When I run a full wych cult army (which surprisingly does work pretty well in an environment that is more thematic/TAC rather than the kind of fluff impaling WAAC tournament lists) I will run that unit as 2x5 wyches, and I've occasionally toyed with Incubi as the killers rather than wracks, but I've become addicted to battalions so wracks are my go-to.
In my wych cult list I run 2x9 wyches with 1 agoniser and 1 blast pistol in raiders, both units joined by a succubus and 3x5 wyches in venoms, also these units with blast pistol and agoniser. Then 2x6 reavers with 2 blasters and talons each and 3 ravagers with dark lances. I know reavers are not amazing and I could run more wyches/scourges/beasts/flyers, maybe another raider with incubi but I love the models, they absolutely fit the theme, and I don't actually own other wyches, the beastpack or any flyers. Hellions are one the units that I hate most, so not an option for me
In a dedicated list wyches could be average/decent I think, but generally speaking they're still terrible. Tac marines, compared to them, are gold
Tac marines also seem terrible when you run them as a 9 man squad with a flamer in a rhino with a captain. You can make the best units in the game seem terrible if you run them with the wrong composition. (I'm not saying wyches are anywhere near the best troops, they have the narrowest niche out of our three, but they can work)
Your list isn't terrible but for the 5-wych squads in the venoms, that's a waste. Our cheaper troop units should be run 2x5 in a raider almost every time, with the possible exception of a dedicated strength drug wych squad at 10-man to get the three hydras and a power sword 'trix. With all our other footslogging units, the benefit for 10 usually doesn't beat out 2x5, and 9 is generally horrible because specials and sarges carry our units for the most part.
You have 3 heavy supports already, you can split a squad of reavers for 3 FAs, elites are dirt cheap to get into with Beastmasters or a couple ridealong Sslyths, maybe a venomful of incubi. You can easily get to a battalion by going to 6x wych squads in 3x Raiders, a venom for both Succubi, and maybe a second venom for some incubi. You'll re-evaluate the mileage you get out of wyches when each raiderful gets double the hydra gauntlets and double the hekatrixes.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'll be back home in a few hours so I can get to work on that. However the initial standout is the Trojan, which I know nothing of the rules.
The Trojan gives a single <Regiment> vehicle within 6" re-rolls on failed rolls to hit. (For guard that means any 1-3s)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'll be back home in a few hours so I can get to work on that. However the initial standout is the Trojan, which I know nothing of the rules.
The Trojan gives a single <Regiment> vehicle within 6" re-rolls on failed rolls to hit. (For guard that means any 1-3s)
That makes more sense to use two of in that case but I'll provide my take after this damned conference call.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I'll be back home in a few hours so I can get to work on that. However the initial standout is the Trojan, which I know nothing of the rules.
The Trojan gives a single <Regiment> vehicle within 6" re-rolls on failed rolls to hit. (For guard that means any 1-3s)
That makes more sense to use two of in that case but I'll provide my take after this damned conference call.
Sadly I don't own two, but I plan on replacing the Salamander with it when I can.
Sumilidon wrote: Bloodletters are the worst. Squishy, no transport options, unreliable summoning (also not fluffy if you do summon) etc.
Only positive is that they are easy to paint.
I mean the summoning is super reliable, you have a 1/216 chance to not summon a minimum sized unit. You have ~84% chance of summoning 20
...and a zero percent chance if they kill the summoner.
So you take multiple characters than can summon, and characters are pretty hard to kill. If you lose all your characters prior to summoning something has gone horribly wrong.
Sumilidon wrote: Bloodletters are the worst. Squishy, no transport options, unreliable summoning (also not fluffy if you do summon) etc.
Only positive is that they are easy to paint.
I mean the summoning is super reliable, you have a 1/216 chance to not summon a minimum sized unit. You have ~84% chance of summoning 20
...and a zero percent chance if they kill the summoner.
So you take multiple characters than can summon, and characters are pretty hard to kill. If you lose all your characters prior to summoning something has gone horribly wrong.
Ok so you need to take several characters to summon your squishy daemons so that the character doesn't die doing so.
Beyond summoning, Bloodletters are still the worst troops in my opinion.
It seems a common sentiment on dakka is: "my own units are the worst in the game. I'm actually the best player in the world, I only lose because my units are terrible."
ross-128 wrote: It seems a common sentiment on dakka is: "my own units are the worst in the game. I'm actually the best player in the world, I only lose because my units are terrible."
+1 to this.
I think the problem is that many people only ever play with a single faction. It's quite difficult to get a decent understanding of an army from only one side of the table. It really helps to experience it from both.
Your list isn't terrible but for the 5-wych squads in the venoms, that's a waste. Our cheaper troop units should be run 2x5 in a raider almost every time, with the possible exception of a dedicated strength drug wych squad at 10-man to get the three hydras and a power sword 'trix. With all our other footslogging units, the benefit for 10 usually doesn't beat out 2x5, and 9 is generally horrible because specials and sarges carry our units for the most part.
You have 3 heavy supports already, you can split a squad of reavers for 3 FAs, elites are dirt cheap to get into with Beastmasters or a couple ridealong Sslyths, maybe a venomful of incubi. You can easily get to a battalion by going to 6x wych squads in 3x Raiders, a venom for both Succubi, and maybe a second venom for some incubi. You'll re-evaluate the mileage you get out of wyches when each raiderful gets double the hydra gauntlets and double the hekatrixes.
Thanks for the input. My list is basically a fun list since I have a general drukhari army, not really a wych cult one and with only 2 raiders and 5 venoms I don't have that many choices. Sometimes I play it only for the fun of it but I know it's not even remotely competitive. The units of 9 are there because I put the succubus with them, as they're the only HQs that fit the theme and I never thought of running them alone. Incubi and sslyths could work well but I wanted only units related to the wych cult, those ones that can have the keyword. I may add beasts, flyers or hellions.
I've never tried wyches in general drukhari lists though, I only have 30ish of them because I love the models.
ross-128 wrote: It seems a common sentiment on dakka is: "my own units are the worst in the game. I'm actually the best player in the world, I only lose because my units are terrible."
I don't really think that, and most of my opinion on this matter is from facing other tac marines. They're just not something I have to plan for, think about, or game against. I base a lot off my very lopsided win rates against various factions in various editions.
ross-128 wrote: It seems a common sentiment on dakka is: "my own units are the worst in the game. I'm actually the best player in the world, I only lose because my units are terrible."
I don't really think that, and most of my opinion on this matter is from facing other tac marines. They're just not something I have to plan for, think about, or game against.
This rings false to me, as every time I hear about the effectiveness of a unit, it's calculated in the number of marines it is able to kill in a turn. I'm sure you've mathhammered plenty of units in the past, so you probably know (if only by default) how each of them will fare against marines more than any other opponent, because it's the yardstick that everyone seems to use as an average.
Sure, there's also GEQ and TEQ, but they're basically the Marine -1 and +1.
So marines are held up as the average in toughness. Except actually there's not many things that are MEQ, that I can think of offhand. There's a lot of GEQ (Orks and Eldar both fit more into this category than compared to marines).
There's a big difference between meqs and tac marines. There ARE meq units I care about. Although in 8th, I'm way more interested in mowing down geqs. People still using marines as a yardstick are stuck in the past. Most weapons in 8th are quite efficient vs marines; you don't even have to do math.
The overall debate still boils down to paying 13 pts to do nothing or paying less to do nothing. I'd rather pay less, but I can't entertain another army for at least 3 years.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean, I run Lords of War as my "Troops" and I pay something like 28 pts per wound done to tactical marines.
Tactical marines pay fewer points per wound done to other tactical marines.
Baneblades are worse troops than tactical marines.
That's only one metric. Lots of weapons that lay waste to marines can't do jack to a baneblade. Again, the issue is more complex than any single metric. It's the poor firepower, PLUS the pricetag, PLUS the meta, PLUS the inefficient stats, PLUS the buff to hordes, PLUS the price of the weapon upgrades, PLUS the degredation of 3+ saves. Every edition has a similar, yet different set of metrics that combine to make tacs pure garbage.
ross-128 wrote: It seems a common sentiment on dakka is: "my own units are the worst in the game. I'm actually the best player in the world, I only lose because my units are terrible."
I don't really think that, and most of my opinion on this matter is from facing other tac marines. They're just not something I have to plan for, think about, or game against.
This rings false to me, as every time I hear about the effectiveness of a unit, it's calculated in the number of marines it is able to kill in a turn. I'm sure you've mathhammered plenty of units in the past, so you probably know (if only by default) how each of them will fare against marines more than any other opponent, because it's the yardstick that everyone seems to use as an average.
Sure, there's also GEQ and TEQ, but they're basically the Marine -1 and +1.
So marines are held up as the average in toughness. Except actually there's not many things that are MEQ, that I can think of offhand. There's a lot of GEQ (Orks and Eldar both fit more into this category than compared to marines).
Tactical Marines are the usual MEQ you calculate against because newer players gravitate towards Marines, and ergo bring the stereotype units. Against competitive players you calculate against things like, for example, how quickly you can kill a Razorback.
ross-128 wrote: It seems a common sentiment on dakka is: "my own units are the worst in the game. I'm actually the best player in the world, I only lose because my units are terrible."
Well, for my CSM I have units ranging from quite good (some cult troops) to okay (cultists, other cult troops) to fairly bad (CSM squads).
For Admech though, I would actually say our troop choices are kinda bad. I mean, the awful morale that we can't even patch easily is bad enough, but they are overpriced for what they do as well. Mostly decent for ranger snipers, otherwise I look to allies for my battalion filling and obj secured needs.
I don't think there's a single person that's said ork boyz are bad, and in the case of grots there's actually comparable units in other codex you can judge them by.
Bloodletters are absolutely not the worst troop. By far. A 7 pt model that gives 5S and 2A on the charge OR when they get charged. 5++ and a power sword. All for 7 points a model? You don't footslog them, you summon them and they aren't hard to. I'd go so far as to say they are going to be a hidden gem when people start summoning more with the new CSM codex.
Hoodwink wrote: Bloodletters are absolutely not the worst troop. By far. A 7 pt model that gives 5S and 2A on the charge OR when they get charged. 5++ and a power sword. All for 7 points a model? You don't footslog them, you summon them and they aren't hard to. I'd go so far as to say they are going to be a hidden gem when people start summoning more with the new CSM codex.
I 2nd this, for 4points more than a cultist with dbl the killing power and a 5++ they are good, i own 40 of them and i never taught in any games they were a waste, even when a whole unit times but they are 9pt not 7 (iirc correctly)
Your list isn't terrible but for the 5-wych squads in the venoms, that's a waste. Our cheaper troop units should be run 2x5 in a raider almost every time, with the possible exception of a dedicated strength drug wych squad at 10-man to get the three hydras and a power sword 'trix. With all our other footslogging units, the benefit for 10 usually doesn't beat out 2x5, and 9 is generally horrible because specials and sarges carry our units for the most part.
You have 3 heavy supports already, you can split a squad of reavers for 3 FAs, elites are dirt cheap to get into with Beastmasters or a couple ridealong Sslyths, maybe a venomful of incubi. You can easily get to a battalion by going to 6x wych squads in 3x Raiders, a venom for both Succubi, and maybe a second venom for some incubi. You'll re-evaluate the mileage you get out of wyches when each raiderful gets double the hydra gauntlets and double the hekatrixes.
Thanks for the input. My list is basically a fun list since I have a general drukhari army, not really a wych cult one and with only 2 raiders and 5 venoms I don't have that many choices. Sometimes I play it only for the fun of it but I know it's not even remotely competitive. The units of 9 are there because I put the succubus with them, as they're the only HQs that fit the theme and I never thought of running them alone. Incubi and sslyths could work well but I wanted only units related to the wych cult, those ones that can have the keyword. I may add beasts, flyers or hellions.
I've never tried wyches in general drukhari lists though, I only have 30ish of them because I love the models.
I don't really run them alone, I run them together, with my goal being to have ~6 power levels in any given transport (I just use it as a rough estimate, I'm not playing exclusively narrative games). If you give your opponent any more than that, that's the transport they're going to beat down.
The other, super-cheap option is just to take a succubus on foot and give her the move drugs. The only other unit that uses them particularly well is hellions, which you're not taking, and with move drugs the succubus can pretty much keep up with the transports and the character rule and her 4++ protects her fairly well.
The thing with the wych vs warrior comparison that you're bound to make is that it's a lot easier to see the impact of a warrior unit. they basically get double the firepower of an equivalent unit of wyches - rapid fire 1 instead of pistol 1, and 2 blast shots instead of 1. what they lose is 1 attack, No Escape and Dodge, which its harder to see the impact of in game. Couple that with assault being much more technical in 8th than shooting, where the difference between positioning your models perfectly to box off a tank instead of just charging without thinking about it is a very big deal, and the conclusion of "wyches and wracks suck, warriors are the only choice that's good" is an easy one to make.
Hoodwink wrote: Bloodletters are absolutely not the worst troop. By far. A 7 pt model that gives 5S and 2A on the charge OR when they get charged. 5++ and a power sword. All for 7 points a model? You don't footslog them, you summon them and they aren't hard to. I'd go so far as to say they are going to be a hidden gem when people start summoning more with the new CSM codex.
I 2nd this, for 4points more than a cultist with dbl the killing power and a 5++ they are good, i own 40 of them and i never taught in any games they were a waste, even when a whole unit times but they are 9pt not 7 (iirc correctly)
They got a points drop in the newest Chaos Space Marine codex.
The thing with the wych vs warrior comparison that you're bound to make is that it's a lot easier to see the impact of a warrior unit. they basically get double the firepower of an equivalent unit of wyches - rapid fire 1 instead of pistol 1, and 2 blast shots instead of 1. what they lose is 1 attack, No Escape and Dodge, which its harder to see the impact of in game. Couple that with assault being much more technical in 8th than shooting, where the difference between positioning your models perfectly to box off a tank instead of just charging without thinking about it is a very big deal, and the conclusion of "wyches and wracks suck, warriors are the only choice that's good" is an easy one to make.
But do Wracks really not look good? I think they do -- cheap, T5 (with the Haemy, and why not have one if you're bringing Wracks?) objective holders/tarpitters. I think they're underrated (Covens stuff in general seems strong, with the exception of the pain engines, and even the Talos isn't bad)
The thing with the wych vs warrior comparison that you're bound to make is that it's a lot easier to see the impact of a warrior unit. they basically get double the firepower of an equivalent unit of wyches - rapid fire 1 instead of pistol 1, and 2 blast shots instead of 1. what they lose is 1 attack, No Escape and Dodge, which its harder to see the impact of in game. Couple that with assault being much more technical in 8th than shooting, where the difference between positioning your models perfectly to box off a tank instead of just charging without thinking about it is a very big deal, and the conclusion of "wyches and wracks suck, warriors are the only choice that's good" is an easy one to make.
But do Wracks really not look good? I think they do -- cheap, T5 (with the Haemy, and why not have one if you're bringing Wracks?) objective holders/tarpitters. I think they're underrated (Covens stuff in general seems strong, with the exception of the pain engines, and even the Talos isn't bad)
Wyches have a role and that role is not always in every game, a Warrior can out shine a Wych easily due to 24" range shooting and still some melee, Wyches melee is equal to their points.... cheap.
But there are 2 problems (one we already said, Lack of damage) and the other problem is that their role.... a melee unit to tie up more important units aka No Escape/4++ is almost all but worthless in 8th for DE.
We have Wracks, Incubi, Claw Fiends etc... that can and will kill 2x if not 3x the amount that a wych can do, also b.c DE has a HUGE amount of D6 and 2D shooting, you dont need to tie up units like Terminators, a Ravager with Dis Cannons (9 S5 AP-3 2D shots) for 185pts can kill a 200pt+ termi unit from 36".
Wracks on the other hand has same amount of attacks, a better agoniser, T4 or T5, no pistols but can take flamers or Ossefactors (for mortal Wounds) i've had Wracks kill MC's where Wyches only stalled them.
Wyches are bad, plain and simple, are they the worst Troop? I dont know but they are darn close to it.
As a long time DE player, i hate Wyches so much atm for 3 Reason.
1) They lost the 2nd melee weapon per 5
2) Their HQ doesnt buff them at all
3) The Elite version can no longer take all special weapons like Trueborns can.
When it comes to DE honestly Trueborns are just 100% better than all 3 troops, 2 attack base, 4 speical weapons, 2 heavy weapons and the sargent can have many options. You can tailor them for AI, AT, short range, long range and even the sarget can have 3 poison -2ap attacks.
Edit: IMO to fix Wyches they only need 2 things; 2 weapons per 5 (and the sarget so a total of 3 per 5 and 4 per 10), 1pt cheaper and Bloodbrides needs to be able to have 5 weapons again.
The thing with the wych vs warrior comparison that you're bound to make is that it's a lot easier to see the impact of a warrior unit. they basically get double the firepower of an equivalent unit of wyches - rapid fire 1 instead of pistol 1, and 2 blast shots instead of 1. what they lose is 1 attack, No Escape and Dodge, which its harder to see the impact of in game. Couple that with assault being much more technical in 8th than shooting, where the difference between positioning your models perfectly to box off a tank instead of just charging without thinking about it is a very big deal, and the conclusion of "wyches and wracks suck, warriors are the only choice that's good" is an easy one to make.
But do Wracks really not look good? I think they do -- cheap, T5 (with the Haemy, and why not have one if you're bringing Wracks?) objective holders/tarpitters. I think they're underrated (Covens stuff in general seems strong, with the exception of the pain engines, and even the Talos isn't bad)
Wyches have a role and that role is not always in every game, a Warrior can out shine a Wych easily due to 24" range shooting and still some melee, Wyches melee is equal to their points.... cheap.
But there are 2 problems (one we already said, Lack of damage) and the other problem is that their role.... a melee unit to tie up more important units aka No Escape/4++ is almost all but worthless in 8th for DE.
We have Wracks, Incubi, Claw Fiends etc... that can and will kill 2x if not 3x the amount that a wych can do, also b.c DE has a HUGE amount of D6 and 2D shooting, you dont need to tie up units like Terminators, a Ravager with Dis Cannons (9 S5 AP-3 2D shots) for 185pts can kill a 200pt+ termi unit from 36".
Wracks on the other hand has same amount of attacks, a better agoniser, T4 or T5, no pistols but can take flamers or Ossefactors (for mortal Wounds) i've had Wracks kill MC's where Wyches only stalled them.
Wyches are bad, plain and simple, are they the worst Troop? I dont know but they are darn close to it.
As a long time DE player, i hate Wyches so much atm for 3 Reason.
1) They lost the 2nd melee weapon per 5
2) Their HQ doesnt buff them at all
3) The Elite version can no longer take all special weapons like Trueborns can.
When it comes to DE honestly Trueborns are just 100% better than all 3 troops, 2 attack base, 4 speical weapons, 2 heavy weapons and the sargent can have many options. You can tailor them for AI, AT, short range, long range and even the sarget can have 3 poison -2ap attacks.
Edit: IMO to fix Wyches they only need 2 things; 2 weapons per 5 (and the sarget so a total of 3 per 5 and 4 per 10), 1pt cheaper and Bloodbrides needs to be able to have 5 weapons again.
To be a really good, bread-and-butter troop you can use as the core of an army, yeah, they need a boost. But, unlike other really bad troop units that you shouldn't ever see on the table (think Storm Guardians, Intercessors, GSC Acolytes, IG Infantry Squads, Hormagants, Kataphron Breachers) there is a reason to take them over the alternatives - it's just that the benefit they provide is too niche for them to be a good basic troop. Rather than giving them No Escape, I'd rather have seen them give them something to differentiate them from the beefier, blunt force wracks - maybe make them REALLY fast, like base move 10", or give them A3 to make them an anti-horde blender unit, or give them some kind of "disarm" ability to double down on their "neuter and tie up elites" role. Base point reduction and more special weapons will help, but I don't think it'll ultimately solve the problem that they have which is being a niche elite unit in the troop role.
If you finagle exactly one wych model into a conscript blob, you've got No Escape. And there are likely only 1-2 really good targets on the board you want to use No Escape against. But, on the other hand, that ability is likely to bring you some benefit.
Wracks are mathematically superior to wyches in combat (except in edge cases with certain combat drugs) and more durable on average. That's why it makes sense to run the remaining 5 slots in the raider as Wracks instead of additional wyches in most cases, which also gets you the two better special weapons. But even if you're playing for an optimized list, there is a reason to include a min-sized wych squad or two if you think you're likely to face certain opposing lists. That's not something you can say for any of the other units I've listed for the most part, so they're disqualified from being the worst troop.
Spoiler:
as a side note, what is it with people and this weird level of misinformation when it comes to complaining about wyches? Their HQ absolutely does buff them, the succubus gives them rerolls of 1 in the fight phase. People also always forget combat drugs - if you're not playing a full wych cult army, you're very likely to have your pick of what drugs are good in which situation, so if you're going to compare them to wracks, you have to consider that they could be (if you wanted) move 10", or A2, or S4. You are going to pay for flexibility, and when your opponent has a couple tanks you want to be able to encircle with your chaff melee unit, or you find you're up against a lot of T3 models where the extra attack will come in handy, it is good to have a flexible unit that can make good use of the drugs.
H-gants, well i play Nids too and i would take H gants over Wyches, they are cheaper faster and same attacks, they also pile in 6" so they can consume another unit much easier, also given the Swarmload and other powers you can get a turn 1 charge with them if your lucky, you can also DS them with a Trygon.
There better options for H-gants over Wyches.
Also No-escape is neat and all, but conscripts is the worst idea for them mass hits is what kills Wyches in melee, Wyches are better to fight something with low high power good ap attacks or low attacks and high shooting, examples: Tau suits/Ghosts, terminators, Dakka Fex's etc... Things that dont hit wyches a lot, sadly many of those units are not Infantry but many are, like Noise Marines or Devastators, Attack bikes etc...
Edit: Succubus are actually good, their ability tho compare to many others is lack luster, yes re-rolls of 1 is fine, Honestly Drazhar and Archon are TERRIBLE abilities. I take Succubus over both of them every game, I normally run 1 succubus and 1 Haemonculus, but the Succubus ability normally never see's play, even with her 5man escort unit, i normally only get 1 or 2 re-rolls at best.
Edit 2: Compare her to a Troupe Master or a Canoness and you'll see what i mean. Troupe Master: Re-roll all fail wounds, Canoness: re-roll all hits of 1. Everything about the Troupe Master is better.
What's wrong with IG infantry squads? They're a nice dependable unit that you can use as the foundation for an army. They hold objectives reasonably well, can hide an expensive heavy weapon behind a bunch of 4-point wounds, fit neatly in transports alongside their officer, and provide a decent number of BS4+ lasguns to use FRFSRF on and their leadership is just high enough relative to their squad size that a commissar isn't quite mandatory (though still very nice to have). They're a solid, reasonably flexible workhorse unit.
They're also the cheapeslt way to fill a troops slot, due to conscripts having a min squad size of 20.
Sure, losing the ability to form 50 man blobs was painful and the sergeant's inability to take a lasgun is annoying, but I wouldn't call them bad.
I would call a unit a "bad unit" if in-faction, there was no reason to take them at all.
Hormagants: Give me a reason to take them over genestealers or termagants
Infantry squad: Give me a reason to take them over Scions or Conscripts
Kataphron Breachers: Why take them over Destroyers (which also suck, but have more reason to exist)
If you're looking for who's the worst, you've got to be looking at who's going to see the least play, and that's basically going to be a call between the handful of units who offer absolutely no reason to take them over the in-faction alternatives.
From there, you can say "but why would I take space marines when I could take guardsmen and be in-faction imperium" but you have to keep in mind you already lose obsec for everybody if you do that, and you lose subfaction benefits for any faction that has them.
In my eyes, if there is a reason to put a unit on the board, then it cannot be the worst troop if there are alternatives for whom there is no reason to field them at all.
Worst of the worst of the worst I'd argue Kataphron Breachers. Just a pitiful unit right now, and they add insult to injury in that they're not even good at filling a slot because they cost so damn much.
When to take infantry squads over conscripts or scions: when you want a unit that is basically conscripts, but it can take a lascannon and have a decent chance of hitting something with it.
ross-128 wrote: When to take infantry squads over conscripts or scions: when you want a unit that is basically conscripts, but it can take a lascannon and have a decent chance of hitting something with it.
It's a BS4+ Lascannon though. I'm not saying Infantry squads are bad but Conscripts and Scions cover everything ya know?
the_scotsman wrote: I would call a unit a "bad unit" if in-faction, there was no reason to take them at all.
Hormagants: Give me a reason to take them over genestealers or termagants
Infantry squad: Give me a reason to take them over Scions or Conscripts
Kataphron Breachers: Why take them over Destroyers (which also suck, but have more reason to exist)
If you're looking for who's the worst, you've got to be looking at who's going to see the least play, and that's basically going to be a call between the handful of units who offer absolutely no reason to take them over the in-faction alternatives.
From there, you can say "but why would I take space marines when I could take guardsmen and be in-faction imperium" but you have to keep in mind you already lose obsec for everybody if you do that, and you lose subfaction benefits for any faction that has them.
In my eyes, if there is a reason to put a unit on the board, then it cannot be the worst troop if there are alternatives for whom there is no reason to field them at all.
Worst of the worst of the worst I'd argue Kataphron Breachers. Just a pitiful unit right now, and they add insult to injury in that they're not even good at filling a slot because they cost so damn much.
Hormagaunts - Yep
Infantry squads - Yep
Breachers - Nah - they are about even with destroyers. 3+ save really helps them compared to a 4+. Heavy Arc Rifle is pretty BA.
Intercessors - The best troop space marines have to offer.
the_scotsman wrote: I would call a unit a "bad unit" if in-faction, there was no reason to take them at all.
Hormagants: Give me a reason to take them over genestealers or termagants
Infantry squad: Give me a reason to take them over Scions or Conscripts
Kataphron Breachers: Why take them over Destroyers (which also suck, but have more reason to exist)
If you're looking for who's the worst, you've got to be looking at who's going to see the least play, and that's basically going to be a call between the handful of units who offer absolutely no reason to take them over the in-faction alternatives.
From there, you can say "but why would I take space marines when I could take guardsmen and be in-faction imperium" but you have to keep in mind you already lose obsec for everybody if you do that, and you lose subfaction benefits for any faction that has them.
In my eyes, if there is a reason to put a unit on the board, then it cannot be the worst troop if there are alternatives for whom there is no reason to field them at all.
Worst of the worst of the worst I'd argue Kataphron Breachers. Just a pitiful unit right now, and they add insult to injury in that they're not even good at filling a slot because they cost so damn much.
Worst in the game not compare 1 unit in athe same codex to another unit.
Can we make a poll? I think most would agree - Dire Avengers followed closely by Gardians are 1 and 2. 3rd I'd say space marine tacticals - however some might not agree on this.
the_scotsman wrote: I would call a unit a "bad unit" if in-faction, there was no reason to take them at all.
Hormagants: Give me a reason to take them over genestealers or termagants
6" pile in/consolidation, and cheap point cost. They're great at dragging additional units into a combat, and encircling models to stop them from falling back.
Yes, they're rather pathetic at actually killing things, but their job is instead to lock stuff down and tarpit for a couple of turns until the genestealers move in to mop up.
It's not a job that's always needed, but in 1.5k or higher games I can usually spare the points for a unit of them.
I have loved them since 2nd edition (conceptually anyway, getting them to stay standing up was a challenge) but the problem with hormagaunts is similar to wyches. There is not much point trying to tie things up. That is points that could have been spent on killing stuff.
You are putting a lot of contrivances together when "just send in something that kills whatever it contacts" is a better approach.
I don't see how say a squad of 30 gaunts and 15 genestealers is materially better than say two squads of 15 genestealers. The genestealers are dramatically better in combat, and while point for point they are a bit more vulnerable to shooting its not dramatic against S3 and S4 attacks.
the_scotsman wrote: I would call a unit a "bad unit" if in-faction, there was no reason to take them at all.
Hormagants: Give me a reason to take them over genestealers or termagants
6" pile in/consolidation, and cheap point cost. They're great at dragging additional units into a combat, and encircling models to stop them from falling back.
Yes, they're rather pathetic at actually killing things, but their job is instead to lock stuff down and tarpit for a couple of turns until the genestealers move in to mop up.
It's not a job that's always needed, but in 1.5k or higher games I can usually spare the points for a unit of them.
I literally stated this before be said this so i felt it was pointless to add b.c he wants h-gants to be a bad pick it seems.
Few units in the game is better than hormagaunts at sorrunding and blocking the disembark from transports. You charge the transport with some hormagaunts, then you charge the transport with some genestealers. Then you select the hormagaunts to fight first, using their pile-in to move around the transport, then fight, and then consolidate fully around it in two ranks. Then you use the genestealers to pop the rhino, killing all hands because there are no room to disembark. You can do it with Ork boyz as well, but the hormagaunt + genestealer combo is better.
Xenomancers wrote: Can we make a poll? I think most would agree - Dire Avengers followed closely by Gardians are 1 and 2. 3rd I'd say space marine tacticals - however some might not agree on this.
Yeah, I'd take tac marines over primaris everytime. But I'm considering the debate from my perspective, which is a SW player one, not a SM one. I've never seen intercessors in SW lists, even in casual ones. Only 1-2 lists with hellblasters. Grey hunters and blood claws are extremely common instead, not only in casual games but in many competitive lists. I still can't really see a huge difference between SW marines and vanilla ones. The only difference I can see is that SM have 1000+ more options than SW, and that makes tac marines just an average or mediocre choice, since they have tons of alternatives.
No one considers orks boyz bad, in fact many players put them along the best troops in the game. I'm an ork player and I disagree about that since ork boyz can be good only if you bring a list with at least 1500 points of them including their buffing characters. To let the boyz do something I'm forced to build a list around them or to invest tons of points for them, their transports or/and their buffing charcaters. A unit of 30 boyz can be deleted in a single turn quite easily unless they're part of a green tide. And the green tide has many nemesis and hard counters, starting with flyers. Really, ork boyz look good only because the rest of the codex is pure garbage, at super competitive levels, with the exception of their buffing characters and a couple of other units that are nothing more than faster boyz and sneaky boyz. In any mixed list with 90 boyz and other different stuff they'll do nothing against a competitive opponent.
I'd never say that boyz are bad but if they are top 5 and SM tacticals are bottom 3, IMHO there's something wrong in these ratings. 1 tac marine is better than 2 orks pretty much everytime unless, as I said before, you consider a list with only (or mostly with) ork boyz plus buffing characters.
Blackie wrote: 1 tac marine is better than 2 orks pretty much everytime unless, as I said before, you consider a list with only (or mostly with) ork boyz plus buffing characters.
Really? What makes you say that?
Two shootaboyz has the same damage output as a tac-marine out to 12", and they have double the damage output from 12-18", while the tac-marine is best from 18-24". In close combat the two shoota boyz has 4x the damage out put of the tac marine, and while the tac marine is more survivable against anything AP 0, the shoota-boyz are more survivable against AP-2 or better. I think tac-marines are fine, but boyz are better in almost any scenario. They can shoot as well as tac-marines, they are much choppier and they are only slightly more fragile and slightly slower. That boyz only really has synergy with characters and more boyz has as much to do with the way cover saves work in 40k as it has to do with the index (which admittedly is pretty lacking)
In my ork lists, because I get free rerolls on my charge rolls anyway, and because at BS5+ I'm unlikely to get mileage out of most other rerolls, I just don't run troops at all. Boyz are good but as mentioned you need to make your whole list around them for it to be actually good.
Xenomancers wrote: Can we make a poll? I think most would agree - Dire Avengers followed closely by Gardians are 1 and 2. 3rd I'd say space marine tacticals - however some might not agree on this.
Yeah, I'd take tac marines over primaris everytime. But I'm considering the debate from my perspective, which is a SW player one, not a SM one. I've never seen intercessors in SW lists, even in casual ones. Only 1-2 lists with hellblasters. Grey hunters and blood claws are extremely common instead, not only in casual games but in many competitive lists. I still can't really see a huge difference between SW marines and vanilla ones. The only difference I can see is that SM have 1000+ more options than SW, and that makes tac marines just an average or mediocre choice, since they have tons of alternatives.
No one considers orks boyz bad, in fact many players put them along the best troops in the game. I'm an ork player and I disagree about that since ork boyz can be good only if you bring a list with at least 1500 points of them including their buffing characters. To let the boyz do something I'm forced to build a list around them or to invest tons of points for them, their transports or/and their buffing charcaters. A unit of 30 boyz can be deleted in a single turn quite easily unless they're part of a green tide. And the green tide has many nemesis and hard counters, starting with flyers. Really, ork boyz look good only because the rest of the codex is pure garbage, at super competitive levels, with the exception of their buffing characters and a couple of other units that are nothing more than faster boyz and sneaky boyz. In any mixed list with 90 boyz and other different stuff they'll do nothing against a competitive opponent.
I'd never say that boyz are bad but if they are top 5 and SM tacticals are bottom 3, IMHO there's something wrong in these ratings. 1 tac marine is better than 2 orks pretty much everytime unless, as I said before, you consider a list with only (or mostly with) ork boyz plus buffing characters.
I don't think ork boys are top 5. I don't think you can call anything with a 6+ save for 6 points top 5. A 30 man boys unit is actually pretty terrible on it's own. If you take 3-6 of them - some with make it and do a ton of damage so you can build around that. It doesn't matter if you take 5 or 40 tactical marines - they are going to do trash damage no matter what and die a lot faster than mass boys will on top of it. Grey hunters have always been a better choice than tactical marines - however they are still pretty crappy in this edition. Intercessors - while far from great are much tougher per point and are better in most situations vs most targets in shooting - always better in CC - and always cheaper to feild with their optimal builds. This allows you to take better things for those saved points.
