sossen wrote: Surprising to see that many tac squads, would love to see other lists and battle reports/video links.
And here after reading Dakka Dakka I assumed Tact squads were utter garbage beyond even casual contempt by fellow dakkanauts
Man but those Tac haters know best, just look at all their trophies
And I'll even give them that Tac, without OP buff-sticks like Guilliman are underwhelming, but so many units are like that in 40k... this is the TCG era, where you can't see a unit alone, you need to see the sinergies between them. Just like Magic, you need to form "combos", not just take units that are good by themselves.
Roboute Guilliman lists have been strong since 8th dropped. This isn't news.
You don't see Grey Knights on that list (and they have a codex), you don't see Blood Angels on that list, you don't see Space Wolves on that list, you don't see anything besides Ultramarines on that list, solely because of Guilliman.
Everyone screams Guilliman is overpowered, but without him, marines are garbage. Just look at the other factions for proof.
Marmatag wrote: Roboute Guilliman lists have been strong since 8th dropped. This isn't news.
You don't see Grey Knights on that list (and they have a codex), you don't see Blood Angels on that list, you don't see Space Wolves on that list, you don't see anything besides Ultramarines on that list, solely because of Guilliman.
Everyone screams Guilliman is overpowered, but without him, marines are garbage. Just look at the other factions for proof.
I don't disagree that Guilliman is really powerful, but I thought the 2nd place SM was Raven Guard? ...and Blood Angels and Space Wolves are terrible examples because they still use the Index, while Grey Knights are kind of on a branch of their own. I don't believe you are being truly objective here.
Yeah, it's more of the "wah wah wah marines suck, ignore all the wins we get they don't count wah" nonsense taht's been going on as long as the hobby's existed. I remember people arguing Jaws of the World Wolf wasn't overpowered when it first came out, kek...
sossen wrote: Surprising to see that many tac squads, would love to see other lists and battle reports/video links.
And here after reading Dakka Dakka I assumed Tact squads were utter garbage beyond even casual contempt by fellow dakkanauts
Yeah never read the General Discussion forums for tactical advice. A cursory glance at most of the complains (especially ones with hyperboles) will show that they probably never even read the rules, much less actually faced/used the thing on the board.
Marmatag wrote: Roboute Guilliman lists have been strong since 8th dropped. This isn't news.
You don't see Grey Knights on that list (and they have a codex), you don't see Blood Angels on that list, you don't see Space Wolves on that list, you don't see anything besides Ultramarines on that list, solely because of Guilliman.
Everyone screams Guilliman is overpowered, but without him, marines are garbage. Just look at the other factions for proof.
I don't disagree that Guilliman is really powerful, but I thought the 2nd place SM was Raven Guard? ...and Blood Angels and Space Wolves are terrible examples because they still use the Index, while Grey Knights are kind of on a branch of their own. I don't believe you are being truly objective here.
Objective about what?
Things I stated are objective facts:
Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and other successor chapters are very underrepresented in all leaderboards, for this tournament and in a much larger, and more meaningful sample. That's not bias, that's a fact.
Guilliman is powerful. This is a pretty clear and objective fact.
And stop this "they don't have a codex yet" argument. It's invalid. Until an army gets a codex, you have to evaluate it on its current merits.
Literally (I mean literally as in literal definition, not this stupid figuratively crap) told my SM friends to do this(besides Tigurius but literally everything else), if i didnt find sm boring to play compare to Aeldari
Marmatag wrote: Roboute Guilliman lists have been strong since 8th dropped. This isn't news.
You don't see Grey Knights on that list (and they have a codex), you don't see Blood Angels on that list, you don't see Space Wolves on that list, you don't see anything besides Ultramarines on that list, solely because of Guilliman.
Everyone screams Guilliman is overpowered, but without him, marines are garbage. Just look at the other factions for proof.
I don't disagree that Guilliman is really powerful, but I thought the 2nd place SM was Raven Guard? ...and Blood Angels and Space Wolves are terrible examples because they still use the Index, while Grey Knights are kind of on a branch of their own. I don't believe you are being truly objective here.
Objective about what?
Things I stated are objective facts:
Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and other successor chapters are very underrepresented in all leaderboards, for this tournament and in a much larger, and more meaningful sample. That's not bias, that's a fact.
Guilliman is powerful. This is a pretty clear and objective fact.
And stop this "they don't have a codex yet" argument. It's invalid. Until an army gets a codex, you have to evaluate it on its current merits.
Invalid? ...that's like your opinion man, and frankly, it's wrong. The Index in 8th were a "stop-gap", everyone should know that by now. It's really kind of silly to ignore this FACT. We are getting Codex at an unprecedented rate but not everything is updated yet (should also be obvious).
Your argument is that SM are gak without Guilliman, but you list the only two SM chapters without a codex and then GK... nobody argued that those particular armies aren't represented in the "leaderboards", but that still has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make.
You need to do a much better job getting your flimsy point across, trying to bully folks into ignoring common sense regarding the Index is not working.
Could work; wouldn't be as top tier as this list because of the lack of stratagems and chapter tactics of course, but I bet it'd surprise people. To make up for lack of robooty, it has an additional razorback, with a chaplain and death company riding in it smashing face, and mephiston can make any nearby BA squad hit harder or be more durable, so he'd certainly pull his weight (especially with his brutal 4 s10 ap-3 1d3 damage attacks).
Though going through this exercise makes me think "BA really need their book." more than anything. BA are codex-compliant with some variations-- certainly far more so than the space wolves or grey knights. They should be able to do a list like this (though not necessarily exactly like this) and have it stand up competitively.
tactical squads are pretty good for their points costs as well as having 6 lascannons and 6 razorbacks they can be pretty powerful. Telling that Orks aren't on that list though!
I am surprised to see a list with plenty of tactical squads taking the first place.
More so because I always thought Intercessor Squads were more solid troop choices, compared to tactical squads.
That said, the post from Warhammer Community mentioned primaris marines doing well on the scene.
I wonder if the Space Marines list on the second place featured considerable number of primaris marines.
Marmatag wrote: Roboute Guilliman lists have been strong since 8th dropped. This isn't news.
You don't see Grey Knights on that list (and they have a codex), you don't see Blood Angels on that list, you don't see Space Wolves on that list, you don't see anything besides Ultramarines on that list, solely because of Guilliman.
Everyone screams Guilliman is overpowered, but without him, marines are garbage. Just look at the other factions for proof.
I don't disagree that Guilliman is really powerful, but I thought the 2nd place SM was Raven Guard? ...and Blood Angels and Space Wolves are terrible examples because they still use the Index, while Grey Knights are kind of on a branch of their own. I don't believe you are being truly objective here.
Objective about what?
Things I stated are objective facts:
Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, and other successor chapters are very underrepresented in all leaderboards, for this tournament and in a much larger, and more meaningful sample. That's not bias, that's a fact.
Guilliman is powerful. This is a pretty clear and objective fact.
And stop this "they don't have a codex yet" argument. It's invalid. Until an army gets a codex, you have to evaluate it on its current merits.
The "marines are just garbage" bit = not an objective fact.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: I am surprised to see a list with plenty of tactical squads taking the first place.
More so because I always thought Intercessor Squads were more solid troop choices, compared to tactical squads.
Damage output from Tacticals tends to be better because you can arm them for the task. Intercessors are tougher vs small arms.
Right. For example, flamer/combiflamer tacticals out-damage intercessors at rapid fire range against guardsmen or orks, while plasma/combiplasma tacticals outdamage intercessors against power armor, and so on.
Intercessors' big benefit is their survivability. But if you're playing a mechanized list anyway or making good use of cover, tacticals are still pretty durable.
I'm not very surprised at the top list. Tactical squads aren't very good by themselves. Guilliman is pretty overpowered, and his main impact on your army is to hugely buff the offensive capabilities of your units. Tactical squads start off very durable (if they can sit in cover) but not at all shooty, and Guilliman makes them reasonably shooty. They're also a fairly cheap way to unlock CP and slots for Razorbacks. With Guilliman or Salamanders I think they're competitive with Devastator squads since the Dev squads are much softer targets. I think the idea here is that there's enough long-range firepower on sufficiently durable platforms that the enemy generally has to come to you, and then you have assault cannons. Also, basically nobody thinks that tactical Marines should cost less than 11 points each, and if they did cost 11 points this list would only have had 60 more points to play with. It's really very hard to draw conclusions about unit balance from results like this since even a significant under- or over-costing is rarely going to amount to more than a few percent of the army's point total.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: I am surprised to see a list with plenty of tactical squads taking the first place.
More so because I always thought Intercessor Squads were more solid troop choices, compared to tactical squads.
That said, the post from Warhammer Community mentioned primaris marines doing well on the scene.
I wonder if the Space Marines list on the second place featured considerable number of primaris marines.
It's the lascannons. Primaris Marines don't present the same kind of long-range threat that you need to force people to get closer to your assault cannons.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Well glad to see the winning list was less boring than a 3 Baneblade list.
Oops.
Actually; it is less boring than a 3 Baneblade list - let me be clear, I'm not talking about which list is more powerful here.
With a 3 Baneblade list, if I didn't bring enough anti-tank firepower, I flat out lose. With a TacSquad/Razorback list, at least all my guns have some sort of target, and I can hope that I get lucky enough to wipe out enough TacSquads before they wipe out my vehicles - at which point, perhaps my tanks can fight the remaining Razorbacks (Gulliman is still impossible to deal with however).
Again, its not about power; it's about whether or not my guns have applicable targets, and I believe I can have a chance based on my TAC list. [That said, the Gulliman list might as well be an auto-lose just like triple baneblades; but at least I can pretend to play it out - with the baneblades; I can't shoot them, I can't charge them, I can't lock them in CC - all I can do is hope I destroy them before they destroy me. There's no tactics or fun there.]
Melissia wrote:Kinda makes me wonder if a list similar to that might work decently enough for BA.
Could work; wouldn't be as top tier as this list because of the lack of stratagems and chapter tactics of course, but I bet it'd surprise people. To make up for lack of robooty, it has an additional razorback, with a chaplain and death company riding in it smashing face, and mephiston can make any nearby BA squad hit harder or be more durable, so he'd certainly pull his weight (especially with his brutal 4 s10 ap-3 1d3 damage attacks).
Though going through this exercise makes me think "BA really need their book." more than anything. BA are codex-compliant with some variations-- certainly far more so than the space wolves or grey knights. They should be able to do a list like this (though not necessarily exactly like this) and have it stand up competitively.
It looks similar; but Gulliman (as always) is the thing that makes the other list actually work - his aura is a Salamanders trait on steroids. Every Lascannon WILL hit, and every hit WILL wound (for the most part). He's got 6 reliable lascannons in the marines alone, versus the 6/4/2 that you've got (6 shots, 4 hits, 2 wounds; ish).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
lolman1c wrote: tactical squads are pretty good for their points costs as well as having 6 lascannons and 6 razorbacks they can be pretty powerful. Telling that Orks aren't on that list though!
Unit1126PLL wrote:Well glad to see the winning list was less boring than a 3 Baneblade list.
Oops.
Actually; it is less boring than a 3 Baneblade list - let me be clear, I'm not talking about which list is more powerful here.
With a 3 Baneblade list, if I didn't bring enough anti-tank firepower, I flat out lose. With a TacSquad/Razorback list, at least all my guns have some sort of target, and I can hope that I get lucky enough to wipe out enough TacSquads before they wipe out my vehicles - at which point, perhaps my tanks can fight the remaining Razorbacks (Gulliman is still impossible to deal with however).
Again, its not about power; it's about whether or not my guns have applicable targets, and I believe I can have a chance based on my TAC list. [That said, the Gulliman list might as well be an auto-lose just like triple baneblades; but at least I can pretend to play it out - with the baneblades; I can't shoot them, I can't charge them, I can't lock them in CC - all I can do is hope I destroy them before they destroy me. There's no tactics or fun there.
Damn, I almost fell asleep reading the army list and it's less boring than Baneblades.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Well glad to see the winning list was less boring than a 3 Baneblade list.
Oops.
Actually; it is less boring than a 3 Baneblade list - let me be clear, I'm not talking about which list is more powerful here.
With a 3 Baneblade list, if I didn't bring enough anti-tank firepower, I flat out lose. With a TacSquad/Razorback list, at least all my guns have some sort of target, and I can hope that I get lucky enough to wipe out enough TacSquads before they wipe out my vehicles - at which point, perhaps my tanks can fight the remaining Razorbacks (Gulliman is still impossible to deal with however).
Again, its not about power; it's about whether or not my guns have applicable targets, and I believe I can have a chance based on my TAC list. [That said, the Gulliman list might as well be an auto-lose just like triple baneblades; but at least I can pretend to play it out - with the baneblades; I can't shoot them, I can't charge them, I can't lock them in CC - all I can do is hope I destroy them before they destroy me. There's no tactics or fun there.
Damn, I almost fell asleep reading the army list and it's less boring than Baneblades.
Oh well.
3 Baneblades is a shorter list though, so less chance of falling asleep.
Unit1126PLL wrote:Well glad to see the winning list was less boring than a 3 Baneblade list.
Oops.
Actually; it is less boring than a 3 Baneblade list - let me be clear, I'm not talking about which list is more powerful here.
With a 3 Baneblade list, if I didn't bring enough anti-tank firepower, I flat out lose. With a TacSquad/Razorback list, at least all my guns have some sort of target, and I can hope that I get lucky enough to wipe out enough TacSquads before they wipe out my vehicles - at which point, perhaps my tanks can fight the remaining Razorbacks (Gulliman is still impossible to deal with however).
Again, its not about power; it's about whether or not my guns have applicable targets, and I believe I can have a chance based on my TAC list. [That said, the Gulliman list might as well be an auto-lose just like triple baneblades; but at least I can pretend to play it out - with the baneblades; I can't shoot them, I can't charge them, I can't lock them in CC - all I can do is hope I destroy them before they destroy me. There's no tactics or fun there.
Damn, I almost fell asleep reading the army list and it's less boring than Baneblades.
Oh well.
3 Baneblades is a shorter list though, so less chance of falling asleep.
Says you. I've perfected rapid sleeping to an art form.
....now if only I can control it to happen anywhere other than at work.
I mean, outside of the special characters, it's a fairly standard marine list fluff-wise, so if you find that boring maybe you just find marines boring.
Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.
It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).
Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.
To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.
Congrats to Lawrence for the win. Interesting results. Would be interesting to see how the various armies were represented at the heat, as this seems to be a factor that is over-looked here on Dakka (along with hundreds of other things whilst they cry the sky is falling)
Xenomancers wrote: Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.
It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).
Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.
To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.
Xenomancers wrote: Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.
It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).
Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.
To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.
Wow, I'm impressed with your knowledge, tac squads must indeed be garbage.
I look forwards to your impending tournament win, since you know how to optimize the list of even the winner of THIS tournament.
Xenomancers wrote: Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.
It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).
Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.
To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.
Xenomancers wrote: Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.
It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).
Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.
To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.
YES! Do damage slower, that will ensure efficiency!
You guys are a bunch of clowns if you think this has anything to do with the tactical squads. This is all about drop number. He easily could have replaced 6 tactical squads with 3 preditors and trippled his las cannon number. It only would have cost him 1 command point. Which means Jack gak to a space marine player anyways - our strategems suck immensely - and even less to an ultramarine. I mean let's get real here - his list is not optimized - he didn't even give his tactical sargents bolters.
Xenomancers wrote: Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.
It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).
Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.
To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.
YES! Do damage slower, that will ensure efficiency!
Yeah...because assaulting a line of lemon russ with thunderhammer vets that can't fall back and shot isn't a winning strategy. I can safely tell you this army did not face imperial guard. He would have lost easily.
Xenomancers wrote: Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.
It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).
Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.
To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.
Wow, I'm impressed with your knowledge, tac squads must indeed be garbage.
I look forwards to your impending tournament win, since you know how to optimize the list of even the winner of THIS tournament.
You know with the information from this link it is entirely possible that this guy never faced a good army.
Melissia wrote: And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.
All I said was it would have made his army better. His core is good. Gulli, tiggy, raven, and 6 razors. The las cannon tacs are not optimal though. 99% of competitive marine players will agree with me.
Look, this is the underhive of Dakka 40K (Contrary) General... there are as many "haters" as "fanboys" for and against Marines and everything else.
Further - results from 1 event don't automatically dictate OP or nerfed... but c'mon now; Tactical marines are not garbage and you simply cannot prove otherwise.
Gunzhard wrote: Look, this is the underhive of Dakka 40K (Contrary) General... there are as many "haters" as "fanboys" for and against Marines and everything else.
Further - results from 1 event don't automatically dictate OP or nerfed... but c'mon now; Tactical marines are not garbage and you simply cannot prove otherwise.
I can prove though mathematics that their damage per point and defense per point are not good by comparison to other units. I can attest to countless games of playing with and against them that they provide nothing that many other choices offer for less points or do twice as good for a little more points. This is in fact - the worst tactical marines have ever been. Which is saying a lot - they have always been bottom of the barrel.
Galas wrote: Xenomancer you are the deffinition of armchair general
How much arrogance.
I'm really not being arrogant. Tactical marines do suck. I am just trying to help you guys understand that tournaments are like lotteries - your army composition being stronger is like buying more tickets. However - a guy that bought more tickets can still lose to the guy that bought 1. This guy could have boguht more tickets by making a better composition but it didn't matter - he won anyways.
To do a bit of my own armchair strategizing:
Tactical Squads weren't a bad choice in this particular list, specifically because Imperial Guard are going to be a common enemy, and when facing IG, you really want that S9 to be wounding Russes and Baneblades on 3s.
Tactical Squads in general are still not a great troops choice, but they ARE a troops choice, which provides other benefits as well - They're pretty cheap, provide more Command Points than any alternative except scouts (who can't bring Lascannons) and they get Objective Secured, which can be quite helpful.
The only thing I might personally have done different is swap two of the Tactical squads for Devestators, drop the Multi-Meltas for Heavy Bolters, and add in some armorium cherubs with the spare points. (There'd still be 27pts left over for another Lascannon and maybe a Storm Bolter on the Captain, as well.) It's a minor change, at best.
Gunzhard wrote: Look, this is the underhive of Dakka 40K (Contrary) General... there are as many "haters" as "fanboys" for and against Marines and everything else.
Further - results from 1 event don't automatically dictate OP or nerfed... but c'mon now; Tactical marines are not garbage and you simply cannot prove otherwise.
I can prove though mathematics that their damage per point and defense per point are not good by comparison to other units. I can attest to countless games of playing with and against them that they provide nothing that many other choices offer for less points or do twice as good for a little more points. This is in fact - the worst tactical marines have ever been. Which is saying a lot - they have always been bottom of the barrel.
Tac marines are worse now that their guns are more multi-target capable, they can split fire, and they can rapid fire and charge in the same turn?
Maybe your energy would be better spent trying to figure out how he got value out of units you think are so bad.
I'm really not being arrogant. Tactical marines do suck. I am just trying to help you guys understand that tournaments are like lotteries - your army composition being stronger is like buying more tickets. However - a guy that bought more tickets can still lose to the guy that bought 1. This guy could have boguht more tickets by making a better composition but it didn't matter - he won anyways.
So what is your tournament-winning record then? Seeing how you have such an amazing understanding of listbuilding and the game in general you should win quite often.
Gunzhard wrote: Look, this is the underhive of Dakka 40K (Contrary) General... there are as many "haters" as "fanboys" for and against Marines and everything else.
Further - results from 1 event don't automatically dictate OP or nerfed... but c'mon now; Tactical marines are not garbage and you simply cannot prove otherwise.
I can prove though mathematics that their damage per point and defense per point are not good by comparison to other units. I can attest to countless games of playing with and against them that they provide nothing that many other choices offer for less points or do twice as good for a little more points. This is in fact - the worst tactical marines have ever been. Which is saying a lot - they have always been bottom of the barrel.
Tac marines are worse now that their guns are more multi-target capable, they can split fire, and they can rapid fire and charge in the same turn?
Maybe your energy would be better spent trying to figure out how he got value out of units you think are so bad.
Every unit in the game can do that now. It doesn't make tactical better.
Melissia wrote: And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.
All I said was it would have made his army better. His core is good. Gulli, tiggy, raven, and 6 razors. The las cannon tacs are not optimal though. 99% of competitive marine players will agree with me.
Not sure I agree.
The point of the tacticals is having lots of objective secured units. Which means you go and win objectives and that is what counts in 5 out of 6 games (the Relic is a bit stupid imo but...)
I guess you can say "I will table my opponent every single game" but there are a fair few armies where that is unlikely to happen.
Killing 3 squads of scouts is quite a bit easier than killing 6 squads of tactical marines.
I'm really not being arrogant. Tactical marines do suck. I am just trying to help you guys understand that tournaments are like lotteries - your army composition being stronger is like buying more tickets. However - a guy that bought more tickets can still lose to the guy that bought 1. This guy could have boguht more tickets by making a better composition but it didn't matter - he won anyways.
So what is your tournament-winning record then? Seeing how you have such an amazing understanding of listbuilding and the game in general you should win quite often.
Well I can't prove it to you but I've played in about 6-7 local tournaments and I've won 4 of them. As well as winning 2 team tournaments out of 3 I have attended. Didn't make final table in only 1 game. I wasn't playing OP armies ether. I've never gone to a grand tournament at war-hammer world though - maybe one day - I've just come into the finances that I can actually do things like that. It wouldn't matter if I've never played in a tournament though - tactical marines are objectively bad - just like terminators and devastator centurions.
Gunzhard wrote: Look, this is the underhive of Dakka 40K (Contrary) General... there are as many "haters" as "fanboys" for and against Marines and everything else.
Further - results from 1 event don't automatically dictate OP or nerfed... but c'mon now; Tactical marines are not garbage and you simply cannot prove otherwise.
I can prove though mathematics that their damage per point and defense per point are not good by comparison to other units. I can attest to countless games of playing with and against them that they provide nothing that many other choices offer for less points or do twice as good for a little more points. This is in fact - the worst tactical marines have ever been. Which is saying a lot - they have always been bottom of the barrel.
Tac marines are worse now that their guns are more multi-target capable, they can split fire, and they can rapid fire and charge in the same turn?
Maybe your energy would be better spent trying to figure out how he got value out of units you think are so bad.
Every unit in the game can do that now. It doesn't make tactical better.
Given that they're generalists instead of specialists, and they can take more types of weapons than most other units, I'd say the changes benefit them more than most.
Melissia wrote: And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.
All I said was it would have made his army better. His core is good. Gulli, tiggy, raven, and 6 razors. The las cannon tacs are not optimal though. 99% of competitive marine players will agree with me.
Not sure I agree.
The point of the tacticals is having lots of objective secured units. Which means you go and win objectives and that is what counts in 5 out of 6 games (the Relic is a bit stupid imo but...)
I guess you can say "I will table my opponent every single game" but there are a fair few armies where that is unlikely to happen.
Killing 3 squads of scouts is quite a bit easier than killing 6 squads of tactical marines.
Rules: Warhammer 40,000 Matched Play (see pages 214-215 of the rulebook).
Army size: 2,000 points.
Missions: Eternal War.
Number of games: Five.
Army selection: Battle-forged with a maximum of three detachments.
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
Meals: Lunch is provided on both days.
here are the rules to the event - objective secured will hardly matter in eternal war missions. Things like - "hold the center" ect are what you see in eternal war missions. This is all about destruction. It's also almost always going to favor guilliman who is a zone control monster.
If Tactical Marines are bad, and you can still win with six units of them in a list, then something is seriously wrong with the rest of that faction. Nerf all other Space Marine models!
Of course Tacticals aren't that bad. Many Space Marine players are young and inexperienced, and blame their models for their losses.
Xenomancers wrote: You know with the information from this link it is entirely possible that this guy never faced a good army.
I believe this is Lawrence from (youtube) Tabletop Tactics. I'm sure he has played against strong IG lists in the past and knew what he might be facing in this tournament. One of the regulars on his channel plays guard almost exclusively.
Granted, his youtube channel/website is for entertainment and they typically feature armies that are more varied than the standard 'tournament spam' lists. Though they all seem to be experienced players, so he has a strong foundation to play against.
I wonder about Nids... I think folks are hesitating to build them knowing their codex is right around the corner. Personally I believe they are plenty competitive - but the reason I'd never bring them to a tournament is because they are so much work!
Even just getting them out of the case is tiring, let alone each movement/charge phase...
Xenomancers wrote: You know with the information from this link it is entirely possible that this guy never faced a good army.
I believe this is Lawrence from (youtube) Tabletop Tactics. I'm sure he has played against strong IG lists in the past and knew what he might be facing in this tournament. One of the regulars on his channel plays guard almost exclusively.
Granted, his youtube channel/website is for entertainment and they typically feature armies that are more varied than the standard 'tournament spam' lists. Though they all seem to be experienced players, so he has a strong foundation to play against.
knowing what to expect against a strong AM list is laughable. They can beat you multiple way because literally ever unit in their codex is better than yours. I mean - these are some real uphill battles from the start. You almost can't call them battles. It's how I know he didn't face any legit AM armies. Do you really think this guy would have a chance against a supreme command russ division with a baneblade? And a batallion composed of conscripts commissars and mortars? NO - nothing stands a chance against that.
Xenomancers wrote: You know with the information from this link it is entirely possible that this guy never faced a good army.
I believe this is Lawrence from (youtube) Tabletop Tactics. I'm sure he has played against strong IG lists in the past and knew what he might be facing in this tournament. One of the regulars on his channel plays guard almost exclusively.
Granted, his youtube channel/website is for entertainment and they typically feature armies that are more varied than the standard 'tournament spam' lists. Though they all seem to be experienced players, so he has a strong foundation to play against.
knowing what to expect against a strong AM list is laughable. They can beat you multiple way because literally ever unit in their codex is better than yours. I mean - these are some real uphill battles from the start. You almost can't call them battles. It's how I know he didn't face any legit AM armies. Do you really think this guy would have a chance against a supreme command russ division with a baneblade? And a batallion composed of conscripts commissars and mortars? NO - nothing stands a chance against that.
I have no idea. I certainly can't claim that I know for a fact what he faced.
This is why I've been saying this edition is much more tactics focused than just listbuilding. You can have a statistically stronger army on paper but if you don't know how to use it, you're gonna get krumped.
That or "everyone's" math was wrong and Tactical squads are clearly just as broken as Scions.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: This is why I've been saying this edition is much more tactics focused than just listbuilding. You can have a statistically stronger army on paper but if you don't know how to use it, you're gonna get krumped.
That or "everyone's" math was wrong and Tactical squads are clearly just as broken as Scions.
I dunno. My observation is that there's less tactics and more list-building than ever before; but just that the emphasis of list building is on "volume of fire" above and beyond everything else. I will admit to being wrong on this though.
Galas wrote: Xenomancer you are the deffinition of armchair general
How much arrogance.
I'm really not being arrogant. Tactical marines do suck. I am just trying to help you guys understand that tournaments are like lotteries - your army composition being stronger is like buying more tickets. However - a guy that bought more tickets can still lose to the guy that bought 1. This guy could have boguht more tickets by making a better composition but it didn't matter - he won anyways.
But it isn't though, is it? If you did a little research on who actually won this heat then you would see it's Lawrence from Table Top Tactics (Great Youtube channel and website by the way) He placed 1st here and has done so for many different tournaments (as well as placing 2nd, 3rd etc.)
And my second post in the thread ends up being prophetic to the rest of the thread. Someone mentioned the genestealer cult list-- I'm kinda curious about that now, too.
Adeptus Ministorum placing top 15? Sisters of Battle soon.
Also, the tacs were a cheap way to get Razorbacks on the table. Given Lascannons, they can cover a large area of the field and throw lascannon shots down field, with re-rolls from the HQs, so those things are going to hit and they're going to do damage.
Cream Tea wrote: If Tactical Marines are bad, and you can still win with six units of them in a list, then something is seriously wrong with the rest of that faction. Nerf all other Space Marine models!
Of course Tacticals aren't that bad. Many Space Marine players are young and inexperienced, and blame their models for their losses.
This is the most condescending bs i've ever read.
Space Marine players are bad, that's why they don't win more!
Take Guilliman out of this list and he gets curb stomped every single game.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I love how polarized this forum is that people are genuinely angry because their faction *won* a tournament or happy that their faction lost.
Whatever happened to having pride in your own faction rather than just spouting toxicity at others?
The same forum treats all factions of space marines like they're the same. Not all of us can use Guilliman. I can't just repaint my collection, or magically turn Grey Knights into Dark Angels, for example. Surprised i had to spell this out.
That'd be like me saying "well Xenos did okay, so sorry Orks, you should be proud of Tau."
Allow Guilliman to buff all factions and flavors of space marines like he does for Ultramarines, and i'll change my tune.
Melissia wrote: And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.
All I said was it would have made his army better. His core is good. Gulli, tiggy, raven, and 6 razors. The las cannon tacs are not optimal though. 99% of competitive marine players will agree with me.
Not sure I agree.
The point of the tacticals is having lots of objective secured units. Which means you go and win objectives and that is what counts in 5 out of 6 games (the Relic is a bit stupid imo but...)
I guess you can say "I will table my opponent every single game" but there are a fair few armies where that is unlikely to happen.
Killing 3 squads of scouts is quite a bit easier than killing 6 squads of tactical marines.
Rules: Warhammer 40,000 Matched Play (see pages 214-215 of the rulebook).
Army size: 2,000 points.
Missions: Eternal War.
Number of games: Five.
Army selection: Battle-forged with a maximum of three detachments.
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
Meals: Lunch is provided on both days.
here are the rules to the event - objective secured will hardly matter in eternal war missions. Things like - "hold the center" ect are what you see in eternal war missions. This is all about destruction. It's also almost always going to favor guilliman who is a zone control monster.
The more important Rules Pack question is did they use Swiss pairing or that random pairing gak used previously?
Isnt the point of Guilliman to make Marines better better? Isnt he himself not a SM?
Thats like Saying Harlequins are bad without Starweavers... YES they are without, but they are part of them so you use them... yeah you can use harlequins on foot.... but its not going to be good.
Guilliman is a tool, just like a Storm Raven is a tool, SM can use that tool and shouldnt be label "a bad book b.c you need 1 tool"
That means my Harlequins are bad b.c i need "One tool, aka Starweaver"
When even your most fringe faction (grey knights) can share 11 datasheets with your base faction in the index, it's tends to get hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Where as Orks and Tau don't share any units.
Incidentally this is why I don't bother separating Ynnari from Craftworld or Dark Eldar either, and why I don't bother making a distinction between the various legions when I talk about CSM.
Galas wrote: Xenomancer you are the deffinition of armchair general
How much arrogance.
I'm really not being arrogant. Tactical marines do suck. I am just trying to help you guys understand that tournaments are like lotteries - your army composition being stronger is like buying more tickets. However - a guy that bought more tickets can still lose to the guy that bought 1. This guy could have boguht more tickets by making a better composition but it didn't matter - he won anyways.
But it isn't though, is it? If you did a little research on who actually won this heat then you would see it's Lawrence from Table Top Tactics (Great Youtube channel and website by the way) He placed 1st here and has done so for many different tournaments (as well as placing 2nd, 3rd etc.)
The same Lawrence that pulled off a 7e ITC Dark Eldar win with mass Reaver Jetbikes? Yeah, I can buy it.
Cream Tea wrote: If Tactical Marines are bad, and you can still win with six units of them in a list, then something is seriously wrong with the rest of that faction. Nerf all other Space Marine models!
Of course Tacticals aren't that bad. Many Space Marine players are young and inexperienced, and blame their models for their losses.
This is the most condescending bs i've ever read.
Space Marine players are bad, that's why they don't win more!
Take Guilliman out of this list and he gets curb stomped every single game.
Space Marines are the most popular army in the game, and have been since time immemorial. GW's marketing is heavily focussed on them. This attracts newer players, it's common knowledge that SM are even more common as a player's first army than they are in general.
That doesn't mean that all SM players are inexperienced, far from it. A new player wouldn't have won this tournament for example. Many Space Marine players are highly accomplished, and do very well at events.
I simply can't see how Tactical Marines could ever be among the worst units in the game, that's just hyperbole. I play craftworld Eldar, and all my Troops choices seem to me to be inferior to Tactical Marines, especially Dire Avengers. And apparently you can win tournaments with six squads of Tacticals, even if they're not the most optimal choice they're clearly not the worst.
Yet you hear people complaining about them all the time. Oh well, hyperbole is so mcommon in discussions about this game it get a bit tiresome for any faction.
I'm just sick of complaining, it may have flipped me a bit.
Edit: Of course you can't take Guliiman out of this list and expect it to perform. It's build around him, that doesn't make the rest of the list crap.
Galas wrote: Xenomancer you are the deffinition of armchair general
How much arrogance.
I'm really not being arrogant. Tactical marines do suck. I am just trying to help you guys understand that tournaments are like lotteries - your army composition being stronger is like buying more tickets. However - a guy that bought more tickets can still lose to the guy that bought 1. This guy could have boguht more tickets by making a better composition but it didn't matter - he won anyways.
But it isn't though, is it? If you did a little research on who actually won this heat then you would see it's Lawrence from Table Top Tactics (Great Youtube channel and website by the way) He placed 1st here and has done so for many different tournaments (as well as placing 2nd, 3rd etc.)
The same Lawrence that pulled off a 7e ITC Dark Eldar win with mass Reaver Jetbikes? Yeah, I can buy it.
That was at No-Retreat wasnt it? with HEAVY restrictions to many factions i believe. (If my Memory is right, and i think it is, b.c i talked to him about it that it was a friendly tournament).
Spelling
Lawrence, the winner, is a great player who has won many tournaments in the past with less able army lists. Not only this but he is a top lad who makes brilliant and often narrative driven battle reports.
Even he admitted that his list for this was probably broken.
Gulliman is a bad unit because he is so obviously better than the alternatives. SM have some really interesting HQs that never need to see use because he supersedes them all.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I love how polarized this forum is that people are genuinely angry because their faction *won* a tournament or happy that their faction lost.
Whatever happened to having pride in your own faction rather than just spouting toxicity at others?
The same forum treats all factions of space marines like they're the same. Not all of us can use Guilliman. I can't just repaint my collection, or magically turn Grey Knights into Dark Angels, for example. Surprised i had to spell this out.
That'd be like me saying "well Xenos did okay, so sorry Orks, you should be proud of Tau."
Allow Guilliman to buff all factions and flavors of space marines like he does for Ultramarines, and i'll change my tune.
Gulliman is in the same codex as all of the other space marine units. Tau units are not in the Ork codex. Likewise, if you play marines, you can still take allies like crazy.
Just so you know, though, I don't disagree with the core of what you are saying. Making a special character like Gulliman a necessary unit to make an army competitive is a stupid idea for balance. All units within a codex would be competitive in an ideal world. In a more realistic sense, I would hope for more units to be viable. The same is true for armies like Death Guard relying on Mortarion (to a lesser extent) or Ad Mech using Cawl in most lists.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: When even your most fringe faction (grey knights) can share 11 datasheets with your base faction in the index, it's tends to get hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Where as Orks and Tau don't share any units.
Incidentally this is why I don't bother separating Ynnari from Craftworld or Dark Eldar either, and why I don't bother making a distinction between the various legions when I talk about CSM.
Is there no difference between Tyranids and Astra Militarum either? Seeing as how they are linked via GSC.
Normally I'd agree, SM factions tend to be similar, but in this case Guilliman is one of the most powerful units in 8th and is restricted to blue marines with golden details. Shouldn't be too hard to make the distinction when he's on the board, just look for a big guy in blue armor in the middle of the blob of razorbacks. Go to any big tournament and you'll find at least a dozen copies of that model.
Guilliman is a game changer who is only available to one SM chapter, which makes that chapter very distinct.
Likewise, an Ynnari army has its own army-wide special rule that overwrites the Craftworld, Drukhari and Harlequin special rules. That makes them very distinct.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: When even your most fringe faction (grey knights) can share 11 datasheets with your base faction in the index, it's tends to get hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Where as Orks and Tau don't share any units.
Incidentally this is why I don't bother separating Ynnari from Craftworld or Dark Eldar either, and why I don't bother making a distinction between the various legions when I talk about CSM.
Is there no difference between Tyranids and Astra Militarum either? Seeing as how they are linked via GSC.
Normally I'd agree, SM factions tend to be similar, but in this case Guilliman is one of the most powerful units in 8th and is restricted to blue marines with golden details. Shouldn't be too hard to make the distinction when he's on the board, just look for a big guy in blue armor in the middle of the blob of razorbacks. Go to any big tournament and you'll find at least a dozen copies of that model.
There's not much of a difference between GSC and IG for me but weirdly, GSC is different to Nids simply because they only share, arguably, two units (the Patriarch/Broodlord and Genestealers obviously). And yes I am fully aware of the irony that it should be the other way around.
Melissia wrote: And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.
All I said was it would have made his army better. His core is good. Gulli, tiggy, raven, and 6 razors. The las cannon tacs are not optimal though. 99% of competitive marine players will agree with me.
99% of competitive space marine players didn't win this tournament.
Part of me is glad GSC was in the top ten. Part of me is also sad that it was likely due to IG Artillery and Magus spam/Genestealers in Chimeras, rather than a pure GSC force.
Hmmm. Wouldn't it make more sense to bring 3 tactical squads for the CPs, and then 3 more devastator squads? You get free sigmums with devestators, and he's clearly using the 3 troop slot detachment. You can even get 3 cherubs then if you can scrounge up 5 more points.
You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right? The workhorse of the list was the Razorbacks and Rowboat. You could remove just ONE of those elements and the list would've gone nowhere.
Melissia wrote: And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.
All I said was it would have made his army better. His core is good. Gulli, tiggy, raven, and 6 razors. The las cannon tacs are not optimal though. 99% of competitive marine players will agree with me.
99% of competitive space marine players didn't win this tournament.
It happened once. Remember in 6th edition when someone did a Drop Pod Tactical list with Calgar?
If one list is your proof, you need to explore just a little more.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right? The workhorse of the list was the Razorbacks and Rowboat. You could remove just ONE of those elements and the list would've gone nowhere.
So what you are saying is that, basic troops are just there to support the rest of the army components, and are those the ones that needs to do the heavy lifting for the army?
Man, Who could have thought of that?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right? The workhorse of the list was the Razorbacks and Rowboat. You could remove just ONE of those elements and the list would've gone nowhere.
So what you are saying is that, basic troops are just there to support the rest of the army components, and are those the ones that needs to do the heavy lifting for the army?
Man, Who could have thought of that?
I'm saying the Tactical Marines could've been replaced with literally anything and the same list would've won.
Do you honestly think the list would've done the same without Rowboat and the Razorbacks?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right?
Unless it had to hold objectives with ObSec or face any vehicles at range. Even 72 Assault Cannon shots with all the rerolls will struggle to kill more than a single Rhino equivalent a turn.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right?
Unless it had to hold objectives with ObSec or face any vehicles at range. Even 72 Assault Cannon shots with all the rerolls will struggle to kill more than a single Rhino equivalent a turn.
Um no? 3 Razorbacks will inflict 9 wounds under the Rowboat aura, so not including the odd Stormbolter, HK Missiles, and weapons from the Stormraven you should be getting 2 dead Rhinos a turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, 3 Stormbolters would inflict the last wound under the Rowboat aura. Where are you getting "struggling" from?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right?
Unless it had to hold objectives with ObSec or face any vehicles at range. Even 72 Assault Cannon shots with all the rerolls will struggle to kill more than a single Rhino equivalent a turn.
Um no? 3 Razorbacks will inflict 9 wounds under the Rowboat aura, so not including the odd Stormbolter, HK Missiles, and weapons from the Stormraven you should be getting 2 dead Rhinos a turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, 3 Stormbolters would inflict the last wound under the Rowboat aura. Where are you getting "struggling" from?
So what I said was completely accurate? 72 Assault Cannon shots will struggle to kill two Rhinos in a turn. 72 x .888 x .555 x .5 = 17.74, which is less than two Rhinos.
Of course the Stormraven adds to that, but that wasn't the statement.
The six Lascannons give you another (6 x .888 x .888 x .83 x 3.5 = ) 13.7 REQ wounds, just in case you're wondering.
Hell seeing these forums, you'd think pure Guard would dominate.
Why? Just because they are too powerful, doesn't mean there's not worse cheese out there. Or just because there's worse cheese out there, doesn't mean it's too not strong/point efficient, etc...
A book/list that is in the ... say ... top 30% of things in 40K is still better than 70% of stuff in 40K and likely in need of a slight adjustment, even though it may not make the top 5% of things you only ever see of tournaments (hence why tournament results and lists are far too biased and small of a sample to adequately judge balance issues for the game as a whole).
Hell seeing these forums, you'd think pure Guard would dominate.
Why? Just because they are too powerful, doesn't mean there's not worse cheese out there. Or just because there's worse cheese out there, doesn't mean it's too not strong/point efficient, etc...
A book/list that is in the ... say ... top 30% of things in 40K is still better than 70% of stuff in 40K and likely in need of a slight adjustment, even though it may not make the top 5% of things you only ever see of tournaments (hence why tournament results and lists are far too biased and small of a sample to adequately judge balance issues for the game as a whole).
None of that matters if you know the meta and take a counter meta list and hope to fight those lists, it has happen before and will happen again. Are those list consider broken? Heck no, but they are counter meta.
Marmatag wrote: Roboute Guilliman lists have been strong since 8th dropped. This isn't news.
You don't see Grey Knights on that list (and they have a codex), you don't see Blood Angels on that list, you don't see Space Wolves on that list, you don't see anything besides Ultramarines on that list, solely because of Guilliman.
Everyone screams Guilliman is overpowered, but without him, marines are garbage. Just look at the other factions for proof.
I don't disagree that Guilliman is really powerful, but I thought the 2nd place SM was Raven Guard? ...and Blood Angels and Space Wolves are terrible examples because they still use the Index, while Grey Knights are kind of on a branch of their own. I don't believe you are being truly objective here.
Yeah 2nd place was RG.
Sagittarii Orientalis wrote: I am surprised to see a list with plenty of tactical squads taking the first place.
More so because I always thought Intercessor Squads were more solid troop choices, compared to tactical squads.
That said, the post from Warhammer Community mentioned primaris marines doing well on the scene.
I wonder if the Space Marines list on the second place featured considerable number of primaris marines.
The RG army was mainly Primaris Marines, with added Contemptor, Contemptor Mortis and Mortis dreadnoughts and a single Lascannon Stormtalon. No special characters or anything were part of the list.
Intercessors, Aggressors, Hellblasters, a captain and a librarian.
I look forwards to your impending tournament win, since you know how to optimize the list of even the winner of THIS tournament.
You know with the information from this link it is entirely possible that this guy never faced a good army.
Lawrence’s 4th game was vs a pure Guard army of mainly Leman Russes and SHVs I believe – a list that up to that point (I believe) also had 3 max wins on day 1. In the final round he also had to play a list containing Celestine etc with the Relic mission. A list that was also on 4 max GT wins up to that point.
The only game that was a true "mis-match" according to Lawrence was game 1... Where he had to play a necron army.
Melissia wrote: And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.
All I said was it would have made his army better. His core is good. Gulli, tiggy, raven, and 6 razors. The las cannon tacs are not optimal though. 99% of competitive marine players will agree with me.
I believe Lawrence took the Tac marines in this list for 2 reasons.
1- This was a “who finishes deploying first, goes first” event. Having the tac squads ensures a battalion and they could deploy in the Razorbacks if needed.
2- Obsec. The event was also using the Chapter approved every troop gets obsec. By not taking the tac marines, and say, 3 preds instead, you’re instantly putting yourself at an objective, even therefore event, disadvantage.
Rules: Warhammer 40,000 Matched Play (see pages 214-215 of the rulebook).
Army size: 2,000 points.
Missions: Eternal War.
Number of games: Five.
Army selection: Battle-forged with a maximum of three detachments.
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
Meals: Lunch is provided on both days.
here are the rules to the event - objective secured will hardly matter in eternal war missions. Things like - "hold the center" ect are what you see in eternal war missions. This is all about destruction. It's also almost always going to favor guilliman who is a zone control monster.
All of the missions played were standard straight from the rulebook eternal war missions. Sure, it favours “destruction”/table them by turn 3 lists, but all the eternal war primary missions relate to holding objectives at the end of the game. If you can’t table each other, then it does come down to holding those objectives, and you should always plan for that situation.
Melissia wrote: I mean, outside of the special characters, it's a fairly standard marine list fluff-wise, so if you find that boring maybe you just find marines boring.
Yeah, except it really isn't. A proper fluffy marine list would have ten man squads with a special and heavy in each, and would have more rhinos than razorbacks.
This person's clearly just taken min Tac squads just to spam lascannons and to unlock Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks. Bit of a stretch to claim this is proof that tacs are a great unit when they're hanging with Bobby and a tonne of R'backs.
Nowt wrong with this if that's the way you want to play, of course, I'd just prefer it if the rules were set up so that "in keeping with the lore" and "the best list" weren't mutually exclusive.
knowing what to expect against a strong AM list is laughable. They can beat you multiple way because literally ever unit in their codex is better than yours. I mean - these are some real uphill battles from the start. You almost can't call them battles. It's how I know he didn't face any legit AM armies. Do you really think this guy would have a chance against a supreme command russ division with a baneblade? And a batallion composed of conscripts commissars and mortars? NO - nothing stands a chance against that.
You can see a picture of part of the AM list he faced on the Tabletop Tactics instagram and facebook. Pretty neat looking red tank theme.
Galas wrote: Xenomancer you are the deffinition of armchair general
How much arrogance.
I'm really not being arrogant. Tactical marines do suck. I am just trying to help you guys understand that tournaments are like lotteries - your army composition being stronger is like buying more tickets. However - a guy that bought more tickets can still lose to the guy that bought 1. This guy could have boguht more tickets by making a better composition but it didn't matter - he won anyways.
But it isn't though, is it? If you did a little research on who actually won this heat then you would see it's Lawrence from Table Top Tactics (Great Youtube channel and website by the way) He placed 1st here and has done so for many different tournaments (as well as placing 2nd, 3rd etc.)
The same Lawrence that pulled off a 7e ITC Dark Eldar win with mass Reaver Jetbikes? Yeah, I can buy it.
That was at No-Retreat wasnt it? with HEAVY restrictions to many factions i believe. (If my Memory is right, and i think it is, b.c i talked to him about it that it was a friendly tournament).
Spelling
His LVO 9th place list was mainly Dark Eldar last Jan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
drbored wrote: Adeptus Ministorum placing top 15? Sisters of Battle soon.
Also, the tacs were a cheap way to get Razorbacks on the table. Given Lascannons, they can cover a large area of the field and throw lascannon shots down field, with re-rolls from the HQs, so those things are going to hit and they're going to do damage.
I’m surprised the SoB player ended up 15th. He was on 4 max wins and on table 1 going into the final game. He lost to the Daemons player but I’d have expecting it to still have placed him higher.
Hmmm. Wouldn't it make more sense to bring 3 tactical squads for the CPs, and then 3 more devastator squads? You get free sigmums with devestators, and he's clearly using the 3 troop slot detachment. You can even get 3 cherubs then if you can scrounge up 5 more points.
Potentially yes, but you've got to take into account that 1 tac lascannon squad is 90 points, while 1 dev unit is 170 (with cherub). Potentially worth swapping 2 units for 1 dev unit, but, then you don't have the 4 ablative wounds and less mobility etc.
Also, interesting to note, that the top 3 players (at least) all finished the event on 5 max wins each (the top 6 players going into the last game were all on max wins, and as the last game was Relic, the winners would have auto got a max win). The only reason Lawrence won overall was due to the "bonus" point system GW seem to run - sportsman votes and painting votes. Personally i think these (esp painting) should be separate, and i will never understand why they think using the Relic mission is a good idea.
Also, as this was GW held event, you have to also understand the level of terrain. Essentially its an "8 piece standard" terrain table, with (based on warhammer fest) the chances of any of it being LoS blocking being around 1%. Gunline armies would have likely had a stronger than usual advantage.
Xenomancers wrote: knowing what to expect against a strong AM list is laughable. They can beat you multiple way because literally ever unit in their codex is better than yours. I mean - these are some real uphill battles from the start. You almost can't call them battles. It's how I know he didn't face any legit AM armies. Do you really think this guy would have a chance against a supreme command russ division with a baneblade? And a batallion composed of conscripts commissars and mortars? NO - nothing stands a chance against that.
It's funny.
People can guess all they want about what someone did and who they faced.
But without knowing, it's pointless.
This sadly does not matter though, as some people will insist they know better and disregard any facts shown to them.
What's also been missed is the actual players ability too.
I've seen countless net lists get torn apart and underdog armies push past them as alot relies on how the lists are used.
This also comes down to play style.
Even with the same army, 20 random players would use it differently throughout a game.
So while X unit may be better to you, they may prefer Y or Z unit as it fits how they play alot better.
Blacksails wrote: But I keep hearing marine players complaining that tactical marines are the worst unit in the game!
But are the tacticals good or is Guillimann and razorback good?
Do you bring tacticals for tacticals or unlock razorbacks...In otherwords are tacticals just least lousy razorback spam.
As has been pointed out numerous times, the tacs aren't required to unlock Razorbacks. You can take one DT for each other choice in the detachment, so he could have taken literally anything else instead and still got 6 Razorbacks in. Taking the tacticals was a conscious choice.
Xenomancers wrote: You guys are a bunch of clowns if you think this has anything to do with the tactical squads. This is all about drop number. He easily could have replaced 6 tactical squads with 3 preditors and trippled his las cannon number. It only would have cost him 1 command point. Which means Jack gak to a space marine player anyways - our strategems suck immensely - and even less to an ultramarine. I mean let's get real here - his list is not optimized - he didn't even give his tactical sargents bolters.
Xenomancers wrote: Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.
It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).
Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.
To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.
YES! Do damage slower, that will ensure efficiency!
Yeah...because assaulting a line of lemon russ with thunderhammer vets that can't fall back and shot isn't a winning strategy. I can safely tell you this army did not face imperial guard. He would have lost easily.
Xenomancers wrote: Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.
It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).
Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.
To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.
Wow, I'm impressed with your knowledge, tac squads must indeed be garbage.
I look forwards to your impending tournament win, since you know how to optimize the list of even the winner of THIS tournament.
You know with the information from this link it is entirely possible that this guy never faced a good army.
Man that's awkward as Lawrence played against Both Russ/Conscript Spam & 3 IG Superheavies.
Blacksails wrote: But I keep hearing marine players complaining that tactical marines are the worst unit in the game!
But are the tacticals good or is Guillimann and razorback good?
Do you bring tacticals for tacticals or unlock razorbacks...In otherwords are tacticals just least lousy razorback spam.
Clearly the only logical conclusion we can pull from this is that tacticals are the absolute worst unit in the game, and an active handicap. Guilliman alone handled every 2k list, by himself, while the tacticals did literally nothing.
The only logical line of thought, right? I mean, it couldn't possibly be that tactical marines aren't terrible trash and might actually be a solid troop choice, cause that would be insanity.
Blacksails wrote: But I keep hearing marine players complaining that tactical marines are the worst unit in the game!
But are the tacticals good or is Guillimann and razorback good?
Do you bring tacticals for tacticals or unlock razorbacks...In otherwords are tacticals just least lousy razorback spam.
As has been pointed out numerous times, the tacs aren't required to unlock Razorbacks. You can take one DT for each other choice in the detachment, so he could have taken literally anything else instead and still got 6 Razorbacks in. Taking the tacticals was a conscious choice.
So what choices marines have in troops that's worth it? If you can take scouts instead then ok but that tells you just that tacticals are better than scouts. Okay he could go for some other choises by different detachments but that costs more points(=less razorbacks) and less command points.
Sometimes to get enough of the real meat you just have to take something that itself is crappy for the points. Waste 5 points to get 10 points elsewhere.
Not to mention it's just 1 tournament. One tournament=meaningless. He could simply have been rolling hot that day enough to compensate for lousyness of tacticals. And IG players might still be painting 8th ed optimized list(quite likely since quite literally everything that was good in 7th is crap in 8th and vice versa for IG). I know if I needed to paint competive IG army from scratch again to 8th ed standards 6 months would be optimistic for that. Especially if I would attend tournament with painting scores with intention of trying to win the tournament as I would need to work harder than usual for the painting then.
He didn't need 5 tac squads to unlock the razorbacks, with two HQs and a flyer he only needed three other units. Three is also the minimum amount of troops required for the battalion detachment that he used. I'd like to hear him elaborate on his reasons for including five units and if he genuinely considers them worthwhile.
Jackal wrote: It's funny.
People can guess all they want about what someone did and who they faced.
But without knowing, it's pointless.
This sadly does not matter though, as some people will insist they know better and disregard any facts shown to them.
What's also been missed is the actual players ability too.
I've seen countless net lists get torn apart and underdog armies push past them as alot relies on how the lists are used.
This also comes down to play style.
Even with the same army, 20 random players would use it differently throughout a game.
So while X unit may be better to you, they may prefer Y or Z unit as it fits how they play alot better.
100% agree with this. I know for a fact that I could take Lawrence's army and I would not win the event. I think I would stand a good chance at getting through to the GT final but I wouldn't take it for granted. I think what some people are missing about this is...
(1) Lawrence is a very good player and plays quite a few games (well it is his job now)
(2) Lawrence has done well at events in the past (winning a few of the No Retreat events and often finishing quite highly)
(3) This was a GWGT. Anything could happen as you could be facing anything or have some horrible luck!
(4) Soft scores are a thing at GWGTs, so you can't assume you will win just upon your games
You totally need to take into the fact JUST how experienced Lawrence is. He's been playing 40k or a LONG time now and has huge experience of both the game mechanics and events.
He won events last year with the 7th ed Deldar dex, he came 2nd at no retreat used deldar in the endex as well. It doesn't take anything away from his gross list, but you have to give some credit to Lawrence.
AaronWilson wrote: You totally need to take into the fact JUST how experienced Lawrence is. He's been playing 40k or a LONG time now and has huge experience of both the game mechanics and events.
He won events last year with the 7th ed Deldar dex, he came 2nd at no retreat used deldar in the endex as well. It doesn't take anything away from his gross list, but you have to give some credit to Lawrence.
No-one is taking anything away from Lawrence. He's a fantastic player and a great guy.
Beyond Lawrence, 2nd place was another Marine list and other BobbyG lists did extremely well at the event. That is the point people are looking at in relation to the "omg Guard are OP and beat everything" argument, from which the point of this thread comes from.
As such, people are starting to use these results to question lists and just how strong some armies actually are.
AaronWilson wrote: You totally need to take into the fact JUST how experienced Lawrence is. He's been playing 40k or a LONG time now and has huge experience of both the game mechanics and events.
He won events last year with the 7th ed Deldar dex, he came 2nd at no retreat used deldar in the endex as well. It doesn't take anything away from his gross list, but you have to give some credit to Lawrence.
No-one is taking anything away from Lawrence. He's a fantastic player and a great guy.
Beyond Lawrence, 2nd place was another Marine list and other BobbyG lists did extremely well at the event. That is the point people are looking at in relation to the "omg Guard are OP and beat everything" argument, from which the point of this thread comes from.
As such, people are starting to use these results to question lists and just how strong some armies actually are.
Just a thought: the fact you see more Bobby G lists than, say, Conscript Spam lists may not *necessarily* tell us a great deal about the relative power/brokenness/whatever you want to call it – I'd wager there are a lot more Bobby G lists out there, given how much lower the hobby barrier to entry is in terms of time/cost, and this is obviously going to skew the stats.
I went to this GT with Death Guard and 250 points of Nurgle Daemons.
I won 3 out of 5 and got 5 votes for Favorite Player / Army Presentation and qualified for the finals in 24th place.
I love Tabletop tactics but I spoke to the people Laurence played and more than one of them was complaining about his gaming etiquette. Saying that his Gullimans auras had a longer range than anyone elses, and that he would move pieces far further than he should have. They told me he was a dirty cheat lol! Perhaps they were bitter, I can't say for certain.
I also went with a friend who got seized on 4 times there and came 70thish. He is a great player who should have qualified and if Lawrence had of been seized on 4 times I seriously doubt he would have won overall.
Just remember that before buying yourself an Ultramarines army.
AaronWilson wrote: You totally need to take into the fact JUST how experienced Lawrence is. He's been playing 40k or a LONG time now and has huge experience of both the game mechanics and events.
He won events last year with the 7th ed Deldar dex, he came 2nd at no retreat used deldar in the endex as well. It doesn't take anything away from his gross list, but you have to give some credit to Lawrence.
No-one is taking anything away from Lawrence. He's a fantastic player and a great guy.
Beyond Lawrence, 2nd place was another Marine list and other BobbyG lists did extremely well at the event. That is the point people are looking at in relation to the "omg Guard are OP and beat everything" argument, from which the point of this thread comes from.
As such, people are starting to use these results to question lists and just how strong some armies actually are.
Just a thought: the fact you see more Bobby G lists than, say, Conscript Spam lists may not *necessarily* tell us a great deal about the relative power/brokenness/whatever you want to call it – I'd wager there are a lot more Bobby G lists out there, given how much lower the hobby barrier to entry is in terms of time/cost, and this is obviously going to skew the stats.
It's hard to say without the full stats.,but i agree that the abundance of Bobby G has to be factored in and balanced vs other lists. I'd expect Bobby G lists to have a lower win-loss ratio due to the abundance, however, this will not mean that Bobby G is "balanced" or "over powered". Likewise, Conscript armies potentially have a higher win-loss ratio due to the amount of lists containing it, compared to Bobby G lists, but, it doesn't always mean they are the most over powered lists. It doesn't matter if you consistently win 4 out of 5 games if someone else is winning 5 out of 5.
Dr. Mills wrote: Would you look at all that pure Astra Militarum! Anyone would think with their new OP PLZ NERF! Codex, that they would be in the positions 1 to 5.
Guess Imperium soup really was the OP force, rather than a pure Astra Militarum army. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Astra Militarum is the most represented codex in that list. I guarantee the imperium ones had guard, and I bet the Genestealer cults had guard too.
I bet AM players are currently experimenting to see if any of the new units are worth shifting the old index meta.
AaronWilson wrote: You totally need to take into the fact JUST how experienced Lawrence is. He's been playing 40k or a LONG time now and has huge experience of both the game mechanics and events.
He won events last year with the 7th ed Deldar dex, he came 2nd at no retreat used deldar in the endex as well. It doesn't take anything away from his gross list, but you have to give some credit to Lawrence.
No-one is taking anything away from Lawrence. He's a fantastic player and a great guy.
Beyond Lawrence, 2nd place was another Marine list and other BobbyG lists did extremely well at the event. That is the point people are looking at in relation to the "omg Guard are OP and beat everything" argument, from which the point of this thread comes from.
As such, people are starting to use these results to question lists and just how strong some armies actually are.
Just a thought: the fact you see more Bobby G lists than, say, Conscript Spam lists may not *necessarily* tell us a great deal about the relative power/brokenness/whatever you want to call it – I'd wager there are a lot more Bobby G lists out there, given how much lower the hobby barrier to entry is in terms of time/cost, and this is obviously going to skew the stats.
I took it to mean something else. Let's assume Guard is overpowered and Conscript Spam beats everything. Except Bobby G. Bobby G lists smash conscript spam. So in a meta of conscript spam, guess who takes 1st place? The guy bringing 72 s6 shots that reroll failed hits and wounds.
In regards to Lawrence's play I can't / won't comment. No idea on those statements as I wasn't there and it's not right to call people out when they're not on the forum to respond.
All I will say in regards to that is - If people playing against him knew Lawrence said the aura was bigger then it is, or was moving too far I feel like they would of called him out. As I said I wasn't there and have no idea.
Luck is a huge factor in winning any large event with 5+ rounds. You need some to win a even that size.
Xenomancers wrote: You know with the information from this link it is entirely possible that this guy never faced a good army.
I believe this is Lawrence from (youtube) Tabletop Tactics. I'm sure he has played against strong IG lists in the past and knew what he might be facing in this tournament. One of the regulars on his channel plays guard almost exclusively.
Granted, his youtube channel/website is for entertainment and they typically feature armies that are more varied than the standard 'tournament spam' lists. Though they all seem to be experienced players, so he has a strong foundation to play against.
Lawrence, no bones about it, is a very competitive player. He doesn't run his youtube channel like it's a tournament every week, but when he goes to a tournament he doesn't pull a single punch.
Lawrence, the winner, is a great player who has won many tournaments in the past with less able army lists. Not only this but he is a top lad who makes brilliant and often narrative driven battle reports.
Even he admitted that his list for this was probably broken.
Gulliman is a bad unit because he is so obviously better than the alternatives. SM have some really interesting HQs that never need to see use because he supersedes them all.
The main problem with doing anything about G man is that is forces all space marine competitive players to paint their armies in raven guard (or raptors) colors. The Space marines live and die off their synnergies, and G man is the best in the game at pulling that off. Take that away and, in isolation, space marine units simply under perform in almost every circumstance. Raven Guard based lists weaken their shooting synergy to benefit off of movement shenanigans and baller chapter tactics. But space marines really DO need the rerolls on a competetive level. On a casual level Guilliman is so efficient that he just creates face stomping lists just by existing. But, uh, don't take him if you aren't playing competitively.
Xenomancers wrote: knowing what to expect against a strong AM list is laughable. They can beat you multiple way because literally ever unit in their codex is better than yours. I mean - these are some real uphill battles from the start. You almost can't call them battles. It's how I know he didn't face any legit AM armies. Do you really think this guy would have a chance against a supreme command russ division with a baneblade? And a batallion composed of conscripts commissars and mortars? NO - nothing stands a chance against that.
lol
A guard super heavy list doesn't win tournies. I know people like to freak out about superheavies, but, really, chill out. They're NOT that good.
The second list is much more interesting. And seems to fit with the idea that guard players are experimenting with lists now. It'll be a bit before we know if the buffs Russes got will propel them to the competitive meta. I still think tallarn russ movement tricks are tournament level, but I might be wrong. It also requires LoS blocking terrain
The main problem with doing anything about G man is that is forces all space marine competitive players to paint their armies in raven guard (or raptors) colors. The Space marines live and die off their synnergies, and G man is the best in the game at pulling that off. Take that away and, in isolation, space marine units simply under perform in almost every circumstance. Raven Guard based lists weaken their shooting synergy to benefit off of movement shenanigans and baller chapter tactics. But space marines really DO need the rerolls on a competetive level. On a casual level Guilliman is so efficient that he just creates face stomping lists just by existing. But, uh, don't take him if you aren't playing competitively.
I disagree. Yes, having Bobby G in your Ultramarines is extremely powerful due to the re-rolls etc, it isn’t the only option open to Marine players currently. The Primaris Raven Guard list that won all 5 games at the event is proof of that.
Slightly nerfing/increasing the points cost of Bobby G isn’t going to change how the army performs, you just might have to drop a unit/some special weapons.
I also think there are more options for Marine players beyond Ultramarines and Raven Guard, however, the vast majority of people are not using those other chapters, and thus, aren’t represented well, when they are up against 5 times as many Ultramarine lists. As a result, you’re more likely going to see an Ultramarines victory rather than a Salamander victory for example.
I also disagree with the “take the re-rolls away and Marines under-perform” statement. Surely that just means that with the re-rolls they OVER perform, and the rest of the time they perform as intended? Surely, if re-rolls were all important we’d be seeing a lot more Salamander armies.
People take Ultramarines because it is easy, reliable and works.
The main problem with doing anything about G man is that is forces all space marine competitive players to paint their armies in raven guard (or raptors) colors. The Space marines live and die off their synnergies, and G man is the best in the game at pulling that off. Take that away and, in isolation, space marine units simply under perform in almost every circumstance. Raven Guard based lists weaken their shooting synergy to benefit off of movement shenanigans and baller chapter tactics. But space marines really DO need the rerolls on a competetive level. On a casual level Guilliman is so efficient that he just creates face stomping lists just by existing. But, uh, don't take him if you aren't playing competitively.
I disagree. Yes, having Bobby G in your Ultramarines is extremely powerful due to the re-rolls etc, it isn’t the only option open to Marine players currently. The Primaris Raven Guard list that won all 5 games at the event is proof of that.
Slightly nerfing/increasing the points cost of Bobby G isn’t going to change how the army performs, you just might have to drop a unit/some special weapons.
I also think there are more options for Marine players beyond Ultramarines and Raven Guard, however, the vast majority of people are not using those other chapters, and thus, aren’t represented well, when they are up against 5 times as many Ultramarine lists. As a result, you’re more likely going to see an Ultramarines victory rather than a Salamander victory for example.
I also disagree with the “take the re-rolls away and Marines under-perform” statement. Surely that just means that with the re-rolls they OVER perform, and the rest of the time they perform as intended? Surely, if re-rolls were all important we’d be seeing a lot more Salamander armies.
People take Ultramarines because it is easy, reliable and works.
I... uh... mentioned that raven guard are really good right? *looks at the post* Ah, I did, yeah.
Rerolls are all important. Every space marine army has them. I bet that raven guard list was rocking a chapter master upgrade. And there are always going to be the reroll 1s in space marine armies. Rerolls are baked into Space marines in a way they aren't for most other factions.
Space marine units are not efficient cost for kill and survivability without the reroll support. Not in the way AM units are (and then they got ways to give full rerolls). Except the storm raven, which is beastly on its own already. And probably razorbacks with assault cannons (not the lascannon ones. Those still need to rock the rerolls). In the way the game plays right now, space marines are huge glass cannons.
There's a reason that space marines have 2 archetypes on the tournament meta. Guilliman and raven guard. And not salamanders.
I used a unit of terminators and 5 devastator squads with the banner. I went into the event knowing that this packed a powerful punch, but was ultimately not 'winning' list because its based around marine infantry which at a base level just doesn't compete.
I shouldn't have gotten as high as I did, but I was fortunate in a couple of matchups (got first turn every game), and in one game, seized on a storm raven player downing all three in turn 1.
Ive told you about my list, specifically so that you know im a little biased here. But i believe the problem with big G and by extension the other SM buff auras is that they affect everything.
My fix is simple. Leave him at the same point value he is, but make his buff only affect models with chapter tactics ultra marines.
This means that if you want to get a benefit out of the buff (like i did), you have to make your army much more of a glass cannon, and considerably less mobile (marine infantry cant keep up with big G).
Hey SecretForge, that was my friend with the Stormravens. He got seized on four times last weekend. :(
I think a lot of the problem is the Eternal War missions, where you just kill each other as much as possible while castling up in a small blob then make a dash for objectives on turn five.
If it was Maelstrom Missions, and you had to move here or there to take the objectives as the game progressed it would have been fairer. The whole army wouldn't get all the buffs from the auras.
In Eternal War gunlines, especially those with a lot of guns that may shoot targets out of line of sight, have a significant advantage I feel.
I was surprised when they announced it was Eternal War, but I suppose you don't want people with bent decks of cards in a competitive tournament.
It was Eternal War missions, we didn't play The Scouring. Or whatever they call it now where the Fast Attack choices are effectively objective secured and are worth an extra victory point each.
XT-1984 wrote: It was Eternal War missions, we didn't play The Scouring. Or whatever they call it now where the Fast Attack choices are effectively objective secured and are worth an extra victory point each.
Did they roll for them before each round? That's what they said they were doing. Any duplicate deployments or anything?
XT-1984 wrote: It was Eternal War missions, we didn't play The Scouring. Or whatever they call it now where the Fast Attack choices are effectively objective secured and are worth an extra victory point each.
Did they roll for them before each round? That's what they said they were doing. Any duplicate deployments or anything?
Yeah I even got to roll the big foam dice for the next mission!
Deployment is rolled for by the player as described in each mission. So even though everyone played the same mission each round, the deployment was rolled for on each table.
koooaei wrote: What's the point of running a GT with eternal war missions? To see who has better defensive gunlines?
Maelstrom missions are less tactical and more a sort of random game.
I think you mean Eternal War is less tactical since the mission doesn't matter in the slightest and you just aim to shoot each other. Maelstrom at least forces you to think about the ability to grab and hold objectives whilst also fighting your opponent.
As for Lawrence, he's already promised to do one of his Vox Casts detailing his list and games at the tournament so that will probably pop up in the next week.
I used a unit of terminators and 5 devastator squads with the banner. I went into the event knowing that this packed a powerful punch, but was ultimately not 'winning' list because its based around marine infantry which at a base level just doesn't compete.
I shouldn't have gotten as high as I did, but I was fortunate in a couple of matchups (got first turn every game), and in one game, seized on a storm raven player downing all three in turn 1.
Ive told you about my list, specifically so that you know im a little biased here. But i believe the problem with big G and by extension the other SM buff auras is that they affect everything.
My fix is simple. Leave him at the same point value he is, but make his buff only affect models with chapter tactics ultra marines.
This means that if you want to get a benefit out of the buff (like i did), you have to make your army much more of a glass cannon, and considerably less mobile (marine infantry cant keep up with big G).
That doesn't make a lot of sense due to how the HQ selections work though. They affect everything but he doesn't? Gotta have a balance between fluff, crunch, and practicality.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right?
Unless it had to hold objectives with ObSec or face any vehicles at range. Even 72 Assault Cannon shots with all the rerolls will struggle to kill more than a single Rhino equivalent a turn.
Um no? 3 Razorbacks will inflict 9 wounds under the Rowboat aura, so not including the odd Stormbolter, HK Missiles, and weapons from the Stormraven you should be getting 2 dead Rhinos a turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, 3 Stormbolters would inflict the last wound under the Rowboat aura. Where are you getting "struggling" from?
So what I said was completely accurate? 72 Assault Cannon shots will struggle to kill two Rhinos in a turn. 72 x .888 x .555 x .5 = 17.74, which is less than two Rhinos.
Of course the Stormraven adds to that, but that wasn't the statement.
The six Lascannons give you another (6 x .888 x .888 x .83 x 3.5 = ) 13.7 REQ wounds, just in case you're wondering.
It isn't accurate because you said struggling. 3 Razorbacks with the aura with Assault Cannons and Storm Bolters kill a Rhino a turn. Is it barely over? Sure, but the average shows no struggling.
So I have no idea what you're defending here. Nobody here has yet to disagree with me that removing either Rowboat or the Razorbacks would've propelled the list downwards performance-wise.
The ''Big G'' would eventually not be so successful in maelstrom missions.
Then the armies need to spread out a bit to capture or contest mission objective.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I mean removing Bobby g from the list probably propels it downwards in a 2k fight because now it it is 1640 points...
Now throw anything else in those 360 points. The list would not have done as well.
And nobody has yet to comment on the similar situations I brought up like this in the past. At least acknowledge you can't or say "I'll get back to you".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right?
Unless it had to hold objectives with ObSec or face any vehicles at range. Even 72 Assault Cannon shots with all the rerolls will struggle to kill more than a single Rhino equivalent a turn.
Um no? 3 Razorbacks will inflict 9 wounds under the Rowboat aura, so not including the odd Stormbolter, HK Missiles, and weapons from the Stormraven you should be getting 2 dead Rhinos a turn.
Automatically Appended Next Post: For the record, 3 Stormbolters would inflict the last wound under the Rowboat aura. Where are you getting "struggling" from?
So what I said was completely accurate? 72 Assault Cannon shots will struggle to kill two Rhinos in a turn. 72 x .888 x .555 x .5 = 17.74, which is less than two Rhinos.
Of course the Stormraven adds to that, but that wasn't the statement.
The six Lascannons give you another (6 x .888 x .888 x .83 x 3.5 = ) 13.7 REQ wounds, just in case you're wondering.
It isn't accurate because you said struggling. 3 Razorbacks with the aura with Assault Cannons and Storm Bolters kill a Rhino a turn. Is it barely over? Sure, but the average shows no struggling.
So I have no idea what you're defending here. Nobody here has yet to disagree with me that removing either Rowboat or the Razorbacks would've propelled the list downwards performance-wise.
To which I say again, that's not the statement. There are no Storm Bolters in my statement, or more importantly, on the Razorbacks in the list as posted in the OP. Six Razorbacks with Assault Cannons only will not, by odds, kill two Rhinos.
More to the point though, they will not kill two Leman Russes, or a single Baneblade chassis, in a round.
The Tacticals with Lascannons nearly double his anti-tank output, especially if he spends a CP to reroll a bad damage roll. At that point he averages a Baneblade kill a turn. If I'm reading correctly, he tabled a triple Baneblade list in 4 turns, and the liklihood of that happening wihout those lascannons is slim at best.
I'm saying the Tactical Marines could've been replaced with literally anything and the same list would've won.
Do you honestly think the list would've done the same without Rowboat and the Razorbacks?
Probably not. They bring valuable anti-vehicle firepower in Ob-Sec, drop-reducing form.
Scouts top out at Missile Launchers, and the heavy IG tanks are T8. Scouts van infiltrate, but then you're more drops, more exposed, worse armor, and away from the buff bubble.
Intercessors have worse anti-tank, and also force more drops, as they can't be transported in the Rhino.
Anything else loses ob-sec. Devastators look enticing but then the opponent has a clear target, and they die first.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Objective Secured is a useless rule. The same list would've done better with using Devastators.
Hehe. And the most common army is Space Marines. And everyone knows that you don't take tacticals or scouts because they're both the worst units in the game....
I'm saying the Tactical Marines could've been replaced with literally anything and the same list would've won.
Do you honestly think the list would've done the same without Rowboat and the Razorbacks?
Probably not. They bring valuable anti-vehicle firepower in Ob-Sec, drop-reducing form.
Scouts top out at Missile Launchers, and the heavy IG tanks are T8. Scouts van infiltrate, but then you're more drops, more exposed, worse armor, and away from the buff bubble.
Intercessors have worse anti-tank, and also force more drops, as they can't be transported in the Rhino.
Anything else loses ob-sec. Devastators look enticing but then the opponent has a clear target, and they die first.
You can watch one of his games v Chaos on the Warhammer channel on Twitch. The Lascannons had an impact. And all of his units benefited from rerolls from Roboute throughout the game.
I like the idea that somehow Devastators or Scouts could outperform the Tacticals, but that's just on paper. This list won on heavy weapons spread out over things with enough wounds to keep shooting.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Objective Secured is a useless rule. The same list would've done better with using Devastators.
Hehe. And the most common army is Space Marines. And everyone knows that you don't take tacticals or scouts because they're both the worst units in the game....
I'm saying the Tactical Marines could've been replaced with literally anything and the same list would've won.
Do you honestly think the list would've done the same without Rowboat and the Razorbacks?
Probably not. They bring valuable anti-vehicle firepower in Ob-Sec, drop-reducing form.
Scouts top out at Missile Launchers, and the heavy IG tanks are T8. Scouts van infiltrate, but then you're more drops, more exposed, worse armor, and away from the buff bubble.
Intercessors have worse anti-tank, and also force more drops, as they can't be transported in the Rhino.
Anything else loses ob-sec. Devastators look enticing but then the opponent has a clear target, and they die first.
You can watch one of his games v Chaos on the Warhammer channel on Twitch. The Lascannons had an impact. And all of his units benefited from rerolls from Roboute throughout the game.
I like the idea that somehow Devastators or Scouts could outperform the Tacticals, but that's just on paper. This list won on heavy weapons spread out over things with enough wounds to keep shooting.
And I think thats part of it. The opponent has two targets, they can shoot the Raven at a -2, or shoot a Razorback with Tacticals inside at the start of the game.
If there are Devaststors, the opponent shoots the Razorback with the Devastators, because its the highest potential Lascannon removal target. But the way it's set up, the opponent has the same targets all the time, possibly optimized by using Razorbacks to block some LOS from any dismounted Tacticals, while the Tacticals get the most out of their Lascannons.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Objective Secured is a useless rule. The same list would've done better with using Devastators.
Hehe. And the most common army is Space Marines. And everyone knows that you don't take tacticals or scouts because they're both the worst units in the game....
I mean, I'd actually normally agree with that. (outside of the scope of the winning list) They're probably in a tie with, or slightly behind Scions for possible best troop in the game. There's a lot of people in this thread who would strongly disagree though.
I mean, I'd actually normally agree with that. (outside of the scope of the winning list) They're probably in a tie with, or slightly behind Scions for possible best troop in the game. There's a lot of people in this thread who would strongly disagree though.
Its sort of moot. Tacs and Scouts are different, and do different things. The key is to use the one that works best for the rest of what you bring, and how you plan to play it.
I mean, I'd actually normally agree with that. (outside of the scope of the winning list) They're probably in a tie with, or slightly behind Scions for possible best troop in the game. There's a lot of people in this thread who would strongly disagree though.
I obviously didn't mean in the entire game, but Scouts are definitely a contender for top 5 in that sorta list.
I mean, I'd actually normally agree with that. (outside of the scope of the winning list) They're probably in a tie with, or slightly behind Scions for possible best troop in the game. There's a lot of people in this thread who would strongly disagree though.
Its sort of moot. Tacs and Scouts are different, and do different things. The key is to use the one that works best for the rest of what you bring, and how you plan to play it.
Of course if that were the case, why wasn't this brought up with the list in 6th with Pods and Calgar? You miss consistency here and decide that you want a singular tournament to prove your point.
I mean, I'd actually normally agree with that. (outside of the scope of the winning list) They're probably in a tie with, or slightly behind Scions for possible best troop in the game. There's a lot of people in this thread who would strongly disagree though.
Its sort of moot. Tacs and Scouts are different, and do different things. The key is to use the one that works best for the rest of what you bring, and how you plan to play it.
Of course if that were the case, why wasn't this brought up with the list in 6th with Pods and Calgar? You miss consistency here and decide that you want a singular tournament to prove your point.
I'm saying the Tactical Marines could've been replaced with literally anything and the same list would've won.
Do you honestly think the list would've done the same without Rowboat and the Razorbacks?
Probably not. They bring valuable anti-vehicle firepower in Ob-Sec, drop-reducing form.
Scouts top out at Missile Launchers, and the heavy IG tanks are T8. Scouts van infiltrate, but then you're more drops, more exposed, worse armor, and away from the buff bubble.
Intercessors have worse anti-tank, and also force more drops, as they can't be transported in the Rhino.
Anything else loses ob-sec. Devastators look enticing but then the opponent has a clear target, and they die first.
You can watch one of his games v Chaos on the Warhammer channel on Twitch. The Lascannons had an impact. And all of his units benefited from rerolls from Roboute throughout the game.
I like the idea that somehow Devastators or Scouts could outperform the Tacticals, but that's just on paper. This list won on heavy weapons spread out over things with enough wounds to keep shooting.
If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.
I'm saying the Tactical Marines could've been replaced with literally anything and the same list would've won.
Do you honestly think the list would've done the same without Rowboat and the Razorbacks?
Probably not. They bring valuable anti-vehicle firepower in Ob-Sec, drop-reducing form.
Scouts top out at Missile Launchers, and the heavy IG tanks are T8. Scouts van infiltrate, but then you're more drops, more exposed, worse armor, and away from the buff bubble.
Intercessors have worse anti-tank, and also force more drops, as they can't be transported in the Rhino.
Anything else loses ob-sec. Devastators look enticing but then the opponent has a clear target, and they die first.
You can watch one of his games v Chaos on the Warhammer channel on Twitch. The Lascannons had an impact. And all of his units benefited from rerolls from Roboute throughout the game.
I like the idea that somehow Devastators or Scouts could outperform the Tacticals, but that's just on paper. This list won on heavy weapons spread out over things with enough wounds to keep shooting.
If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.
I'm saying the Tactical Marines could've been replaced with literally anything and the same list would've won.
Do you honestly think the list would've done the same without Rowboat and the Razorbacks?
Probably not. They bring valuable anti-vehicle firepower in Ob-Sec, drop-reducing form.
Scouts top out at Missile Launchers, and the heavy IG tanks are T8. Scouts van infiltrate, but then you're more drops, more exposed, worse armor, and away from the buff bubble.
Intercessors have worse anti-tank, and also force more drops, as they can't be transported in the Rhino.
Anything else loses ob-sec. Devastators look enticing but then the opponent has a clear target, and they die first.
You can watch one of his games v Chaos on the Warhammer channel on Twitch. The Lascannons had an impact. And all of his units benefited from rerolls from Roboute throughout the game.
I like the idea that somehow Devastators or Scouts could outperform the Tacticals, but that's just on paper. This list won on heavy weapons spread out over things with enough wounds to keep shooting.
If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.
And would have had a non battleforged army.
No - obviously his army would be battle-forged. The captain is relatively useless to - he could just go for a spearhead drop the captain and take even more las cannons or take a company ancient with relic standard - to make his devs immune to morale AND shoot back on a 3+ when they die. 7 or 9 command points makes very little difference for marines. Our stratagems suck except for orbital.
I mean, I'd actually normally agree with that. (outside of the scope of the winning list) They're probably in a tie with, or slightly behind Scions for possible best troop in the game. There's a lot of people in this thread who would strongly disagree though.
Its sort of moot. Tacs and Scouts are different, and do different things. The key is to use the one that works best for the rest of what you bring, and how you plan to play it.
Of course if that were the case, why wasn't this brought up with the list in 6th with Pods and Calgar? You miss consistency here and decide that you want a singular tournament to prove your point.
I honestly have no idea what you are on about.
The point that you're using one tournament result to help support your point whereas I wait 3-4. Hence I said "Just wait" on all the Guard threads here.
Then there s specific examples of this happening. In 6th edition there was a topping list that used 5 Tactical Squads I. Drop Pods with Calgar. Some of you guys proclaimed the same thing about Tactical Marines being good and that was your proof...and then nobody cared because topping lists went back to being White Scars and Centurionstar lists of varying kinds. Then we had one Chaos List that used 3 Rubric Squads and Ahrimam of all things, but at least only one person was defending Rubric Marines ever in this forum.
My point being is that these things one-offs or sometimes even two-offs, but that's it. The people clamoring to the defense of poor units in these lists forget about past tournaments for a reason, and thats because it doesn't fit their internal narrative.
If this happened several times in a row sure there might be something.
in the 6.5 codex calgar granted army wide ability to chose to pass or fail any moral check combined with ATFKNF was a very powerful in an objective game. Ultra marines also had a favorable chapter tact as well - I think it was similar to the tactical doctrine that gladius ended up giving to all marines. People stopped doing it because gladius was better.
Xenomancers wrote: If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.
Sure.
Sacrificing battle-forged to get signums makes a lot of sense. Legion tactics are overrated and have no impact on the game, not to mention command points.
And when I want to keep battle-forged, I really enjoy spending points on multiple detachments with extra HQs. The fact 40% of my army's points go to HQs isn't inefficient, it's an investment.
Failing that, filling my battalion with scouts that will do nothing all game to account for the mandatory troop choices is a great fallback. When doing cost comparisons, I don't need to account for them because they are separate units.
Endless War scenarios really make this sort of strategy useful, since each unit kill matters.
I am willing to do all this because someone on Dakka said Tacticals are bad.
My point is only that you choose the right unit for synergy with your army and how you play it. Tacticals can work if deployed appropriately, even in a competetive setting. And specifically in this case, I argue they are a better choice over scouts.
In a different sort of army, Scouts work better. In this army, they don't.
If anything, the Drop Pod Calgar list helps my point. It's a list that presumably capitalizes on the benefits of Tacticals over Scouts. Because thats how army-wide strategy works.
Xenomancers wrote: If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.
Sure.
Sacrificing battle-forged to get signums makes a lot of sense. Legion tactics are overrated and have no impact on the game, not to mention command points.
And when I want to keep battle-forged, I really enjoy spending points on multiple detachments with extra HQs. The fact 40% of my army's points go to HQs isn't inefficient, it's an investment.
Failing that, filling my battalion with scouts that will do nothing all game to account for the mandatory troop choices is a great fallback. When doing cost comparisons, I don't need to account for them because they are separate units.
Endless War scenarios really make this sort of strategy useful, since each unit kill matters.
I am willing to do all this because someone on Dakka said Tacticals are bad.
It's still battleforged if you do a spearhead? What am I missing here?
My point is only that you choose the right unit for synergy with your army and how you play it. Tacticals can work if deployed appropriately, even in a competetive setting. And specifically in this case, I argue they are a better choice over scouts.
In a different sort of army, Scouts work better. In this army, they don't.
If anything, the Drop Pod Calgar list helps my point. It's a list that presumably capitalizes on the benefits of Tacticals over Scouts. Because thats how army-wide strategy works.
It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?
Played against a CSM list with 6x CSM squads with one lascannon each. It was pretty annoying, especially since they were all in cover. Tactical marines become worthwhile with cover since you are fielding a 2+ armor model for 13 pts. They aren't mobile, but they are at least worthwhile. They're still terrible for what their purported job is, but that's a fluff/crunch thing that will never be resolved.
My point is only that you choose the right unit for synergy with your army and how you play it. Tacticals can work if deployed appropriately, even in a competetive setting. And specifically in this case, I argue they are a better choice over scouts.
In a different sort of army, Scouts work better. In this army, they don't.
If anything, the Drop Pod Calgar list helps my point. It's a list that presumably capitalizes on the benefits of Tacticals over Scouts. Because thats how army-wide strategy works.
It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?
The majority of tourny players are sheeple that net lists? /s
that or less people want to risk outliner strats when things that are already winning are easier to follow as it has a track record.
Glad to see the "spread out" las cannon tactical idea i posted a while back that was getting gakked on.
So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?
But one guy on the forum loses to IG on day 2 (which is also unverified) and suddenly it's time to declare the entire company morally bankrupt, the guard codex to be more OP than 7th edition Wraithknight and Scatbike spam, to shun every single IG player as a power-hungry WAAC player by never playing against them, to avoid tournaments until "IG is fixed", and make those players feel bad about something completely out of their control. Because that's more sensible right?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: But one guy on the forum loses to IG on day 2 (which is also unverified) and suddenly it's time to declare the entire company morally bankrupt, the guard codex to be more OP than 7th edition Wraithknight and Scatbike spam, to shun every single IG player as a power-hungry WAAC player by never playing against them, to avoid tournaments until "IG is fixed", and make those players feel bad about something completely out of their control. Because that's more sensible right?
Yeah thats seems right. A good "Internet's Hyperbole" reaction.
Marmatag wrote: So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?
This forum..../facepalm.
More like:
Maybe the faction with the most unit choices and the largest model range can make many different types of armies with different play styles, and maybe some units are better suited to certain play styles than others.
In this case, a player fully committed to capitalize on some of the strongest units in the codex, and Tacticals appear to synergize better in that build, as compared to other popular choices.
Reading comprehension and grasp of nuance.../facepalm
Xenomancers wrote: If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.
Sure.
Sacrificing battle-forged to get signums makes a lot of sense. Legion tactics are overrated and have no impact on the game, not to mention command points.
And when I want to keep battle-forged, I really enjoy spending points on multiple detachments with extra HQs. The fact 40% of my army's points go to HQs isn't inefficient, it's an investment.
Failing that, filling my battalion with scouts that will do nothing all game to account for the mandatory troop choices is a great fallback. When doing cost comparisons, I don't need to account for them because they are separate units.
Endless War scenarios really make this sort of strategy useful, since each unit kill matters.
I am willing to do all this because someone on Dakka said Tacticals are bad.
It's still battleforged if you do a spearhead? What am I missing here?
Well slayerfan, I think what you are missing is points. Command points for sure, points spent on units, perhaps.
But then there's the obvious point. Someone had success with this list in a tournament. Pen-and-paper arguments don't account for tournament conditions or a variety of other factors that have not been considered.
Like math. Trading 2 CPs for Signum + 2 additional Lascannon shots averages to about +1 wound per turn. Seems like a bad deal, a single reroll on a Heavy d6 weapon could do more.
Maybe you want to take that speartip and go win a tournament with it? Or just go on telling us how the Lascannons don't matter, then they do, then you can get them cheaper, then how no one understands what you are saying?
The tac marines are just crap to take up space because every list needs crap to take up space in 8th. We can fight about which disposable crap is the best, but this guy took the crap that can bring lascannons to be annoying crap at range. Tac marines are still embarrassingly awful, but give them a free 2+ save from some bushes and they serve as space filler in this kind of list fine.
Just as I'd argue that conscripts could be armed with pillows and they'd still do their job perfectly well, ie existing, I don't think the exact nature of the expendable units matters here. The list would probably be even harder to beat by making it a soup list.
Martel732 wrote: The tac marines are just crap to take up space because every list needs crap to take up space in 8th. We can fight about which disposable crap is the best, but this guy took the crap that can bring lascannons to be annoying crap at range. Tac marines are still embarrassingly awful, but give them a free 2+ save from some bushes and they serve as space filler in this kind of list fine.
Just as I'd argue that conscripts could be armed with pillows and they'd still do their job perfectly well, ie existing, I don't think the exact nature of the expendable units matters here. The list would probably be even harder to beat by making it a soup list.
Why wouldn't I be? Just another day in Craphammer 40K, where having expendable crap is the most valuable aspect of a list. And heavy weapons with rerolls. Can't forget those.
It's interesting that doubling the number of lascannons would halve the effective number of woulds protecting them. Given that most of what's been the conventional spam (in an pre-codex IG list anyway) has been stuff that will effectively take off 1-3 wounds from a tac squad outside of 12" at a time most reliably, I can't help but wonder if this was taken into account so as to deliberately spread out the most ablative armor to the most lascannons. For example, they'd have to have at least 2 things with a basilisk level of effectiveness fire at each tac squad to have a reasonable (but not guaranteed) chance to take out the lascannon.
And then that's not even including all the razorbacks. This is definitely some decent target saturation.
Marmatag wrote: So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?
This forum..../facepalm.
Thing is, this meme that "AM has been winning tournaments left and right" is total bs, and that's where you've gone wrong from the start.
With an extremely small sample size, in a very narrow window of time, with so few actual Codex being released - AM "Index" plus "Imperial Soup" sat near the top.
Already in a very short time (unprecedented really) we have a few more Codex released and the tournament results have shifted, but again we're looking at very small samples, at a point where every army is not up to date - this should be common sense.
Two more Codex are already announced, this is again, unprecedented, but at this point, there is literally zero actual evidence to support the claim that the AM codex, out for 1 week, is op.
daedalus wrote: It's interesting that doubling the number of lascannons would halve the effective number of woulds protecting them. Given that most of what's been the conventional spam (in an pre-codex IG list anyway) has been stuff that will effectively take off 1-3 wounds from a tac squad outside of 12" at a time most reliably, I can't help but wonder if this was taken into account so as to deliberately spread out the most ablative armor to the most lascannons. For example, they'd have to have at least 2 things with a basilisk level of effectiveness fire at each tac squad to have a reasonable (but not guaranteed) chance to take out the lascannon.
And then that's not even including all the razorbacks. This is definitely some decent target saturation.
But only the razors can move. I've heard IG players complain about AT options, maybe he was trying to hit that as hard as he could.
Marmatag wrote: So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?
This forum..../facepalm.
Thing is, this meme that "AM has been winning tournaments left and right" is total bs, and that's where you've gone wrong from the start.
With an extremely small sample size, in a very narrow window of time, with so few actual Codex being released - AM "Index" plus "Imperial Soup" sat near the top.
Already in a very short time (unprecedented really) we have a few more Codex released and the tournament results have shifted, but again we're looking at very small samples, at a point where every army is not up to date - this should be common sense.
Two more Codex are already announced, this is again, unprecedented, but at this point, there is literally zero actual evidence to support the claim that the AM codex, out for 1 week, is op.
I'm willing to concede that there are methods and strategies for marines to handle the IG codex. By marines, I mean vanilla marines. The nature of the IG codex in particular basically turns off SW and BA lists completely and irrevocably without even rolling dice. CSM can do something similar with cultists. I'm skeptical that marines can hang without Bobby G in the long haul.
"there is literally zero actual evidence to support the claim that the AM codex, out for 1 week, is op. "
They beat melee lists by existing. Seems like too hard of a counter to me. We are argue if that's OP or not.
Xenomancers wrote: If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.
Sure.
Sacrificing battle-forged to get signums makes a lot of sense. Legion tactics are overrated and have no impact on the game, not to mention command points.
And when I want to keep battle-forged, I really enjoy spending points on multiple detachments with extra HQs. The fact 40% of my army's points go to HQs isn't inefficient, it's an investment.
Failing that, filling my battalion with scouts that will do nothing all game to account for the mandatory troop choices is a great fallback. When doing cost comparisons, I don't need to account for them because they are separate units.
Endless War scenarios really make this sort of strategy useful, since each unit kill matters.
I am willing to do all this because someone on Dakka said Tacticals are bad.
It's still battleforged if you do a spearhead? What am I missing here?
Well slayerfan, I think what you are missing is points. Command points for sure, points spent on units, perhaps.
But then there's the obvious point. Someone had success with this list in a tournament. Pen-and-paper arguments don't account for tournament conditions or a variety of other factors that have not been considered.
Like math. Trading 2 CPs for Signum + 2 additional Lascannon shots averages to about +1 wound per turn. Seems like a bad deal, a single reroll on a Heavy d6 weapon could do more.
Maybe you want to take that speartip and go win a tournament with it? Or just go on telling us how the Lascannons don't matter, then they do, then you can get them cheaper, then how no one understands what you are saying?
You are the one saying las cannons don't matter. I am abolsutely saying that las cannons matter. Which is why this list is not optimal. Even with his diesired drop number he could have included 3-4 more las cannons without hurting his game plan or durability. sacrificing a useless captain who's using the wrong relic BTW (he should have a primarchs wrath) and 4 useless marine bodies for 5 or more las cannons is absolutely worth more than 1 command point in this case ESP if you consdier the ancient who if you give him your relic can can be worth 4-5 more las cannon shots in a game easy. All of this is done without increasing drop number.
Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??
TheCustomLime wrote: Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??
AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.
Marmatag wrote: So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?
This forum..../facepalm.
There's no need to exaggerate what authors in the thread are saying. Nobody is arguing for or against Tacticals here, let me try to spell it out in a way you can understand.
"Good" and "bad" are arbitrary distinctions used by gentler members of the gaming community incapable of understanding 40k outside the terms of stats published in Codexes. These people use these words to help them pick the units for their armies, it's like large print for the people who need a hand figuring things out themselves. The fact we keep the community inclusive enough so people like this to participate is part of why I enjoy it so much.
Sometimes, talented players find uses for those "bad" units to win games. Sometimes, they even do so in tournament settings, like we just saw.
You don't have to let it make you all angry inside, but that's alright if you feel that way. Your feelings are part of who you are, and sometimes you are going to feel that way when someone doesn't agree with you.
Some people feel like it's better to know how to play 40k than to have a bunch of made up, phony misconceptions of what units are okay to use based on what you heard on Dakka. Skill and experience is just other people's way of playing the game, and it's alright if you want to play "good" unit armies. You can both play together and still have a good time.
If you are ever at a table and see someone using one of those bad units, always remember you can ask someone for a hug and that will make the angry go away.
Marmatag wrote: So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?
This forum..../facepalm.
Thing is, this meme that "AM has been winning tournaments left and right" is total bs, and that's where you've gone wrong from the start.
With an extremely small sample size, in a very narrow window of time, with so few actual Codex being released - AM "Index" plus "Imperial Soup" sat near the top.
Already in a very short time (unprecedented really) we have a few more Codex released and the tournament results have shifted, but again we're looking at very small samples, at a point where every army is not up to date - this should be common sense.
Two more Codex are already announced, this is again, unprecedented, but at this point, there is literally zero actual evidence to support the claim that the AM codex, out for 1 week, is op.
A guy made a poll a while back. It's probably still up. It had AM index at about 80% winrate compared to space marines and practical every other army near 50% except orks which were like 20%. Take that for what it is - a random collection of data. It agrees with that I see on a regular basis so I have no problem agreeing with it. You really can't make an arguement that this codex isn't stronger than the index was. It's literally the same list of units with free rules and point cost reductions given to the other one....minus 2 entry that got minior nerfs and both are still viable options and still OP (conscripts and scions). It's a simple argument that anyone can understand. What was once OP and was made better - is still OP.
TheCustomLime wrote: Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??
AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.
Almost every ones generic shooting weapon went to ap0
the only people that came out ahead on that one was guard as their guns capped out.
TheCustomLime wrote: Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??
AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.
Almost every ones generic shooting weapon went to ap0
the only people that came out ahead on that one was guard as their guns capped out.
Yes, but marines could ill-afford that hit, given their small model count. As I said, tacs are REALLY bad at doing any damage at all with bolters, because they just aren't throwing enough dice with enough special rules. Therefore, their usage is purely as a terrible version of a conscript squad. They can't shoot, can't fight in CC, can't move. But they can cower in cover and encourage the enemy to waste fire on them. Somehow.
Small model count is the original sin of 8th. Tac marines can evidently pretend to overcome this by getting a free +1 armor save. If you change tac marine armor to 2+, they then become worth 13 pt/model I think. That's the key in all this. It has to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: Tactical Marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of troops. That's what you have assault cannons and missiles for.
But for 13 pts/model, they need to do more than they are capable of. I agree with you, that tac marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of anything. They should just be priced accordingly, which they are not. Missile don't hurt troops, either btw. Only the assault cannons. And only on the razorback, and only with Girlyman.
Xenomancers wrote: If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.
Sure.
Sacrificing battle-forged to get signums makes a lot of sense. Legion tactics are overrated and have no impact on the game, not to mention command points.
And when I want to keep battle-forged, I really enjoy spending points on multiple detachments with extra HQs. The fact 40% of my army's points go to HQs isn't inefficient, it's an investment.
Failing that, filling my battalion with scouts that will do nothing all game to account for the mandatory troop choices is a great fallback. When doing cost comparisons, I don't need to account for them because they are separate units.
Endless War scenarios really make this sort of strategy useful, since each unit kill matters.
I am willing to do all this because someone on Dakka said Tacticals are bad.
It's still battleforged if you do a spearhead? What am I missing here?
Well slayerfan, I think what you are missing is points. Command points for sure, points spent on units, perhaps.
But then there's the obvious point. Someone had success with this list in a tournament. Pen-and-paper arguments don't account for tournament conditions or a variety of other factors that have not been considered.
Like math. Trading 2 CPs for Signum + 2 additional Lascannon shots averages to about +1 wound per turn. Seems like a bad deal, a single reroll on a Heavy d6 weapon could do more.
Maybe you want to take that speartip and go win a tournament with it? Or just go on telling us how the Lascannons don't matter, then they do, then you can get them cheaper, then how no one understands what you are saying?
You are the one saying las cannons don't matter. I am abolsutely saying that las cannons matter. Which is why this list is not optimal. Even with his diesired drop number he could have included 3-4 more las cannons without hurting his game plan or durability. sacrificing a useless captain who's using the wrong relic BTW (he should have a primarchs wrath) and 4 useless marine bodies for 5 or more las cannons is absolutely worth more than 1 command point in this case ESP if you consdier the ancient who if you give him your relic can can be worth 4-5 more las cannon shots in a game easy. All of this is done without increasing drop number.
Uh, I totally think Lascannons matter. Clearly, the winning list had enough of them.
Sounds like you are arguing more lascannons would have let him win more rounds of the tournament.
TheCustomLime wrote: Tactical Marines aren't excellent units, I'll give you that. But this tournament shows that they do have a place in the right lists and playstyle.
But is the result any different with scouts? Conscripts? I don't think so. If he could have had 2,000 models with straight 1's for stats that come in at .2 pts/model, his list would be even BETTER. I don't think playstyle has anything to do with it. Tacs just become an acceptable speed bump with a free 2+ save.
The fact that boltguns don't even penetrate Ork T-shirts now is just killing them as a viable threat when naked, imo. Once you start paying for weapons, their durability goes straight to the toilet.
But is the result any different with scouts? Conscripts? I don't think so. If he could have had 2,000 models with straight 1's for stats that come in at .2 pts/model, his list would be even BETTER. I don't think playstyle has anything to do with it. Tacs just become an acceptable speed bump with a free 2+ save.
Scouts and conscripts cannot take lascannons. If the lascannons mattered, which I'm willing to bet they did, then the result was different.
But is the result any different with scouts? Conscripts? I don't think so. If he could have had 2,000 models with straight 1's for stats that come in at .2 pts/model, his list would be even BETTER. I don't think playstyle has anything to do with it. Tacs just become an acceptable speed bump with a free 2+ save.
Scouts and conscripts cannot take lascannons. If the lascannons mattered, which I'm willing to bet they did, then the result was different.
Maybe. 6 lascannons doesn't seem like that much, especially when not buffed by Bobby G. Also, scouts can take missile launchers. Which are much closer to lascannons than they have been in a long time.
TheCustomLime wrote: Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??
It's like the very concept represents some weird existential threat to their established world view.
But is the result any different with scouts? Conscripts? I don't think so. If he could have had 2,000 models with straight 1's for stats that come in at .2 pts/model, his list would be even BETTER. I don't think playstyle has anything to do with it. Tacs just become an acceptable speed bump with a free 2+ save.
Scouts and conscripts cannot take lascannons. If the lascannons mattered, which I'm willing to bet they did, then the result was different.
Maybe. 6 lascannons doesn't seem like that much, especially when not buffed by Bobby G. Also, scouts can take missile launchers. Which are much closer to lascannons than they have been in a long time.
When facing Guard with T8 vehicles, the S9 matters. Not to mention the additional -1 AP.
TheCustomLime wrote: Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??
It's like the very concept represents some weird existential threat to their established world view.
They're still bad for the reasons I outlined, awful even, for 13pts/model, but also more functional for the reasons I outlined as well. They got better and worse at the same time. They're what marines have to fill space, which is a critical function in 8th. But if marines had even cheaper options, with fewer wasted points, that would work even better. I'd rather tarpit Bobby G with gaunts than marines.
Xenomancers wrote: If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.
Sure.
Sacrificing battle-forged to get signums makes a lot of sense. Legion tactics are overrated and have no impact on the game, not to mention command points.
And when I want to keep battle-forged, I really enjoy spending points on multiple detachments with extra HQs. The fact 40% of my army's points go to HQs isn't inefficient, it's an investment.
Failing that, filling my battalion with scouts that will do nothing all game to account for the mandatory troop choices is a great fallback. When doing cost comparisons, I don't need to account for them because they are separate units.
Endless War scenarios really make this sort of strategy useful, since each unit kill matters.
I am willing to do all this because someone on Dakka said Tacticals are bad.
It's still battleforged if you do a spearhead? What am I missing here?
Well slayerfan, I think what you are missing is points. Command points for sure, points spent on units, perhaps.
But then there's the obvious point. Someone had success with this list in a tournament. Pen-and-paper arguments don't account for tournament conditions or a variety of other factors that have not been considered.
Like math. Trading 2 CPs for Signum + 2 additional Lascannon shots averages to about +1 wound per turn. Seems like a bad deal, a single reroll on a Heavy d6 weapon could do more.
Maybe you want to take that speartip and go win a tournament with it? Or just go on telling us how the Lascannons don't matter, then they do, then you can get them cheaper, then how no one understands what you are saying?
You are the one saying las cannons don't matter. I am abolsutely saying that las cannons matter. Which is why this list is not optimal. Even with his diesired drop number he could have included 3-4 more las cannons without hurting his game plan or durability. sacrificing a useless captain who's using the wrong relic BTW (he should have a primarchs wrath) and 4 useless marine bodies for 5 or more las cannons is absolutely worth more than 1 command point in this case ESP if you consdier the ancient who if you give him your relic can can be worth 4-5 more las cannon shots in a game easy. All of this is done without increasing drop number.
Uh, I totally think Lascannons matter. Clearly, the winning list had enough of them.
Sounds like you are arguing more lascannons would have let him win more rounds of the tournament.
' Just saying his list is not optimal. I know he won the thing. Supposedly he even played against a guard army...which he must be exceptionally lucky. It's really unlikely to happen again. It's comical to me that an un-optimized space marine list won a tournament with the AM codex is as strong as it is.
Maybe. 6 lascannons doesn't seem like that much, especially when not buffed by Bobby G. Also, scouts can take missile launchers. Which are much closer to lascannons than they have been in a long time.
I guess I gotta agree with that last part.
Huh... looking at the list again, I only counted 1957 points. Did I miss something?
Maybe. 6 lascannons doesn't seem like that much, especially when not buffed by Bobby G. Also, scouts can take missile launchers. Which are much closer to lascannons than they have been in a long time.
I guess I gotta agree with that last part.
Huh... looking at the list again, I only counted 1957 points. Did I miss something?
TheCustomLime wrote: Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??
AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.
Almost every ones generic shooting weapon went to ap0
the only people that came out ahead on that one was guard as their guns capped out.
Yes, but marines could ill-afford that hit, given their small model count. As I said, tacs are REALLY bad at doing any damage at all with bolters, because they just aren't throwing enough dice with enough special rules. Therefore, their usage is purely as a terrible version of a conscript squad. They can't shoot, can't fight in CC, can't move. But they can cower in cover and encourage the enemy to waste fire on them. Somehow.
Small model count is the original sin of 8th. Tac marines can evidently pretend to overcome this by getting a free +1 armor save. If you change tac marine armor to 2+, they then become worth 13 pt/model I think. That's the key in all this. It has to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: Tactical Marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of troops. That's what you have assault cannons and missiles for.
But for 13 pts/model, they need to do more than they are capable of. I agree with you, that tac marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of anything. They should just be priced accordingly, which they are not. Missile don't hurt troops, either btw. Only the assault cannons. And only on the razorback, and only with Girlyman.
At what point do you feel they would be worth it at 13 points a model.
as well yeah using cover tends to be a very good tactic.
thats why i love playing imp fists so i can ignore it
Xenomancers wrote: ' Just saying his list is not optimal. I know he won the thing. Supposedly he even played against a guard army...which he must be exceptionally lucky. It's really unlikely to happen again. It's comical to me that an un-optimized space marine list won a tournament with the AM codex is as strong as it is.
Thing is: he DID optimize it. It's just he optimized it for something that most other people wouldn't have.
Maybe. 6 lascannons doesn't seem like that much, especially when not buffed by Bobby G. Also, scouts can take missile launchers. Which are much closer to lascannons than they have been in a long time.
I guess I gotta agree with that last part.
Huh... looking at the list again, I only counted 1957 points. Did I miss something?
Although, you have to pay points to make the scouts equally durable, so that's the primary problem there. The 2+ is pretty key, I think. 3+ is far inferior in the face of gak like triple wyvern.
TheCustomLime wrote: Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??
AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.
Almost every ones generic shooting weapon went to ap0
the only people that came out ahead on that one was guard as their guns capped out.
Yes, but marines could ill-afford that hit, given their small model count. As I said, tacs are REALLY bad at doing any damage at all with bolters, because they just aren't throwing enough dice with enough special rules. Therefore, their usage is purely as a terrible version of a conscript squad. They can't shoot, can't fight in CC, can't move. But they can cower in cover and encourage the enemy to waste fire on them. Somehow.
Small model count is the original sin of 8th. Tac marines can evidently pretend to overcome this by getting a free +1 armor save. If you change tac marine armor to 2+, they then become worth 13 pt/model I think. That's the key in all this. It has to be.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: Tactical Marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of troops. That's what you have assault cannons and missiles for.
But for 13 pts/model, they need to do more than they are capable of. I agree with you, that tac marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of anything. They should just be priced accordingly, which they are not. Missile don't hurt troops, either btw. Only the assault cannons. And only on the razorback, and only with Girlyman.
At what point do you feel they would be worth it at 13 points a model.
as well yeah using cover tends to be a very good tactic.
thats why i love playing imp fists so i can ignore it
I have no idea what change could be made to make them worth 13 ppm, but they are definitely not worth it atm.
Frankly, I don't if your imp fist tac marines ignore it. Can't throw enough dice at me. Curse of marines and all that.
TheCustomLime wrote: Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??
AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.
Almost every ones generic shooting weapon went to ap0
the only people that came out ahead on that one was guard as their guns capped out.
I would just point out that basic troops in the 8/9 point band (tau/eldar) get S4 and a special rule on their weapons. It's not until you get to the 4 point band that models start getting 'bad' weapons, and then they make up for it with cheap numbers. Marines pay 13ppm for a pure s4 nothing else weapon.
I have no idea what change could be made to make them worth 13 ppm, but they are definitely not worth it atm.
Frankly, I don't if your imp fist tac marines ignore it. Can't throw enough dice at me. Curse of marines and all that.
If you dont know what would make them worth 13 ppm then how would you know they are not worth it in the first place.
Because they don't play like 13 ppm models. A squad of 10 is 130 pts naked, and is no threat in the shooting or CC phases at all. That's not worth 130 pts to me. It's a mathematical phenomenon of the combination of stats on the marine just aren't effective in the games that GW publishes. Never has been. Maybe having 2 base attacks like an ork and giving the boltgun 2 shots outside 12" and 3 shots inside 12" would get them there. They need more throw weight to make their presence felt on the battlefield.
Utilizing their "options" just ruins them completely due to costs for said equipment.
Because they don't play like 13 ppm models. A squad of 10 is 130 pts naked, and is no threat in the shooting or CC phases at all. That's not worth 130 pts to me. It's a mathematical phenomenon of the combination of stats on the marine just aren't effective in the games that GW publishes. Never has been. Maybe having 2 base attacks like an ork and giving the boltgun 2 shots outside 12" and 3 shots inside 12" would get them there. They need more throw weight to make their presence felt on the battlefield.
Utilizing their "options" just ruins them completely due to costs for said equipment.
Speaking from experience - I do something similar with CSMs - the benefit is the heavy weapons more than the individual models.
When you have multiple lascannons on a number of different units, your opponent cannot target them as fast as you can target their tanks / elite units. When you have a ton of ablative wounds on each unit, they stick around several rounds.
The complaints against tacticals are always about what they can do in rapid fire / close combat. Totally ignores what happens with heavy weapons in multiple units. On paper, there are better options. In the context of an overall army, where you have to make trade offs to make points, they are often the least-worst compromise.
Points matter but they don't explain everything. This is a shooting edition and blowing up your opponent's big threats from a distance is a valid strategy, as we have seen demonstrated.
" This is a shooting edition and blowing up your opponent's big threats from a distance is a valid strategy,"
It's the only strategy, actually. I've already tried the other stuff with BA, because that's what my collection has been designed to do for 20 years. Doesn't work. At least, not for meqs.
"Totally ignores what happens with heavy weapons in multiple units"
Maybe, now that guns other than grav cannons matter.
"The complaints against tacticals are always about what they can do in rapid fire / close combat"
That's what they are supposed to be for. Not life support systems for a single heavy. But crunch being crunch, it's looking like they are life support systems for a single heavy.
Speaking from experience - I do something similar with CSMs - the benefit is the heavy weapons more than the individual models.
People talk about doing it that way with IG Infantry squads too if you're going to footslog lascannons since HWS are way too fragile. Honestly it's 13 points more expensive for a 5 man tac squad to do it, and you get BS 3+ and better armor saves. From a "both but somewhat more of a guard player than a SM player" point of view, I'm kind of stunned more people don't do it.
From my point of view, Devastators are the crazy expensive squad that isn't worth taking, because they're too close to HWS for me.
That's what they are supposed to be for. Not life support systems for a single heavy. But crunch being crunch, it's looking like they are life support systems for a single heavy.
I've always seen them as the wounds for the hidden X, where X is the hidden plasma gun, or the hidden power fist, or the hidden missile launcher (or lascannon nowadays). I guess that fell by the wayside in 6th / 7th with the way wound allocation changed, but 5th all the way. Used to joke that our IG power blobs were 30W T3 5+ monstrous creatures.
6 lascannons w/rerolls vs. 6 missile launchers w/rerolls averages 13.7 wounds vs. 9.3 wounds, respectively, against T8 3+ save tanks btw. Almost a 50% increase in damage.
One thing is clear, razorbacks need to be nerfed hard. The assault cannon variant is a slap in the face to all Blood Angel players who have to pay so much more for a Baal Predator.
Insectum7 wrote: 6 lascannons w/rerolls vs. 6 missile launchers w/rerolls averages 13.7 wounds vs. 9.3 wounds, respectively, against T8 3+ save tanks btw. Almost a 50% increase in damage.
You could pretty easily spread that out enough to degrade at least a couple profiles pretty quickly. Average case of two basilisks down to BS 5+ doesn't sound too bad, especially with the storm raven to follow up.
Marmatag wrote: So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?
This forum..../facepalm.
Thing is, this meme that "AM has been winning tournaments left and right" is total bs, and that's where you've gone wrong from the start.
With an extremely small sample size, in a very narrow window of time, with so few actual Codex being released - AM "Index" plus "Imperial Soup" sat near the top.
Already in a very short time (unprecedented really) we have a few more Codex released and the tournament results have shifted, but again we're looking at very small samples, at a point where every army is not up to date - this should be common sense.
Two more Codex are already announced, this is again, unprecedented, but at this point, there is literally zero actual evidence to support the claim that the AM codex, out for 1 week, is op.
A guy made a poll a while back. It's probably still up. It had AM index at about 80% winrate compared to space marines and practical every other army near 50% except orks which were like 20%. Take that for what it is - a random collection of data. It agrees with that I see on a regular basis so I have no problem agreeing with it. You really can't make an arguement that this codex isn't stronger than the index was. It's literally the same list of units with free rules and point cost reductions given to the other one....minus 2 entry that got minior nerfs and both are still viable options and still OP (conscripts and scions). It's a simple argument that anyone can understand. What was once OP and was made better - is still OP.
Uh ok lol wow, so a random poll full of knee jerk 'opinions' from the forum, rather than actual tournament or game results; that's your proof, well ok, very informative.
Let's just say your poll actually represented game data - we're still only talking about a narrow slice of time, which was my original point. Codex are coming out faster than we've seen, and while "Imperial Soup" seemed very strong among the Index armies, that has nothing to do with where we are now.
Martel732 wrote: That's what they are supposed to be for. Not life support systems for a single heavy. But crunch being crunch, it's looking like they are life support systems for a single heavy.
More like, they stand back, shoot with the heavy, rapid fire at things that come in range, and chop them up if anything gets close enough to charge.
I find myself arguing this point over and over: 40k plays over 5 turns. You don't pick units based on what they do the turn they arrive. Likewise, you don't fight expecting your opponents to go away in one round.
CSMs are great at whiting down an opponent and finishing them off in close combat. They are not for charging forward. They don't do enough wounds to take on most things by shooting or in close combat. They do a few wounds a phase, play them like that.
You and i have different standards for "great", evidently. Marines: viable only while cowering in cover, while the brave fearless guard marches across the table.
Martel732 wrote: That's what they are supposed to be for. Not life support systems for a single heavy. But crunch being crunch, it's looking like they are life support systems for a single heavy.
More like, they stand back, shoot with the heavy, rapid fire at things that come in range, and chop them up if anything gets close enough to charge.
I find myself arguing this point over and over: 40k plays over 5 turns. You don't pick units based on what they do the turn they arrive. Likewise, you don't fight expecting your opponents to go away in one round.
CSMs are great at whiting down an opponent and finishing them off in close combat. They are not for charging forward. They don't do enough wounds to take on most things by shooting or in close combat. They do a few wounds a phase, play them like that.
You probably have to argue that so much because 5 turns isn't the reality even if it is the rules. I recently fielded a tough as nails Custodes army at a multi-day tournament. Me or my opponent were tabled by Turn 3 in almost every game.
People base units on what they can do at arrival because against optimized lists most units don't GET to live any longer unless they're like Conscripts. Even Imperial Knights and Magnus get alpha struck off the board.
Martel732 wrote: That's what they are supposed to be for. Not life support systems for a single heavy. But crunch being crunch, it's looking like they are life support systems for a single heavy.
More like, they stand back, shoot with the heavy, rapid fire at things that come in range, and chop them up if anything gets close enough to charge.
I find myself arguing this point over and over: 40k plays over 5 turns. You don't pick units based on what they do the turn they arrive. Likewise, you don't fight expecting your opponents to go away in one round.
CSMs are great at whiting down an opponent and finishing them off in close combat. They are not for charging forward. They don't do enough wounds to take on most things by shooting or in close combat. They do a few wounds a phase, play them like that.
Right, and traditionally this is where the loyalists excel, where their morale rules ensure that more of them stick around to keep up that fight. These days, ATSKNF isn't quite what it used to be, but you still have to kill 4-5 marines to make em feel it in the morale phase.
Congrats to Lawrence for the win!
Its nice to see the Ultras in the spotlight after many years!
I would be more interested to see how he played the list, the stormraven and Tigurius in particular.
Does anyone have a link to a battle report or something similar?
Marmatag wrote: So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?
This forum..../facepalm.
Thing is, this meme that "AM has been winning tournaments left and right" is total bs, and that's where you've gone wrong from the start.
With an extremely small sample size, in a very narrow window of time, with so few actual Codex being released - AM "Index" plus "Imperial Soup" sat near the top.
Already in a very short time (unprecedented really) we have a few more Codex released and the tournament results have shifted, but again we're looking at very small samples, at a point where every army is not up to date - this should be common sense.
Two more Codex are already announced, this is again, unprecedented, but at this point, there is literally zero actual evidence to support the claim that the AM codex, out for 1 week, is op.
A guy made a poll a while back. It's probably still up. It had AM index at about 80% winrate compared to space marines and practical every other army near 50% except orks which were like 20%. Take that for what it is - a random collection of data. It agrees with that I see on a regular basis so I have no problem agreeing with it. You really can't make an arguement that this codex isn't stronger than the index was. It's literally the same list of units with free rules and point cost reductions given to the other one....minus 2 entry that got minior nerfs and both are still viable options and still OP (conscripts and scions). It's a simple argument that anyone can understand. What was once OP and was made better - is still OP.
Uh ok lol wow, so a random poll full of knee jerk 'opinions' from the forum, rather than actual tournament or game results; that's your proof, well ok, very informative.
Let's just say your poll actually represented game data - we're still only talking about a narrow slice of time, which was my original point. Codex are coming out faster than we've seen, and while "Imperial Soup" seemed very strong among the Index armies, that has nothing to do with where we are now.
The poll did represent game data. It was just to list what armies faced and winners and losers. This produced a massive guard win rate. This kind of poll cant be the most accurate but is is a clear indication of massive imbalance.
Martel732 wrote: You and i have different standards for "great", evidently. Marines: viable only while cowering in cover, while the brave fearless guard marches across the table.
The problem is that the Marines in the fluff are much more durable and potent than they are on the table.
In reality, each basic Marine should have a 2+ save, 2 wounds and a 5+ FNP.
Marines as they are, are fragile, especially with the new AP system.
Martel732 wrote: You and i have different standards for "great", evidently. Marines: viable only while cowering in cover, while the brave fearless guard marches across the table.
The problem is that the Marines in the fluff are much more durable and potent than they are on the table.
In reality, each basic Marine should have a 2+ save, 2 wounds and a 5+ FNP.
Marines as they are, are fragile, especially with the new AP system.
I don't believe conscripts in flak armour would shrug off every third bolter hit in the fluff, either.
If we're using the utterly nonsensical "MOOVEE MURAINZ" concept, I'd like to point out that as per the lore, every single Ork boy would be just as tough, too, if not tougher-- Orks can survive far more grievous wounds than marines, after all (for example, decapitate a Marine and he's dead; decapitate an Ork and he'll be okay, as long as a dok sews the head back on within a few days).
"Movie marines" is a gross (in every meaning of the term) misrepresentation of the lore.
My point is only that you choose the right unit for synergy with your army and how you play it. Tacticals can work if deployed appropriately, even in a competetive setting. And specifically in this case, I argue they are a better choice over scouts.
In a different sort of army, Scouts work better. In this army, they don't.
If anything, the Drop Pod Calgar list helps my point. It's a list that presumably capitalizes on the benefits of Tacticals over Scouts. Because thats how army-wide strategy works.
It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?
The majority of tourny players are sheeple that net lists? /s
that or less people want to risk outliner strats when things that are already winning are easier to follow as it has a track record.
Glad to see the "spread out" las cannon tactical idea i posted a while back that was getting gakked on.
Xenomancers wrote: If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.
Sure.
Sacrificing battle-forged to get signums makes a lot of sense. Legion tactics are overrated and have no impact on the game, not to mention command points.
And when I want to keep battle-forged, I really enjoy spending points on multiple detachments with extra HQs. The fact 40% of my army's points go to HQs isn't inefficient, it's an investment.
Failing that, filling my battalion with scouts that will do nothing all game to account for the mandatory troop choices is a great fallback. When doing cost comparisons, I don't need to account for them because they are separate units.
Endless War scenarios really make this sort of strategy useful, since each unit kill matters.
I am willing to do all this because someone on Dakka said Tacticals are bad.
It's still battleforged if you do a spearhead? What am I missing here?
Well slayerfan, I think what you are missing is points. Command points for sure, points spent on units, perhaps.
But then there's the obvious point. Someone had success with this list in a tournament. Pen-and-paper arguments don't account for tournament conditions or a variety of other factors that have not been considered.
Like math. Trading 2 CPs for Signum + 2 additional Lascannon shots averages to about +1 wound per turn. Seems like a bad deal, a single reroll on a Heavy d6 weapon could do more.
Maybe you want to take that speartip and go win a tournament with it? Or just go on telling us how the Lascannons don't matter, then they do, then you can get them cheaper, then how no one understands what you are saying?
Two command points for the Signum and Cherub, you mean.
I absolutely would be doing tournaments like this if I didn't need to make my army again. Hell I just finished my first model for it today, which is my Lufgt Huron stand-in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: If we're using the utterly nonsensical "MOOVEE MURAINZ" concept, I'd like to point out that as per the lore, every single Ork boy would be just as tough, too, if not tougher-- Orks can survive far more grievous wounds than marines, after all (for example, decapitate a Marine and he's dead; decapitate an Ork and he'll be okay, as long as a dok sews the head back on within a few days).
"Movie marines" is a gross (in every meaning of the term) misrepresentation of the lore.
I'd honestly be down for ridiculously tough Orks like that.
Red_Five wrote: The problem is that the Marines in the fluff are much more durable and potent than they are on the table.
In reality, each basic Marine should have a 2+ save, 2 wounds and a 5+ FNP.
Marines as they are, are fragile, especially with the new AP system.
In the fluff, Tyrannids eat their faces by the scores and only someone like Lucius stands toe to toe with one. In the table top, Marines laugh at Tyrannids and punch them in the face.
Martel732 wrote: You and i have different standards for "great", evidently. Marines: viable only while cowering in cover, while the brave fearless guard marches across the table.
The problem is that the Marines in the fluff are much more durable and potent than they are on the table.
In reality, each basic Marine should have a 2+ save, 2 wounds and a 5+ FNP.
Marines as they are, are fragile, especially with the new AP system.
Then they'd need to pay for that. Intercessors are as close as we're liable to get to movie marines this edition.
A marine right now has:
+1 S, +1 T, +1 BS, +1 WS, +2 SV, +1 LD, and ATSKNF over a normal guardsman, on an individual man level. They get a free bolter (+1 S over Lasgun), a free bolt pistol (guardsman don't get pistols), frag grenades (Same as guardsmen), and Krak grenades.
For all that, they cost 9 more points right now. The issue marine players have, is capitalizing on all those different advantages within the context of the game to make them worth the cost. And that's before getting into all the other considerations of the various synergies with the rest of the units in the respective codexes. Marines are a jack of all trades unit. You can have a marine do anything, and he will be fair to middling at it. Ranged? S4 Rapid fire at BS3+. CC? S4 Ws3+, and he's got a pistol for the next turn if he survies. Tough target? Well he's got his krak grenade so there's a chance (although 8th edition grenade rules are kinda cruddy).
But as far as I can tell, most games of Warhammer don't reward being jack of all trades. Each unit generally has 1 or 2 turns to pull its weight. The rest of the time its either out of range or dead. Specialists are able to make much more of their brief time in the light than generalists.
Marmatag wrote: So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?
This forum..../facepalm.
Thing is, this meme that "AM has been winning tournaments left and right" is total bs, and that's where you've gone wrong from the start.
With an extremely small sample size, in a very narrow window of time, with so few actual Codex being released - AM "Index" plus "Imperial Soup" sat near the top.
Already in a very short time (unprecedented really) we have a few more Codex released and the tournament results have shifted, but again we're looking at very small samples, at a point where every army is not up to date - this should be common sense.
Two more Codex are already announced, this is again, unprecedented, but at this point, there is literally zero actual evidence to support the claim that the AM codex, out for 1 week, is op.
A guy made a poll a while back. It's probably still up. It had AM index at about 80% winrate compared to space marines and practical every other army near 50% except orks which were like 20%. Take that for what it is - a random collection of data. It agrees with that I see on a regular basis so I have no problem agreeing with it. You really can't make an arguement that this codex isn't stronger than the index was. It's literally the same list of units with free rules and point cost reductions given to the other one....minus 2 entry that got minior nerfs and both are still viable options and still OP (conscripts and scions). It's a simple argument that anyone can understand. What was once OP and was made better - is still OP.
Uh ok lol wow, so a random poll full of knee jerk 'opinions' from the forum, rather than actual tournament or game results; that's your proof, well ok, very informative.
Let's just say your poll actually represented game data - we're still only talking about a narrow slice of time, which was my original point. Codex are coming out faster than we've seen, and while "Imperial Soup" seemed very strong among the Index armies, that has nothing to do with where we are now.
The poll did represent game data. It was just to list what armies faced and winners and losers. This produced a massive guard win rate. This kind of poll cant be the most accurate but is is a clear indication of massive imbalance.
All I can say, again, is wow. So where is this poll that proves what has otherwise been proven to be total bs?
argonak wrote: But as far as I can tell, most games of Warhammer don't reward being jack of all trades. Each unit generally has 1 or 2 turns to pull its weight. The rest of the time its either out of range or dead. Specialists are able to make much more of their brief time in the light than generalists.
And that's why gunline lists gear more and more towards just paying for guns instead of the models they come on. A perfect dream of a model for gunlines would be:
The Dude - 1pt
S1, T1, BS 3+, WS -, Sv -, W1, LD ??
- May take Kamehameha Quad Laser Cannons, Nuclear Grenades, and up to 16 sidearms
All I can say, again, is wow. So where is this poll that proves what has otherwise been proven to be total bs?
There was one where people were reporting their wins / losses. I just went through about 6 pages of threads trying to find it, and I'm sad to say that I can't recall what it was called. I'm not actually sure if that's the one he's referencing or not, because I'm not a mind reader, but it's the only thing vaguely fitting that description.
From what I recall, SoB actually had the highest win rate in the upper 90%, and then was IG. Most of the imperial armies followed, with... I think Eldar probably being the higher of the Xenos. It was all based upon people who had posted to the thread saying something along the lines of "Militarium vs Space Marines, Militarium win", and that was counted, with up to, like, 10-15 games being posted at once sometimes.
I'm not saying people lied, but it would be literally impossible to tell if they did. I would be saying that you'd have to be a little crazy to rely on that thread for anything other than "for entertainment purposes only". It's certainly not what I'd call "data".
Not to mention that, even if they were telling the truth, you're depending on people who are operating entirely within the scope of their local meta. By those standards, I had about a 22/3/5 w/l/d in 7th with IG simply because of what my local scene looks like. I was tabling 14 year olds at "tournaments" with freaking power blobs, ffs. That was my local scene until I stopped.
That data is interesting, but to get a chip on your shoulder about it, even if people were entirely honest, well, I got nothin...
spartiatis wrote: Congrats to Lawrence for the win!
Its nice to see the Ultras in the spotlight after many years!
I would be more interested to see how he played the list, the stormraven and Tigurius in particular.
Does anyone have a link to a battle report or something similar?
One of his games is up on the Warhammer Live Twitch channel, tho I believe you need to be a sub to watch them.
spartiatis wrote: Congrats to Lawrence for the win!
Its nice to see the Ultras in the spotlight after many years!
I would be more interested to see how he played the list, the stormraven and Tigurius in particular.
Does anyone have a link to a battle report or something similar?
One of his games is up on the Warhammer Live Twitch channel, tho I believe you need to be a sub to watch them.
You do, and i dont have the money (or want to spend the money) to sub to every thing AND pay for 40k. So i dont watch them.
I don't want "movie marines" I want to not have to cower my marines in cover in order to survive a reasonable amount of time, while hordes of chaff do whatever they like because losses mean nothing to them because they are immune to psychology.
Martel732 wrote: I don't want "movie marines" I want to not have to cower my marines in cover in order to survive a reasonable amount of time, while hordes of chaff do whatever they like because losses mean nothing to them because they are immune to psychology.
Play Ad Mech and use the rules for Kastellan Robots as Space Marines then paint them blue with Ultramarines transfers on their shoulders.
It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?
#DidNotWinTheTournament
IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me
"Victory requires no explanation."
The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.
Marmatag wrote: So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?
This forum..../facepalm.
Thing is, this meme that "AM has been winning tournaments left and right" is total bs, and that's where you've gone wrong from the start.
With an extremely small sample size, in a very narrow window of time, with so few actual Codex being released - AM "Index" plus "Imperial Soup" sat near the top.
Already in a very short time (unprecedented really) we have a few more Codex released and the tournament results have shifted, but again we're looking at very small samples, at a point where every army is not up to date - this should be common sense.
Two more Codex are already announced, this is again, unprecedented, but at this point, there is literally zero actual evidence to support the claim that the AM codex, out for 1 week, is op.
A guy made a poll a while back. It's probably still up. It had AM index at about 80% winrate compared to space marines and practical every other army near 50% except orks which were like 20%. Take that for what it is - a random collection of data. It agrees with that I see on a regular basis so I have no problem agreeing with it. You really can't make an arguement that this codex isn't stronger than the index was. It's literally the same list of units with free rules and point cost reductions given to the other one....minus 2 entry that got minior nerfs and both are still viable options and still OP (conscripts and scions). It's a simple argument that anyone can understand. What was once OP and was made better - is still OP.
Uh ok lol wow, so a random poll full of knee jerk 'opinions' from the forum, rather than actual tournament or game results; that's your proof, well ok, very informative.
Let's just say your poll actually represented game data - we're still only talking about a narrow slice of time, which was my original point. Codex are coming out faster than we've seen, and while "Imperial Soup" seemed very strong among the Index armies, that has nothing to do with where we are now.
The poll did represent game data. It was just to list what armies faced and winners and losers. This produced a massive guard win rate. This kind of poll cant be the most accurate but is is a clear indication of massive imbalance.
Oh, I remember that garbage fire of a 'poll'. The one where people reported games by hearsay and some were even trying to submit the results of battle reports they saw on youtube.
It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?
#DidNotWinTheTournament
IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me
"Victory requires no explanation."
The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.
However, if those non-popular options were that viable, don't you think they would appear more often than like every 10 tournaments with dozens of people playing? Your argument doesn't make sense based on that merit alone.
Martel732 wrote: I don't want "movie marines" I want to not have to cower my marines in cover in order to survive a reasonable amount of time, while hordes of chaff do whatever they like because losses mean nothing to them because they are immune to psychology.
Play Ad Mech and use the rules for Kastellan Robots as Space Marines then paint them blue with Ultramarines transfers on their shoulders.
When Arkaine gets sarcastic, his opponent has lost the debate. This is the Dakka equivalent of tabling.
What is the problem with a unit firing from cover?
I get the fact that everyone has a playstyle and would prefer it if their army played a different way. But that's what tactics are, you adapt them to the situation to achieve a goal. If that means putting your troops in cover, do so, but bring big guns to ensure they remain a threat.
Shooting at things from a distance and forcing them to come to you doesn't have to be a bad thing. Most armies can do a lot of damage to hordes over the course of a few rounds. The trick is making sure the nastier parts of that horde army die before they get to you.
Martel732 wrote: I don't want "movie marines" I want to not have to cower my marines in cover in order to survive a reasonable amount of time, while hordes of chaff do whatever they like because losses mean nothing to them because they are immune to psychology.
Play Ad Mech and use the rules for Kastellan Robots as Space Marines then paint them blue with Ultramarines transfers on their shoulders.
When Arkaine gets sarcastic, his opponent has lost the debate. This is the Dakka equivalent of tabling.
What is the problem with a unit firing from cover?
I get the fact that everyone has a playstyle and would prefer it if their army played a different way. But that's what tactics are, you adapt them to the situation to achieve a goal. If that means putting your troops in cover, do so, but bring big guns to ensure they remain a threat.
Shooting at things from a distance and forcing them to come to you doesn't have to be a bad thing. Most armies can do a lot of damage to hordes over the course of a few rounds. The trick is making sure the nastier parts of that horde army die before they get to you.
From what I've seen of this particular poster, the issue is that he doesn't actually want to have to play a game, he wants to throw marines on the table and pose dramatically as they destroy all their opponents, 'cause that's the floof tho!'
It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?
#DidNotWinTheTournament
IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me
"Victory requires no explanation."
The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.
However, if those non-popular options were that viable, don't you think they would appear more often than like every 10 tournaments with dozens of people playing? Your argument doesn't make sense based on that merit alone.
Lots of people take good units, cram them together, and inelegantly mash them to the field while failing to achieve some sort of cohesive synergy. It's not surprising that Tacticals often get overlooked or don't perform well, because they're a trickier unit to get value out of. The number of times I read "my Tacticals sit on objectives" I think makes my point. Many players don't know what to do with them, their experience is lackluster, and they go on choose something else that has a more obvious role.
In the winning list, they had a clear job to do, and fulfilled some additional secondary roles alongside the Guilliman-Razorbacks. They fit the army, and performed well enough to help net the win. What works, works.
I've had it easier vs devastator gunlines than vs tactical marine spam playing orks. Devastators kill more but score less. They are also much more fragile for points.
Martel732 wrote: I don't want "movie marines" I want to not have to cower my marines in cover in order to survive a reasonable amount of time, while hordes of chaff do whatever they like because losses mean nothing to them because they are immune to psychology.
How unfair is that eh? All their models are dead and they didn't even have to take a Morale test!!!
Martel732 wrote: I don't want "movie marines" I want to not have to cower my marines in cover in order to survive a reasonable amount of time, while hordes of chaff do whatever they like because losses mean nothing to them because they are immune to psychology.
I'd like to point out that a marine in the open is only ~8% less durable than an ork boy vs a razorback point-for-point. And he is ~14% more durable than an ork in cover point-for-point. ~28% more durable than an ork out of cover cause realistically orks don't get cover in 8-th until they're in such low numbers it no longer matters.
So, marines "cower" not because they lack durability compared to hordes. They do so because they become MORE durable than hordes if they do so. And they have easy access to cover.
This misconception of easy-to-kill marines must go away to not cloud the judgement.
Another thing about devastators being superior. Of course, they kill more. But in return, a single lazcannon devastator costs almost 3 times more than a tactical. Means he's almost 3 times less durable.
koooaei wrote: I've had it easier vs devastator gunlines than vs tactical marine spam playing orks. Devastators kill more but score less. They are also much more fragile for points.
^ This guy gets it.
Sure, Devastators are a "more efficient" way to get Lascannons on the table on a point-for-point basis but Tacticals have a couple of advantages that, if this tournament result is to be believed, are actually very important in top-level play. Chief among these is the 4 ablative wounds each unit comes with. What I don't understand is why people can't wrap their heads around this concept. We know 40k favours shooting and we can then extrapolate that the best form of shooting is a strong alpha strike to neutralise enemy threats quickly. A list with the same number of Lascannons (or even more Lascannons) in half the number of squads has 2 disadvantages: fewer ablative wounds and fewer targets to deal with. It turns out these are actually important considerations, possibly the most important.
Yes, this is only one tournament result under a certain set of conditions but the proof of its quality is there for all to see. If you think swapping Tacticals for Devastators would be better, run the numbers vs the winning army. The Devastators start losing firepower more quickly because each wound they take on a Marine matters much, much more.
spartiatis wrote: Congrats to Lawrence for the win!
Its nice to see the Ultras in the spotlight after many years!
I would be more interested to see how he played the list, the stormraven and Tigurius in particular.
Does anyone have a link to a battle report or something similar?
One of his games is up on the Warhammer Live Twitch channel, tho I believe you need to be a sub to watch them.
You do, and i dont have the money (or want to spend the money) to sub to every thing AND pay for 40k. So i dont watch them.
I believe he is doing a battle report for his channel. It's worth subbing to the channel as it's the cost of a magazine and some of the games were quite cool. But basically his game was vs a Tzeentch army with Magnus, Scarab Terminators and loads of horrors in Eternal War mission - No Mercy. Basically game is Lawrence castling up around Robute and shooting stuff, whilst the Tzeentch player was a bit too bold with a buffed up Magnus and had no support from the Terminators. He went into combat against some Razorbacks, took 5 wounds from overwatch and got counter charged by Robute. You can guess the rest of the game
Well, watching the game, Magnus (and Ahriman) charge in behind the LoS-blocking crates and start to wreck the first few Razorbacks. They get unlucky with the Tzeentch player failing to deny Tigurius' Null Zone, even with command points, but had he managed that, the game could've easily gone the other way.
Was it a risky move? Sure. But the Tzeentch player probably knew he couldn't win a war of attrition and made the decision to go for it. It didn't work, obviously, but I don't think the strategy was particularly stupid. Gotta take those risks in a tournament and hope the dice gods go along with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it might be worth noting that the finals table Warhammer TV showed for game 5 (apparently there were several top tables with undefeated people at the final stage) was won by an all Primaris Raven Guard army with Aggressors and Contemptors (against another Guilliman army). One of the runner-ups to Lawrence (Must be second or third, since he also won all 5 games and was at a top table round 5) was a footslogging all-Primaris army.
spartiatis wrote: Congrats to Lawrence for the win!
Its nice to see the Ultras in the spotlight after many years!
I would be more interested to see how he played the list, the stormraven and Tigurius in particular.
Does anyone have a link to a battle report or something similar?
Its pretty straightforward in eternal war missions.
Keep the army together for maximal (shooty) damage output thanks to Bobby G.
In the late game, go for the objectives if there are any.
This kind of army would struggle in maelstrom missions. But these missions are much more random. Drawing a few cards in the false moments and the game could be gone.
The base missions in the CRB are like that, too random and/or skewed towards the army with the ability to table the opponent. That's a great strength of the new ITC rules, there's progressive scoring with a multitude of objectives that are very unlikely to be maxed out and tabling does not count as a complete victory. Main drawback is the bookkeeping but it's not too bad.
Wonderwolf wrote: Well, watching the game, Magnus (and Ahriman) charge in behind the LoS-blocking crates and start to wreck the first few Razorbacks. They get unlucky with the Tzeentch player failing to deny Tigurius' Null Zone, even with command points, but had he managed that, the game could've easily gone the other way.
Was it a risky move? Sure. But the Tzeentch player probably knew he couldn't win a war of attrition and made the decision to go for it. It didn't work, obviously, but I don't think the strategy was particularly stupid. Gotta take those risks in a tournament and hope the dice gods go along with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it might be worth noting that the finals table Warhammer TV showed for game 5 (apparently there were several top tables with undefeated people at the final stage) was won by an all Primaris Raven Guard army with Aggressors and Contemptors (against another Guilliman army). One of the runner-ups to Lawrence (Must be second or third, since he also won all 5 games and was at a top table round 5) was a footslogging all-Primaris army.
6 players were undefeated going into the final round. The game showed on stream was indeed an All Primaris/Dreadnought Ravenguard army that ended up taking 2nd.
He was greatly aided by the scenario being Relic tho and getting first turn. He deployed on the Relic using Ravenguard Strategem and ran away with the relic on turn 1, taking it behind blocking terrain and plugging the only route to it with Intercessors and Aggressors.
He even gave his opponent a better chance at winning by charging Gman when he could have simply blocked him off instead.
6 players were undefeated going into the final round. The game showed on stream was indeed an All Primaris/Dreadnought Ravenguard army that ended up taking 2nd.
He was greatly aided by the scenario being Relic tho and getting first turn. He deployed on the Relic using Ravenguard Strategem and ran away with the relic on turn 1, taking it behind blocking terrain and plugging the only route to it with Intercessors and Aggressors.
He even gave his opponent a better chance at winning by charging Gman when he could have simply blocked him off instead.
Sure.
By the Twitch-Stream, at least one of those Relic missions (Against Lawrence?) had Celestine grab it, die and resurrect with the Relic in some far, far away corner. The mission is notoriously wonky.
But he also won all 4 previous games. Hard to do this in tournaments these days without going up against a Morty-Magnus Bro-List or Guilliman at least a 1 or 2 times.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sossen wrote: The base missions in the CRB are like that, too random and/or skewed towards the army with the ability to table the opponent. That's a great strength of the new ITC rules, there's progressive scoring with a multitude of objectives that are very unlikely to be maxed out and tabling does not count as a complete victory. Main drawback is the bookkeeping but it's not too bad.
Seems it would be easier to houserule some game rules than houserule the game's missions. Kinda hilarious how ITC is always so super-sensitive about tweaking the game a bit here and there or putting a few too-good-units on the blacklist, but than basically construct a whole new game around the quirks in the rules.
That said, I like that tabling your opponent isn't a win-condition in Shadespire and you could still lose by points. I wonder if they adopt that for 40K some day.
Wonderwolf wrote: Well, watching the game, Magnus (and Ahriman) charge in behind the LoS-blocking crates and start to wreck the first few Razorbacks. They get unlucky with the Tzeentch player failing to deny Tigurius' Null Zone, even with command points, but had he managed that, the game could've easily gone the other way.
Was it a risky move? Sure. But the Tzeentch player probably knew he couldn't win a war of attrition and made the decision to go for it. It didn't work, obviously, but I don't think the strategy was particularly stupid. Gotta take those risks in a tournament and hope the dice gods go along with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it might be worth noting that the finals table Warhammer TV showed for game 5 (apparently there were several top tables with undefeated people at the final stage) was won by an all Primaris Raven Guard army with Aggressors and Contemptors (against another Guilliman army). One of the runner-ups to Lawrence (Must be second or third, since he also won all 5 games and was at a top table round 5) was a footslogging all-Primaris army.
Any chance anyone is able to find that exact army list, the RG one? I am really curious as I have been running a Primaris RG army as of late (waiting for my BA codex) and have had quite a bit of success.
Wonderwolf wrote: Well, watching the game, Magnus (and Ahriman) charge in behind the LoS-blocking crates and start to wreck the first few Razorbacks. They get unlucky with the Tzeentch player failing to deny Tigurius' Null Zone, even with command points, but had he managed that, the game could've easily gone the other way.
Was it a risky move? Sure. But the Tzeentch player probably knew he couldn't win a war of attrition and made the decision to go for it. It didn't work, obviously, but I don't think the strategy was particularly stupid. Gotta take those risks in a tournament and hope the dice gods go along with you.
So... His last game just got really lucky, then. Because even with rerolls from Tigurius, Null Zone should only go off half the time, and Magnus with a +2 and a Command Point should be able to deny that reasonably often. It's not exactly a one-in-a-million case, but something like a 25-30% chance of actually working.
(Without knowing the exact rolls I of course can't say for sure, but I have to imagine that halving Magnus's defense against Lascannons and Guilliman was the turning point for the game - Some quick math says that losing the Invuln is the difference between 5 Lascannon wounds + 6 Guilliman wounds and 10 Lascannon wounds plus 15 Guilliman wounds.)
Wonderwolf wrote: Well, watching the game, Magnus (and Ahriman) charge in behind the LoS-blocking crates and start to wreck the first few Razorbacks. They get unlucky with the Tzeentch player failing to deny Tigurius' Null Zone, even with command points, but had he managed that, the game could've easily gone the other way.
Was it a risky move? Sure. But the Tzeentch player probably knew he couldn't win a war of attrition and made the decision to go for it. It didn't work, obviously, but I don't think the strategy was particularly stupid. Gotta take those risks in a tournament and hope the dice gods go along with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it might be worth noting that the finals table Warhammer TV showed for game 5 (apparently there were several top tables with undefeated people at the final stage) was won by an all Primaris Raven Guard army with Aggressors and Contemptors (against another Guilliman army). One of the runner-ups to Lawrence (Must be second or third, since he also won all 5 games and was at a top table round 5) was a footslogging all-Primaris army.
Any chance anyone is able to find that exact army list, the RG one? I am really curious as I have been running a Primaris RG army as of late (waiting for my BA codex) and have had quite a bit of success.
Can’t give the exactly details but it was –
Primaris Captain + Primarch Librarian
3 (I think) units of 5 Intercessors
1 unit of 5 bolter Aggressors
2 Contemptor Dreads (1 CC weapon)
1 Contemptor Mortis Dread
1 Mortis Dread
1 Stormtalon with Lascannons.
1 unit of Hellblasters (at least)
Can’t remember anything else off the top of my head for now, but I can always check later.
Number 1 list has 6 units of TAC marines? And there a lot of players that keep saying that TAC marines are garbage. Not mediocre or average, but pure garbage.
If they were pure garbage they wouldn't fit a 1st place tournament list in such high numbers. 6 squads are really a lot, tipycally you don't even spam 6 squads of decent units but only the real good ones.
The majority of troops in this edition may worth something only with the specific buffs that make them work and a list that is built around them.
TAC marines are certainly not great but with some specific buffs and appropriate lists they can be pretty solid. Also conscripts are totally ineffective if they aren't supported by commissars and a strong AM or imperium soup list. Or ork boyz which become a threat and a decent troop only in huge numbers, with tons of buffing characters and an entire list that lacks vehicles and multiwounds models (maybe only cheap artillery) in order to nullify all the opponent's anti tank.
TAC marines are not different than the majority of other troops choices, they're not great but combined with other effective units, and SM have several powerful options, they surely find a room even in super competitive lists. No garbage units can be part of those cheesy lists.
Blackie wrote: Number 1 list has 6 units of TAC marines? And there a lot of players that keep saying that TAC marines are garbage. Not mediocre or average, but pure garbage.
If they were pure garbage they wouldn't fit a 1st place tournament list in such high numbers. 6 squads are really a lot, tipycally you don't even spam 6 squads of decent units but only the real good ones.
The majority of troops in this edition may worth something only with the specific buffs that make them work and a list that is built around them.
TAC marines are certainly not great but with some specific buffs and appropriate lists they can be pretty solid. Also conscripts are totally ineffective if they aren't supported by commissars and a strong AM or imperium soup list. Or ork boyz which become a threat and a decent troop only in huge numbers, with tons of buffing characters and an entire list that lacks vehicles and multiwounds models (maybe only cheap artillery) in order to nullify all the opponent's anti tank.
TAC marines are not different than the majority of other troops choices, they're not great but combined with other effective units, and SM have several powerful options, they surely find a room even in super competitive lists. No garbage units can be part of those cheesy lists.
I think we've been over this. The Tac Marines are just there so you can take Razorbacks.
The problem aren't the Tac Marines. The problem is that Razorbacks with Assault Cannons are undercosted EVEN at the cost of 180 or 190 points per model you pay with the Tac Squad to unlock them. Also, Guilliman.
And mind you, this is a tournament setting, where you only see the Top 5% of lists in 40K overall? It's a highly biased sample unrepresentative of the game as a whole.To be balanced, a Codex/list should probably be balanced against 70+% of hypothetical lists in 40K. Somebody go playtest Guilliman Razorspam against something like a fluffly, footslogging Bloodletter-battalion and adjust points until the Bloodletters win 50% of games out of .. dunno a hundred or so.
Referencing tournaments as evidence for or against balance is nonsensical. It's like saying obesity is not a problem in the United States (or elsewhere), cause we looked at a 100 people attending the Olympics and found no evidence that it might be a problem.
Blackie wrote: Number 1 list has 6 units of TAC marines? And there a lot of players that keep saying that TAC marines are garbage. Not mediocre or average, but pure garbage.
If they were pure garbage they wouldn't fit a 1st place tournament list in such high numbers. 6 squads are really a lot, tipycally you don't even spam 6 squads of decent units but only the real good ones.
The majority of troops in this edition may worth something only with the specific buffs that make them work and a list that is built around them.
TAC marines are certainly not great but with some specific buffs and appropriate lists they can be pretty solid. Also conscripts are totally ineffective if they aren't supported by commissars and a strong AM or imperium soup list. Or ork boyz which become a threat and a decent troop only in huge numbers, with tons of buffing characters and an entire list that lacks vehicles and multiwounds models (maybe only cheap artillery) in order to nullify all the opponent's anti tank.
TAC marines are not different than the majority of other troops choices, they're not great but combined with other effective units, and SM have several powerful options, they surely find a room even in super competitive lists. No garbage units can be part of those cheesy lists.
I think we've been over this. The Tac Marines are just there so you can take Razorbacks.
The problem aren't the Tac Marines. The problem is that Razorbacks with Assault Cannons are undercosted EVEN at the cost of 180 or 190 points per model you pay with the Tac Squad to unlock them. Also, Guilliman.
And mind you, this is a tournament setting, where you only see the Top 5% of lists in 40K overall? It's a highly biased sample unrepresentative of the game as a whole.To be balanced, a Codex/list should probably be balanced against 70+% of hypothetical lists in 40K. Somebody go playtest Guilliman Razorspam against something like a fluffly, footslogging Bloodletter-battalion and adjust points until the Bloodletters win 50% of games out of .. dunno a hundred or so.
Referencing tournaments as evidence for or against balance is nonsensical. It's like saying obesity is not a problem in the United States (or elsewhere), cause we looked at a 100 people attending the Olympics and found no evidence that it might be a problem.
First off, there were only 5 units of tac marines not 6 - dunno where the 6 has come from.
Also, he didn't need that many tac units to get the razorbacks he had - he only needed 3 tac squads. So, taking 5 was a conscious decision that had no impact on being able to take razorbacks.
Unfortunately tournaments need to be referenced in order to assess balance, just as you need to take into account casual play. Tournaments push the limits on list creation and efficiency to the max and is where all the "broken combos" are found and then net listed into casual play. By finding them and adjusting them, it usually has a positive impact on casual play. Unfortunately, casual play is a lot harder to balance on its own. This is simply because people bring what they want - which unless you have a massive list of restrictions for each player to follow will result in a list imbalance 90% of the time. Likewise, if you just try to balance casual play while ignoring competitive you'll never fix the actual broken things, only flirt from one problem to another based on the salty crying of the community over and over again.
When the game is balanced you'll see a wide range of armies and list types winning events. When you are at that stage, casual play becomes a lot more balanced as people are provided with options and casual play mistakes aren't as game breaking.
Holy gak, the number of people totally unwilling to change their opinions when they are basically slapped in the face with evidence to the contrary is amazing.
The board is full of threads/posts about how bad tactical squads and Primaris marines are and then two players go on to play armies heavy with both and place 1st/2nd in a 6 round tournament of highly competitive players, not some random LFGS in the middle of no where.
First the Tactical Marines were not just there to take the Razorbacks, read the thread that was addressed very early on, he could have taken those Razorbacks without all of the Tactical Marines.
Second, something for everyone to consider. This new edition of 40K may break the mold everyone has gotten used to in 40K by changing the meta from a taking the best individual units to building the best over all army. It's something that many people cannot seem to wrap their brains around. Yes 13pts for a Tactical Marine seems like *way* to much for what they do but what if their points cost just happens to include how well they can be made to synergize with the rest of a Space Marine army and not just what MathHammer says they can deal out and take damage wise?
This same logic can be applied to the Imperial Guard, a lot of people are freaking out about how cheap most everything seems in the Guard codex and how they are the dominate army, etc, etc, etc. But we're not seeing the tournament wins form pure IG armies to back that rhetoric up. (Yet, we may see it more in the future, who knows?) What if the reason that the individual units seem so cheap for their MathHammer output is that the IG units lack some of the synergy that other armies that seem to pay more for less have?
To be blunt to everyone that *knows* Tactical Marines and Primaris Marines are terrible have gob smackingly obvious evidence to the contrary, perhaps you should consider revising your views to at least potentially match reality.
Martel732 wrote: I don't want "movie marines" I want to not have to cower my marines in cover in order to survive a reasonable amount of time, while hordes of chaff do whatever they like because losses mean nothing to them because they are immune to psychology.
Play Ad Mech and use the rules for Kastellan Robots as Space Marines then paint them blue with Ultramarines transfers on their shoulders.
When Arkaine gets sarcastic, his opponent has lost the debate. This is the Dakka equivalent of tabling.
What is the problem with a unit firing from cover?
I get the fact that everyone has a playstyle and would prefer it if their army played a different way. But that's what tactics are, you adapt them to the situation to achieve a goal. If that means putting your troops in cover, do so, but bring big guns to ensure they remain a threat.
Shooting at things from a distance and forcing them to come to you doesn't have to be a bad thing. Most armies can do a lot of damage to hordes over the course of a few rounds. The trick is making sure the nastier parts of that horde army die before they get to you.
From what I've seen of this particular poster, the issue is that he doesn't actually want to have to play a game, he wants to throw marines on the table and pose dramatically as they destroy all their opponents, 'cause that's the floof tho!'
FAAC players man, gimme a WAAC any day.
Not at all. I'm just very concerned that every BA specific unit is going to be useless if this is THE way to play marines.
First off, there were only 5 units of tac marines not 6 - dunno where the 6 has come from.
Also, he didn't need that many tac units to get the razorbacks he had - he only needed 3 tac squads. So, taking 5 was a conscious decision that had no impact on being able to take razorbacks.
That's a good point. I feel like he's missing a ton of points. Anyone else in a position to more thoroughly do the math and make sure I'm not missing something?
Martel732 wrote: I don't want "movie marines" I want to not have to cower my marines in cover in order to survive a reasonable amount of time, while hordes of chaff do whatever they like because losses mean nothing to them because they are immune to psychology.
I'd like to point out that a marine in the open is only ~8% less durable than an ork boy vs a razorback point-for-point. And he is ~14% more durable than an ork in cover point-for-point. ~28% more durable than an ork out of cover cause realistically orks don't get cover in 8-th until they're in such low numbers it no longer matters.
So, marines "cower" not because they lack durability compared to hordes. They do so because they become MORE durable than hordes if they do so. And they have easy access to cover.
This misconception of easy-to-kill marines must go away to not cloud the judgement.
Another thing about devastators being superior. Of course, they kill more. But in return, a single lazcannon devastator costs almost 3 times more than a tactical. Means he's almost 3 times less durable.
Martel732 wrote: I don't want "movie marines" I want to not have to cower my marines in cover in order to survive a reasonable amount of time, while hordes of chaff do whatever they like because losses mean nothing to them because they are immune to psychology.
Play Ad Mech and use the rules for Kastellan Robots as Space Marines then paint them blue with Ultramarines transfers on their shoulders.
When Arkaine gets sarcastic, his opponent has lost the debate. This is the Dakka equivalent of tabling.
What is the problem with a unit firing from cover?
I get the fact that everyone has a playstyle and would prefer it if their army played a different way. But that's what tactics are, you adapt them to the situation to achieve a goal. If that means putting your troops in cover, do so, but bring big guns to ensure they remain a threat.
Shooting at things from a distance and forcing them to come to you doesn't have to be a bad thing. Most armies can do a lot of damage to hordes over the course of a few rounds. The trick is making sure the nastier parts of that horde army die before they get to you.
The problem is that BA shouldn't be in cover most of the time. Well, unless you are gonna play them as gimped UMs.
Blackie wrote: Number 1 list has 6 units of TAC marines? And there a lot of players that keep saying that TAC marines are garbage. Not mediocre or average, but pure garbage.
If they were pure garbage they wouldn't fit a 1st place tournament list in such high numbers. 6 squads are really a lot, tipycally you don't even spam 6 squads of decent units but only the real good ones.
The majority of troops in this edition may worth something only with the specific buffs that make them work and a list that is built around them.
TAC marines are certainly not great but with some specific buffs and appropriate lists they can be pretty solid. Also conscripts are totally ineffective if they aren't supported by commissars and a strong AM or imperium soup list. Or ork boyz which become a threat and a decent troop only in huge numbers, with tons of buffing characters and an entire list that lacks vehicles and multiwounds models (maybe only cheap artillery) in order to nullify all the opponent's anti tank.
TAC marines are not different than the majority of other troops choices, they're not great but combined with other effective units, and SM have several powerful options, they surely find a room even in super competitive lists. No garbage units can be part of those cheesy lists.
I think we've been over this. The Tac Marines are just there so you can take Razorbacks.
The problem aren't the Tac Marines. The problem is that Razorbacks with Assault Cannons are undercosted EVEN at the cost of 180 or 190 points per model you pay with the Tac Squad to unlock them. Also, Guilliman.
And mind you, this is a tournament setting, where you only see the Top 5% of lists in 40K overall? It's a highly biased sample unrepresentative of the game as a whole.To be balanced, a Codex/list should probably be balanced against 70+% of hypothetical lists in 40K. Somebody go playtest Guilliman Razorspam against something like a fluffly, footslogging Bloodletter-battalion and adjust points until the Bloodletters win 50% of games out of .. dunno a hundred or so.
Referencing tournaments as evidence for or against balance is nonsensical. It's like saying obesity is not a problem in the United States (or elsewhere), cause we looked at a 100 people attending the Olympics and found no evidence that it might be a problem.
First off, there were only 5 units of tac marines not 6 - dunno where the 6 has come from.
Also, he didn't need that many tac units to get the razorbacks he had - he only needed 3 tac squads. So, taking 5 was a conscious decision that had no impact on being able to take razorbacks.
I've seen Lawrence use the list before, there are 6 Tac units.
One thing people havn't been talking about is how he tends to use them, as a screening unit to absorb smite and block charges. Whilst it can be argued they aren't the best for that job, he doesn't need large infantry blobs for it, in fact smaller squads are probably better as they'll attract less atention, and they do have a Lascannon and ObSec so they can have further uses.
First off, there were only 5 units of tac marines not 6 - dunno where the 6 has come from.
Also, he didn't need that many tac units to get the razorbacks he had - he only needed 3 tac squads. So, taking 5 was a conscious decision that had no impact on being able to take razorbacks.
That's a good point. I feel like he's missing a ton of points. Anyone else in a position to more thoroughly do the math and make sure I'm not missing something?
I'm with you - getting roughly 1905 with the list on the Warhammer Community site... So, i guess there probably was 6 tac units as that'd bring us up to 1995.
Blackie wrote: Number 1 list has 6 units of TAC marines? And there a lot of players that keep saying that TAC marines are garbage. Not mediocre or average, but pure garbage.
If they were pure garbage they wouldn't fit a 1st place tournament list in such high numbers. 6 squads are really a lot, tipycally you don't even spam 6 squads of decent units but only the real good ones.
The majority of troops in this edition may worth something only with the specific buffs that make them work and a list that is built around them.
TAC marines are certainly not great but with some specific buffs and appropriate lists they can be pretty solid. Also conscripts are totally ineffective if they aren't supported by commissars and a strong AM or imperium soup list. Or ork boyz which become a threat and a decent troop only in huge numbers, with tons of buffing characters and an entire list that lacks vehicles and multiwounds models (maybe only cheap artillery) in order to nullify all the opponent's anti tank.
TAC marines are not different than the majority of other troops choices, they're not great but combined with other effective units, and SM have several powerful options, they surely find a room even in super competitive lists. No garbage units can be part of those cheesy lists.
Still garbage, and that's exactly how they were used. As expendable garbage; they were the stand-ins for conscripts.
First off, there were only 5 units of tac marines not 6 - dunno where the 6 has come from.
Also, he didn't need that many tac units to get the razorbacks he had - he only needed 3 tac squads. So, taking 5 was a conscious decision that had no impact on being able to take razorbacks.
I've seen Lawrence use the list before, there are 6 Tac units.
One thing people havn't been talking about is how he tends to use them, as a screening unit to absorb smite and block charges. Whilst it can be argued they aren't the best for that job, he doesn't need large infantry blobs for it, in fact smaller squads are probably better as they'll attract less atention, and they do have a Lascannon and ObSec so they can have further uses.
Yeah, was going off GW's epic journalism, until we just worked out the rough points value.
The problem is that BA shouldn't be in cover most of the time. Well, unless you are gonna play them as gimped UMs.
Some units should be actually. TAC marines, scouts or devastators are mostly shooty units, they're not suppose to charge something with great effects. BA have sanguinary guard, assault marines, death company and terminators as infantry squads that never stay in cover shooting towards the enemy. All this units may need some fixes (they actually do) but I don't see BA armies hiding in cover all the time, if a few min squads that are not supposed to be choppy units do so it shouldn't be a problem IMHO.
Martel732 wrote: I don't want "movie marines" I want to not have to cower my marines in cover in order to survive a reasonable amount of time, while hordes of chaff do whatever they like because losses mean nothing to them because they are immune to psychology.
Play Ad Mech and use the rules for Kastellan Robots as Space Marines then paint them blue with Ultramarines transfers on their shoulders.
When Arkaine gets sarcastic, his opponent has lost the debate. This is the Dakka equivalent of tabling.
What is the problem with a unit firing from cover?
I get the fact that everyone has a playstyle and would prefer it if their army played a different way. But that's what tactics are, you adapt them to the situation to achieve a goal. If that means putting your troops in cover, do so, but bring big guns to ensure they remain a threat.
Shooting at things from a distance and forcing them to come to you doesn't have to be a bad thing. Most armies can do a lot of damage to hordes over the course of a few rounds. The trick is making sure the nastier parts of that horde army die before they get to you.
From what I've seen of this particular poster, the issue is that he doesn't actually want to have to play a game, he wants to throw marines on the table and pose dramatically as they destroy all their opponents, 'cause that's the floof tho!'
FAAC players man, gimme a WAAC any day.
Not at all. I'm just very concerned that every BA specific unit is going to be useless if this is THE way to play marines.
The army only plays this way because it has Gman.
And BA is always a 'lesser' Marine faction because shooting > combat in pretty much every edition of the 40k
All I can say, again, is wow. So where is this poll that proves what has otherwise been proven to be total bs?
There was one where people were reporting their wins / losses. I just went through about 6 pages of threads trying to find it, and I'm sad to say that I can't recall what it was called. I'm not actually sure if that's the one he's referencing or not, because I'm not a mind reader, but it's the only thing vaguely fitting that description.
From what I recall, SoB actually had the highest win rate in the upper 90%, and then was IG. Most of the imperial armies followed, with... I think Eldar probably being the higher of the Xenos. It was all based upon people who had posted to the thread saying something along the lines of "Militarium vs Space Marines, Militarium win", and that was counted, with up to, like, 10-15 games being posted at once sometimes.
I'm not saying people lied, but it would be literally impossible to tell if they did. I would be saying that you'd have to be a little crazy to rely on that thread for anything other than "for entertainment purposes only". It's certainly not what I'd call "data".
Not to mention that, even if they were telling the truth, you're depending on people who are operating entirely within the scope of their local meta. By those standards, I had about a 22/3/5 w/l/d in 7th with IG simply because of what my local scene looks like. I was tabling 14 year olds at "tournaments" with freaking power blobs, ffs. That was my local scene until I stopped.
That data is interesting, but to get a chip on your shoulder about it, even if people were entirely honest, well, I got nothin...
Yeah that's the one - I looked for it also and couldnt find it. This is whats called a survey in statistics. It's suppposed to give you a rough sense of things. With something like a 5% margin of error. It's purpose is to identify statistical trends.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
koooaei wrote: I've had it easier vs devastator gunlines than vs tactical marine spam playing orks. Devastators kill more but score less. They are also much more fragile for points.
Tactical marines are identical to devestators. Devs can just take more heavies. They don't have to take 4 and it's much more common to take 2. In a competitive list. It's even better with just 1 heavy weapon because for free you get a signum which makes it bs 2+ and a 5 point upgrade lets you shoot it twice (one time use) with cherub. There is 0 reason to take tactical squads in marine lists. Even less reason to take them when you have guilliman spotting you the command points from a battalion.
A well-done scientific survey that carefully handles bias and distribution of respondants, while carefully curating the questions and possible answers, will have "margins of error" a little south of 5%.
Stuff like that thread are the reason Gallup exists (read up on it - interesting story). Their margins of error are double digits. Charged discussions on subcomunity sites where an invested user randomly posts a hasty poll are unlikely to be accurate.
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah that's the one - I looked for it also and couldnt find it. This is whats called a survey in statistics. It's suppposed to give you a rough sense of things. With something like a 5% margin of error. It's purpose is to identify statistical trends.
That wasn't what a statistician in good faith would call a survey, and it certainly didn't have a 5% margin of error.
Yes, there was statistics being applied to the data. The statistics themselves might have had a 5% margin of error (I don't recall what the statistics even applied were). The problem was the data itself.
There's a fairly common saying, "Garbage in, garbage out" that typifies that thread. Not that I'm trying to insult the people participating in it (myself included) but it was unreliable and unverifiable. And again, even if they were telling the truth, it's not a solid indicator of army strength. I could show up in my local meta and make just about any army look good, not even because I'm good at the game, but because most of them were that bad.
Kdash wrote: One thing people havn't been talking about is how he tends to use them, as a screening unit to absorb smite and block charges. Whilst it can be argued they aren't the best for that job, he doesn't need large infantry blobs for it, in fact smaller squads are probably better as they'll attract less atention, and they do have a Lascannon and ObSec so they can have further uses.
I think most people undervalue objective secured as well.
Tacticals are garbage. For 13 points you only get about twice the durability of awesome units like Dire Avengers - which are dirt cheap at 17ppm!
Guardians are obviously the better screen squad, as they're only 9 ppm. So you can have more squads for fewer points! Only 90 points for a min Guardian squad, whereas Marines have to pay a whopping 65 points! How unfair is that? And for those 90 points, those 10 guardians take almost as much firepower to remove as those 5 Tacs! But the real kicker is Guardians can take one of those OP heavys like a Brightlance! S8 36" range anti-tank doomieness! So you have a moderately survivable 10-man unit that can throw a big shot down-range - take a couple of those, and how can Marine plaryers compete!
/sarcasm
I was a little surprised that he didn't take a dev squad or two for slightly higher lascannon presence. But I don't think you're seeing the benefits of the Tac squads:
- Wiping out a unit only takes out 1 Lascannon at best
- The first 4 wounds per squad take out only boltguns. The big gun isn't killed until you've done 5 wounds. And if the opponent is forced to divide his firepower between units, it gets much, much worse.
- He can use any Tac squad as a screen or pawn at any time. It's only 1 lascannon. And so he can stop a charge, tie up a unit, whatever.
- Tacs can't beat dedicated melee units. But the faster chaff can't take out even a min Tac squad. So the enemy has to invest in shifting or removing the unit. A unit that doesn't cost the SM player much to field.
- Tacs are reasonably resilient for 13ppm. Not Necron-level, but much more than most. So he spends enough points to make them actually a threat, and they have the durability to actually remove them.
- He needs 3 Tacs (or Scouts) anyways. If he brings 3 Tacs or Scouts plus 1/2 Dev squads, the Dev squad dies first. So if you fit 1 more Lascannon in each of 2 replaced tac squads (imagine you find points somewhere), those die first. So you get 1 to 3 more Lascannon shots. But you lose versatility, Obsec, and must tip your hand (where do you deploy the Devs vs Tacs?)
If you think replacing some Tacs with Preds is a great idea, you don't know what they're trying. Devs make some sense - and is what I would have done - but I think I see why he used Tacs (and I think he was right).
As for Tacs being garbage, compared to what? They do their job well. They can outperform most troops at what said troops do well. Those they can't, they usually outperform at everything else. So the best troops in the game might be marginally better.
Since 6th, Tacs have been simply better than most troops, but there were better (broken) options in other armies. Since then:
-Ablative wounds have become guarentees - meaning having 90% of your firepower being one guy has gone from a usually-big-advange to an always-huge-advantage. And nobody does that as well as Tacs.
-Cover has shifted the ideal from lots of poor armor saves to fewer models with good saves. Marines are some of the highest model-count 3+ save armies. SoB might have more bodies, but that's it. CWE can get 3+ saves, but not on troops, and for much more points than a Tac Marine. And 3+ hits 2+ in cover.
-The big stuff now costs big points. So the small stuff matters more. Tacs are one of the best "small stuff". And can be kitted to take on anything.
-Plasma went from overcharging at s7 Gets Hot and safe at s6 which only Xenos had, to Xenos plasma staying the same, Imp plasma getting safe at s7, and now a new Gets Hot profile
Tacs aren't bad. Get over it. They aren't 7e Scatter Bikes. But the vast majority of troops are worse. If you listed all troops from best to worst, Tacs would be near the top.
Yes, in a game where you need cheap disposable units to take up space, the Eldar suffer. Don't worry, your magical glitter unicorn codex is on the way!
Tac marines are good on a model to model basis, but only if you discount their cost of 13 ppm. No, I don't think replacing them with predators is a good idea because he needs the disposable space fillers.
Guardsmen massively outperform tacs at the only job that matters: filling space and soaking wounds.
"And can be kitted to take on anything. "
At TREMENDOUS cost relative to the cost of the actual marines. Once you start equipping tac marines, they develop the Eldar problem. As and Eldar player, I thought you'd recognize that.
"If you listed all troops from best to worst, Tacs would be near the top."
Only if you ignored costs. Tac pay more to do the same thing: take up space.
"As for Tacs being garbage, compared to what?"
Cheaper sources of wounds. Which is all we care about, really. The lascannons help, but jack up the price tremendously.
"Cover has shifted the ideal from lots of poor armor saves to fewer models with good saves. Marines are some of the highest model-count 3+ save armies. SoB might have more bodies, but that's it.
This is your most relevant point. And requires marines to forego movement.
So, if they aren't Conscripts, they're bad troops?
Doesn't the same apply to any troops that are:
-Marines
-Not Marines, but also not Conscripts
?
As has been pointed out in this thread, the Tacs in the winning list did a *lot* more than just "take up space".
On a per-cost basis, Marines are still better than most of the other troops in the game. As stated, for specific purposes, there are troops that outperform them in that role. The role you're looking at is "cheap conscript" - of course conscripts are better. The role the list was looking at was more than "cheap conscript", though. And Conscripts couldn't have done everything Marines did for that player.
Kdash wrote: One thing people havn't been talking about is how he tends to use them, as a screening unit to absorb smite and block charges. Whilst it can be argued they aren't the best for that job, he doesn't need large infantry blobs for it, in fact smaller squads are probably better as they'll attract less atention, and they do have a Lascannon and ObSec so they can have further uses.
I think most people undervalue objective secured as well.
No, because my opponents frequently have 4X as many obj sec models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: So, if they aren't Conscripts, they're bad troops?
Doesn't the same apply to any troops that are:
-Marines
-Not Marines, but also not Conscripts
?
As has been pointed out in this thread, the Tacs in the winning list did a *lot* more than just "take up space".
On a per-cost basis, Marines are still better than most of the other troops in the game. As stated, for specific purposes, there are troops that outperform them in that role. The role you're looking at is "cheap conscript" - of course conscripts are better. The role the list was looking at was more than "cheap conscript", though. And Conscripts couldn't have done everything Marines did for that player.
Maybe not conscripts, but guardsmen can take a heavy weapon.
I think *a lot* is overstating their role. They kept the Bobby g asscannons firing. That alone is the single most important thing they can do, because they physically don't have the quality shots of 12 asscannons. A few lascannon potshots is not going to shut down an IG artillery line, for example. They were expendable crap that were probably handy and painted for this player. They cower in cover and a free bump to 2+ armor and they become passable. Do anything other than cower and wait for bobby g and the gang to kill everything and they are back to mega-failure.
You can see where this is not super useful for the other marine variants.
Bharring wrote:On a per-cost basis, Marines are still better than most of the other troops in the game. As stated, for specific purposes, there are troops that outperform them in that role. The role you're looking at is "cheap conscript" - of course conscripts are better. The role the list was looking at was more than "cheap conscript", though. And Conscripts couldn't have done everything Marines did for that player.
It is my understanding that some people believe that there's apparently nothing that conscripts can't do and apparently their every opponent takes them and no one can deal with squads of 5̶0̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶l̶s̶ 30 models and they should only be able to be 3̶0̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶l̶s̶ 10 models large and then finally we'll hear the end of it.
Or some people are just so traumatized that this isn't going to be a thing we're ever really free of hearing the end of, because it's become a borderline religious point.
Bharring wrote: Tacticals are garbage. For 13 points you only get about twice the durability of awesome units like Dire Avengers - which are dirt cheap at 17ppm!
Guardians are obviously the better screen squad, as they're only 9 ppm. So you can have more squads for fewer points! Only 90 points for a min Guardian squad, whereas Marines have to pay a whopping 65 points! How unfair is that? And for those 90 points, those 10 guardians take almost as much firepower to remove as those 5 Tacs! But the real kicker is Guardians can take one of those OP heavys like a Brightlance! S8 36" range anti-tank doomieness! So you have a moderately survivable 10-man unit that can throw a big shot down-range - take a couple of those, and how can Marine plaryers compete!
/sarcasm
You almost did not need the tag.
This discussion gets into the question of how we consider terms like "good" and "bad" when talking about units. I think we are all seeing these terms are ideals more than absolutes, and express value relative to other units based on points cost.
In other words, it's useful for comparing units in isolation to one another. It's not useful for discussing how a list might perform based on the units selected.
As slayerfan pointed out, sure, an optimal build might look to Devastators, which would allow the army to maximize it's use of heavy weapons. From this standpoint, Tacticals are "bad," they were technically not the best option as they did not offer the same number of shots / bonuses to shooting.
At the same time, the list was "good" enough to take all comers. The straight up comparison between Tacticals and Devastators doesn't give us any insight into how the list would perform within the tournament, in part because it's not possible to account for all the other factors: overall list design, choice of mission, opponent selection, and luck with the dice.
So the "good" / "bad" dichotomy is really just a way of comparing several units in their ideal form, prior to battle. While this approach may be useful in choosing between certain units, it's more of a guideline than anything. The trouble is the inherent judgement of the terms, "bad" implies an army is at a disadvantage for including it, and "good" implies your army stands a better chance of winning for including it.
Horrible, horrible logic to buy into. The thing I hate about Mathhammer is the groupthink that goes along with it and the way certain units are treated as irredeemable as a result of some numbers. Likewise, this silly oversimplification around "good" / "bad" leads to the impression the game's flaws are far worse than what they are. By limiting ourselves to the most optimized lists out there, we lose our appreciation for the way the game is played, which is NEVER completely optimized.
By way of illustration, the "baddest" list I ever put together was in 5th edition. It was a Spawn Rush list, where I took a Chaos Lord, 2 min sized squads of CSM, and 33 Chaos Spawn in units of 3. Completely legal list at the time. For those who don't remember, Spawn were considered the worst unit in the Codex at the time because they had a mindless rule that forced automatic movement. They also had no saves to any wounds (I think each model had 5 back then.)
I won 10 games straight with this list before retiring it out of boredom. The army was autowin, the only real choice I had was where to place the Spawn at the start of the battle. Someone calculated the math for me, it would have taken somewhere around 420 hits with Bolter shots to actually kill all those Spawn - which is not easy to do against beasts that move 18 inches a turn. For some reason, the Mathhammer people missed that - which suggests the dichotomy is actually subjective, not quantitative.
Games like Lawrence's remind us "good" usually does not mean "best."
Bharring wrote:On a per-cost basis, Marines are still better than most of the other troops in the game. As stated, for specific purposes, there are troops that outperform them in that role. The role you're looking at is "cheap conscript" - of course conscripts are better. The role the list was looking at was more than "cheap conscript", though. And Conscripts couldn't have done everything Marines did for that player.
It is my understanding that some people believe that there's apparently nothing that conscripts can't do and apparently their every opponent takes them and no one can deal with squads of 5̶0̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶l̶s̶ 30 models and they should only be able to be 3̶0̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶l̶s̶ 10 models large and then finally we'll hear the end of it.
Or some people are just so traumatized that this isn't going to be a thing we're ever really free of hearing the end of, because it's become a borderline religious point.
On this forum a unit can only be one of two things:
Insanely OP, to which we should shun it for the pariah that it is.
Insanely garbage, to which we should shun it for the pariah that it is.
There is no middle ground. If it doesn't break the game, it's not worth the time.
It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?
#DidNotWinTheTournament
IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me
"Victory requires no explanation."
The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.
However, if those non-popular options were that viable, don't you think they would appear more often than like every 10 tournaments with dozens of people playing? Your argument doesn't make sense based on that merit alone.
Lots of people take good units, cram them together, and inelegantly mash them to the field while failing to achieve some sort of cohesive synergy. It's not surprising that Tacticals often get overlooked or don't perform well, because they're a trickier unit to get value out of. The number of times I read "my Tacticals sit on objectives" I think makes my point. Many players don't know what to do with them, their experience is lackluster, and they go on choose something else that has a more obvious role.
In the winning list, they had a clear job to do, and fulfilled some additional secondary roles alongside the Guilliman-Razorbacks. They fit the army, and performed well enough to help net the win. What works, works.
You're still avoiding the question. If it actually worked on a consistent basis, it would be seen more at tournaments, correct?
Mecha: I think the middle ground is actually where it's both. Plenty of things have been that over the years...
Tech: One of my points is the measure of "good" vs "garbage". There are over a dozen factions in this game, and most have 2+ troops choices. Tac Marine are likely in the top 5 for choices. Most whole factions don't have a better troop choice. So it may not be the best troop in the game, but that shouldn't get it auto-labeled "garbage".
The other point is I think a lot of the detractors are missing the strengths of the TAC marine. In large part because they've "proven" that they're "garbage", so how could they have any? I'm not arguing that they're better Conscripts than Conscripts. I'm saying there are some things they do better.
Martel:
When I play, I have a lot more options for dealing with a 10-man Guard unit with 1 HW than a 5man Tac squad with 1 HW.
Blackie wrote: Number 1 list has 6 units of TAC marines? And there a lot of players that keep saying that TAC marines are garbage. Not mediocre or average, but pure garbage.
If they were pure garbage they wouldn't fit a 1st place tournament list in such high numbers. 6 squads are really a lot, tipycally you don't even spam 6 squads of decent units but only the real good ones.
The majority of troops in this edition may worth something only with the specific buffs that make them work and a list that is built around them.
TAC marines are certainly not great but with some specific buffs and appropriate lists they can be pretty solid. Also conscripts are totally ineffective if they aren't supported by commissars and a strong AM or imperium soup list. Or ork boyz which become a threat and a decent troop only in huge numbers, with tons of buffing characters and an entire list that lacks vehicles and multiwounds models (maybe only cheap artillery) in order to nullify all the opponent's anti tank.
TAC marines are not different than the majority of other troops choices, they're not great but combined with other effective units, and SM have several powerful options, they surely find a room even in super competitive lists. No garbage units can be part of those cheesy lists.
If you're using one tournament as your proof, you have no understanding of how statistics work nor do you care about consistency.
As for consitancy or those saying "Proof my faction sucks!": with a dozen or more factions, a list of top 15 would probably not include at least 1 faction even if the game were perfectly balanced (read: each matchup a 50/50). Numbers don't work that way. Not enough data to be statistically significant, even if it were rigerous.
Bharring wrote: Mecha: I think the middle ground is actually where it's both. Plenty of things have been that over the years...
Tech: One of my points is the measure of "good" vs "garbage". There are over a dozen factions in this game, and most have 2+ troops choices. Tac Marine are likely in the top 5 for choices. Most whole factions don't have a better troop choice. So it may not be the best troop in the game, but that shouldn't get it auto-labeled "garbage".
The other point is I think a lot of the detractors are missing the strengths of the TAC marine. In large part because they've "proven" that they're "garbage", so how could they have any? I'm not arguing that they're better Conscripts than Conscripts. I'm saying there are some things they do better.
Martel:
When I play, I have a lot more options for dealing with a 10-man Guard unit with 1 HW than a 5man Tac squad with 1 HW.
This coming from the 6th/7th Eldar apologist of the forum. We don't care.
Well, BA don't, because there's like 20 of such unit and I can't engage that many targets.
" I'm saying there are some things they do better. "
But better than guardsmen? I know the melee point, but I've basically written melee off in 8th, and winning lists like this reinforce my thoughts on that.
So with melee discounted, it's about cheap bodies with guns that hide bigger guns.
I can't imagine how you have problems with tac marines but not guardsmen.
I think that those dismissing one tourny as not statistically significant are missing something - the more damning evidence is appeal to authority.
It's only one tourny, so the rankings don't offer a ton of data. But the top 5 players at the tournament probably understand the game better than the average person - even the average person in this conversation. If they assert that a unit isn't garbage, it's not proof the unit isn't garbage, but it is notable evidence so. And if they brought a list with lots of them, that's a very good sign that they are making that assertion.
Bharring wrote: I think that those dismissing one tourny as not statistically significant are missing something - the more damning evidence is appeal to authority.
It's only one tourny, so the rankings don't offer a ton of data. But the top 5 players at the tournament probably understand the game better than the average person - even the average person in this conversation. If they assert that a unit isn't garbage, it's not proof the unit isn't garbage, but it is notable evidence so. And if they brought a list with lots of them, that's a very good sign that they are making that assertion.
I'm not saying this list he fielding isn't a great list. I'm saying the tac marines are largely interchangeable with other bullet soakers. I'm also saying that this kind of list is not accessible to BA or SW, and probably will never be. So those factions get to line up and die like little bitches because they can't plow through the 200 geq bodies without being manticored off the table.
This list does a pretty good end around with that problem, but again, it's not accessible to most meq players.
I don't think I've had an 8th ed game where there was no CC. But then even when I'm planning on CC, I still need to bring some guns to make it happen.
Slayer,
You can double-discount me, as my second army is Blue Marines! Granted, I don't have or want Roboute G. But as I'm both dirty CWE and poster-boy brokenly good UltraMarines, I guess nothing I say might be relevant?
I've had a lot of CC, but most of it was meaningless chopping of bullet soakers. The ability to leave combat at will is killing power armor assault lists.
Remember the fundamental problem is that your opponent chooses what you assault, but you get to choose what you shoot.
Bharring wrote: I think that those dismissing one tourny as not statistically significant are missing something - the more damning evidence is appeal to authority.
It's only one tourny, so the rankings don't offer a ton of data. But the top 5 players at the tournament probably understand the game better than the average person - even the average person in this conversation. If they assert that a unit isn't garbage, it's not proof the unit isn't garbage, but it is notable evidence so. And if they brought a list with lots of them, that's a very good sign that they are making that assertion.
Using Appeal To Authority is literally a logical fallacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: I don't think I've had an 8th ed game where there was no CC. But then even when I'm planning on CC, I still need to bring some guns to make it happen.
Slayer,
You can double-discount me, as my second army is Blue Marines! Granted, I don't have or want Roboute G. But as I'm both dirty CWE and poster-boy brokenly good UltraMarines, I guess nothing I say might be relevant?
I'm discounting you because you're the poster child of the Eldar apologist from 6th/7th edition.
Sylagistically, appeal to authority is not provably true. Hence the 'Logical Fallacy' aspect.
For evidence, as opposed to proofs, it is relevant data.
This means, when you're trying to show something it's valid. When you're trying to prove something, it's not.
If a doctor tells you "Don't take medicine X. It will kill you", it doesn't *prove* that medicine X will kill you. But it does provide sufficient evidence for most cases that medicine X will kill you.
The difference between proofs and evidence is both huge and critical.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Slayer,
This toxicity is what kills communities. I spent (second half of) 6th and all of 7th saying Eldar OP. But I didn't agree with some of the crazier positions
Things like a termie with an AC being weaker than a jetbike with a scatter laser, model-for-model).
Or CWE Rangers being midelessly broken.
Or Banshees being OP because their pistols having pseudorending.
(All actual conversations that went on).
I did say Eldar were OP. I was very direct about it. But if you label everyone who disagrees on the more extreme points as an Eldar Apologist, you can't have a rational discussion. You can't refine just how OP they are, or which units are actually broken.
If you truly believe anyone that thought that 6th ed Banshees weren't OP on their own can't have a valid opinion, it's going to be hard to have a constructive conversation.
Tech: One of my points is the measure of "good" vs "garbage". There are over a dozen factions in this game, and most have 2+ troops choices. Tac Marine are likely in the top 5 for choices. Most whole factions don't have a better troop choice. So it may not be the best troop in the game, but that shouldn't get it auto-labeled "garbage".
The other point is I think a lot of the detractors are missing the strengths of the TAC marine. In large part because they've "proven" that they're "garbage", so how could they have any? I'm not arguing that they're better Conscripts than Conscripts. I'm saying there are some things they do better.
Once someone reduces the quality of a unit to a set of labels, people determine value based on the labels themselves. Some labels are good, some labels are bad.
In this way, anytime there's a rating system for units, it's really only talking about "good" / "bad." Again, horrible logic to buy into.
Reverse the unit selection process, think about list building. All of my lists are built around a theme, right now it happens to be "maximize lascannon shots because they kill the most stuff, and maximize rerolls because Black Legion does that really well." That means I will select units that can use Lascannons, and I will emphasize things that are mobile - so I can keep everyone close to Abaddon.
I took Predators instead of Havocs because Predators will keep more Lascannons on the table as they take wounds.
I dropped Noise Marines and started taking CSMs because Noise Marines can't take Lascannons. I took large CSM squads because that makes it harder to remove Lascannons. Even when I lose 5 models to morale, there's still 2 Lascannons there (unlike with a 10 man squad, which might disappear.)
I dropped Heldrakes for Helbrutes because Helbrutes can take Lascannons. Then I dropped Helbrutes for Rapier Weapons Batteries because I get more Lascannons with them.
I dropped Combi-Plasma Terminators because deep striking puts them out of Abaddon's reroll bubble and they can't take Lascannons. I replaced them with Cultists to screen the CSMs from charges.
As a consequence, I get 22 rerollable Lascannon shots a turn with 8 command points. Opponents are forced to march up the board to come to me, while I kill their tanks at a rate higher than what they can kill mine. The units that do reach my army are battered and my CSMs are enough to deal with them - not optimized for dealing with them, but enough.
"Good" / "Bad" does not enter into how units are selected for the army. Not saying it's not part of it, but it's a small part compared to "does the unit fit the criteria." It's nice not to be locked into a one-dimensional way of thinking about list building.
Despite all the flack GW gets, sometimes they've balanced things such a way that it's really a decision.
In 6th/7th, Guardians vs DAs were "which do I want", not "This one is better". But Storm Guardians were clearly worse. And SL Windriders were clearly better.
Likewise, in 7th, Dread vs Wraithlord were very equivelent, despite having very different rules. Each was better in different ways.
For the choice to be about the role is idea. For instance, scouts should be picked if you want a weaker unit that could get up closer, or snipers, Tacs were better if you wanted troops to fight battles (notable exception - at times, certain chapter Scouts were actually better boltgunners than Tacs, and someone won a GT with Scout Bolter-spam).
I think that there will always be "OP" options (SL Windriders) and "Trash" options (7th Ed Wyches). But most things have at least some tradeoffs. However, I don't see how Tacs could reasonably be listed as a "Trash" option unless all but 2 or 3 options were also listed as "Trash". And then it loses almost all meaning.
It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?
#DidNotWinTheTournament
IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me
"Victory requires no explanation."
The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.
However, if those non-popular options were that viable, don't you think they would appear more often than like every 10 tournaments with dozens of people playing? Your argument doesn't make sense based on that merit alone.
Lots of people take good units, cram them together, and inelegantly mash them to the field while failing to achieve some sort of cohesive synergy. It's not surprising that Tacticals often get overlooked or don't perform well, because they're a trickier unit to get value out of. The number of times I read "my Tacticals sit on objectives" I think makes my point. Many players don't know what to do with them, their experience is lackluster, and they go on choose something else that has a more obvious role.
In the winning list, they had a clear job to do, and fulfilled some additional secondary roles alongside the Guilliman-Razorbacks. They fit the army, and performed well enough to help net the win. What works, works.
You're still avoiding the question. If it actually worked on a consistent basis, it would be seen more at tournaments, correct?
And you're here in bad faith, because I just addressed that.
I know I won't convince you of my position, but I don't have to. I do believe you've displayed enough head-in-sand behavior to probably lose some credibility. And maybe the next time Tacticals are being talked about in the tactica forum, a few more people will choose to ignore you and you're bizarre hatred of the unit.
At least this tournament showed that sufficient skill can trump powerful units, so even in the worse case scenarios you do stand a chance. Also footsloggers might actually have a place in the meta, rather than be seen as comically crap.
Dunno about you but for me that is great news, since it means I can have a genuine challenge while also being able to run actual footslogging armies (I dislike having to mount everything on jump packs or transports).
Dire avengers got a point reduction in their codex. And gardians got a lot of strategem support and special rules. Tacitcals have now been elevated to worst unit in the game.
It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?
#DidNotWinTheTournament
IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me
"Victory requires no explanation."
The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.
However, if those non-popular options were that viable, don't you think they would appear more often than like every 10 tournaments with dozens of people playing? Your argument doesn't make sense based on that merit alone.
Lots of people take good units, cram them together, and inelegantly mash them to the field while failing to achieve some sort of cohesive synergy. It's not surprising that Tacticals often get overlooked or don't perform well, because they're a trickier unit to get value out of. The number of times I read "my Tacticals sit on objectives" I think makes my point. Many players don't know what to do with them, their experience is lackluster, and they go on choose something else that has a more obvious role.
In the winning list, they had a clear job to do, and fulfilled some additional secondary roles alongside the Guilliman-Razorbacks. They fit the army, and performed well enough to help net the win. What works, works.
You're still avoiding the question. If it actually worked on a consistent basis, it would be seen more at tournaments, correct?
And you're here in bad faith, because I just addressed that.
I know I won't convince you of my position, but I don't have to. I do believe you've displayed enough head-in-sand behavior to probably lose some credibility. And maybe the next time Tacticals are being talked about in the tactica forum, a few more people will choose to ignore you and you're bizarre hatred of the unit.
Are you for real with this? That list is 100% dependent on Guilliman. Only Ultramarines can run an army anything like this. Are you suggesting that Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and any other successor chapter can get the same mileage out of tactical marines as Ultramarines can, with Guilliman?
Quit being disingenuous for 5 seconds and really think about it.
It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?
#DidNotWinTheTournament
IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me
"Victory requires no explanation."
The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.
However, if those non-popular options were that viable, don't you think they would appear more often than like every 10 tournaments with dozens of people playing? Your argument doesn't make sense based on that merit alone.
Lots of people take good units, cram them together, and inelegantly mash them to the field while failing to achieve some sort of cohesive synergy. It's not surprising that Tacticals often get overlooked or don't perform well, because they're a trickier unit to get value out of. The number of times I read "my Tacticals sit on objectives" I think makes my point. Many players don't know what to do with them, their experience is lackluster, and they go on choose something else that has a more obvious role.
In the winning list, they had a clear job to do, and fulfilled some additional secondary roles alongside the Guilliman-Razorbacks. They fit the army, and performed well enough to help net the win. What works, works.
You're still avoiding the question. If it actually worked on a consistent basis, it would be seen more at tournaments, correct?
And you're here in bad faith, because I just addressed that.
I know I won't convince you of my position, but I don't have to. I do believe you've displayed enough head-in-sand behavior to probably lose some credibility. And maybe the next time Tacticals are being talked about in the tactica forum, a few more people will choose to ignore you and you're bizarre hatred of the unit.
You literally said #didnotwinthetournament and said the unit works in certain lists. Those certain lists pop up every few tournaments once in a blue moon.
Is the unit really effective if that's the case, or is it just a statistical anomaly and the person just did very well? Based off numbers, it's gonna be the latter. You're ignoring the sheer numbers and just saying it worked at one tournament, and thats your proof. That's actual head-in-the-sand behavior, by ignoring everything but the one piece of evidence you have.
Xenomancers wrote: Dire avengers got a point reduction in their codex. And gardians got a lot of strategem support and special rules. Tacitcals have now been elevated to worst unit in the game.
Xenomancers wrote: Dire avengers got a point reduction in their codex. And gardians got a lot of strategem support and special rules. Tacitcals have now been elevated to worst unit in the game.
Pretty sure power armor GKs are worse.
PAGK are the best non-HQ units in our codex. Not saying much. But still.
I'd actually kill for their ability to stay in CC.
Let me give you the normal work flow for my marines in general. Kill some useless chaff units -> die to shooting. Rinse and repeat until all marines are gone. The obvious solution to this is quite trying to act like a balanced force and just shoot back, which is exactly what the winning list did. Kudos to him for sure. The non-vanilla chapters are not going to be nearly as good at this scheme.
(Also, lets see what happens with the CWE dex. I'm unsure that Guardians are now better than Tacs just because of those stratagems. And DAs we don't know if they're 10ppm or 15ppm - the first would be broken, the second wouldn't be better than Tacs.
thing AND pay for 
