Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just made 4 shot gun scouts, the one sgt. I made will be a Captain soon of my 10th Company once I get enough to create a full squad of 10.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Scouts are the best troop choice actually.

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.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Scouts are the best troop choice actually.

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.

@Slayer

What point are you countering exactly?

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.

Man, I had to read that twice before I decided that I was going to assume it was sarcasm.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@Slayer

What point are you countering exactly?

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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
@Slayer

What point are you countering exactly?

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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

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.

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

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 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.

You uh, you ok there buddy?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 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.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 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.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 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.