Switch Theme:

First Warhammer40k GT results  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 techsoldaten wrote:
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.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in gr
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot




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?
   
Made in us
Omnipotent Necron Overlord






 Gunzhard wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 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.


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.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/17 23:51:11


 
   
Made in se
Swift Swooping Hawk





 Red_Five wrote:
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.

Craftworld Sciatháin 4180 pts  
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/17 23:58:09


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
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

IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Desubot wrote:
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.

Oh wow the sheeple argument. Great job, kiddo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 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?

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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/10/18 00:10:07


CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Veteran Marine with Psychic Potential





 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.

It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

 Red_Five wrote:
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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/18 00:41:28


 
   
Made in us
Rampaging Furioso Blood Angel Dreadnought





Boston, MA

 Xenomancers wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 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.


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?

Please check out my photo blog: http://atticwars40k.blogspot.com/ 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Veteran Marine with Psychic Potential





 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

It's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately. 
   
Made in us
Kid_Kyoto






Probably work

 Gunzhard wrote:

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...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/18 00:59:09


Assume all my mathhammer comes from here: https://github.com/daed/mathhammer 
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





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.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






Ordana wrote:
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.

   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




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.
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Veteran Marine with Psychic Potential





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's called a thick skin. The Jersey born have it innately. 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
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

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.



And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Oh wow the sheeple argument. Great job, kiddo.

Glad to see you fixated on the /s sarcasm instead of the rest. you sweet summer child


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 Scott-S6 wrote:
And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.

Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!

 
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Your victory is not a victory unless I say so... maybe it's a win.

Feed the poor war gamer with money.  
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Xenomancers wrote:
 Gunzhard wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 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.


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.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
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

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.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

 Arkaine wrote:
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.

   
Made in us
Pious Palatine




 techsoldaten wrote:
 Arkaine wrote:
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.


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Spoiler:
 Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Insectum7 wrote:
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

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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/18 06:06:39


And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






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 message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/18 06:17:22


 
   
Made in gb
Fully-charged Electropriest





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!!!



“Do not ask me to approach the battle meekly, to creep through the shadows, or to quietly slip on my foes in the dark. I am Rogal Dorn, Imperial Fist, Space Marine, Emperor’s Champion. Let my enemies cower at my advance and tremble at the sight of me.”
-Rogal Dorn
 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/18 08:21:18


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut



Dudley, UK

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Ordana wrote:
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

Stuffem, Tankem, Ammeran

My Ramblings - http://ineptusgameus.blogspot.com/

In the West Midlands, UK? PM me if you want a game! 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
[Thumb - Slide1.jpg]

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/18 09:17:11


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: