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.

If you're really better, you mind army swapping with my BA.

Communication, communication, communication.

1. How many points?
2. Casual, semi-competitive, or tournament smash-mouth?
3. Regular missions, special missions, maelstrom?
4. Time limit?
5. Superheavies and/or fliers OK?

Let's roll!

*edit*

Maybe I am a bit to harsh so will edit what I said.

Basically just respect your opponent. As was said before, find like minded people to play with. People who like to play causal fluffy games, there is nothing wrong with that. People who like to play competitively there is nothing wrong with that as well. Just respect your opponent. Reading your post, you are not respecting your opponent so you are not TFG but you are becoming a Richard.

Can't find like minded people to play with and can only play with people who like causal fluffy games, just be grateful that you are getting games in.

 Imposter101 wrote:
Except understanding the superiority of the lists within the game and knowing the system does make you a good player. An understanding of math hammer is skill.

And no, Breng, strawmanning will not work here. Players are not here to learn they will be curbstomped. I said nothing of the sort. They will learn how to play the game better when they do not play against deliberately faulted lists.

I also fail to see how playing list of the weak is stagnation. That's the literal opposite of stagnation.

As I said, this game is inherently imbalanced across armies and where you're going to see that is in the list building. Bringing a competitive Eldar list vs a fluffy Orc list is knowingly embracing that imbalance.

Understanding how to make a good list and math hammering makes you a knowledgeable player before the game, but it doesn't mean it makes you a good player during games and that's my point. My argument was that if you're playing an imbalanced game with the scales tipped in your favor from the get-go, your problems are fewer and your resourcefulness will be tested less. Its like playing a game of chess but your opponent doesn't get a queen. This kind of game doesn't challenge you to be better than your opponent, because you stacked the game in your favor from the onset. The player without the queen though will be challenged immensely and have to adapt on the fly. One of these players is more stagnant than the other.

Now I agree with Breng77 that there is a time and place for this kind of competitive game-play, but expecting this of all your opponents, all the time, in your gaming community is selfish. This is why you don't see pick up games happening as often anymore.

 Frozocrone wrote:
You're problem is that you're bringing semi-comp lists against what seem to be casual players.

Different strokes for different blokes.

TFGs are hard core rules lawyering for advantage people you don't want to play against.

Edited for spelling and politeness

there also blatant cheaters and list tailors

The problem is that you've got what is probably the easiest army to learn how to play. Playing Tau on a competitive tournament level is by far easy, but were not talking about that at all so let's not kid ourselves here and claim that Tau is a difficult army in a friendly, non-competitive scene.

To win against most armies in a casual scene, it suffices to just bring a better list, stand still and shoot them off the table. That's all there is to Tau in a non-competitive scene. Elaborate tactics are far from needed, just overcompensate for every other phase with sheer shooting power.

Um... I didnt mean to say I was better at the game than my opponents, and by no means am I trying to pretend like I'm somehow the hottest gak out there because I run tau and win. I realize it's easy to play tau and not suck, and this makes me feel a tad bit uneasy.

Also I've very little knowledge on other codexes so I've a hard time telling which lists are how powerful.

Jaxler, the thing you need to focus on is that you need to modify your list for the group you play with. Your initial post makes you seem unwilling to do so, and instead expect the other players to change their lists to match yours. You may very well be turning into the TFG of the group if you're unwilling to compromise. It's easy to make a few lists of varying levels and ask what they're playing, matching that. Unfortunately we'll never be as able to tell you as those you play with. It's never entirely on you, but you do contribute.

Jaxler wrote:
Um... I didnt mean to say I was better at the game than my opponents, and by no means am I trying to pretend like I'm somehow the hottest gak out there because I run tau and win. I realize it's easy to play tau and not suck, and this makes me feel a tad bit uneasy.

Also I've very little knowledge on other codexes so I've a hard time telling which lists are how powerful.

Basically, the following are pretty much on the same level; Tau, Eldar, Necrons, Codex Marines, Dark Angels
All of these armies have shiny, 7.5 edition codices to play with, including the ultra powerful Decruion/Gladius/Lion's Blade/Hunter Cadre/etc... style detachments.

Below those books, you have;
Daemons of Chaos, new CotW boosted Space Wolves, formation-based Skittari/Ad Mech.
These books can compete, but are definitely on a slightly lower peg than the above. If they run their tourney level lists, then they canreally give Tau a good run for their money.

The next level would be;
Grey Knights, Tyranids, Ad Mech, Khorne Daemonkin, Sisters, Dark Eldar/Covens.
These guys really need to run their top level filth lists to hang out with even semi-competitive Tau. Definitely start scaling back on the power against these guys. For example, don't take the Taucurion detachment & limit things like Riptides/Stormsurges, etc...

Finally, we have the garbage heap;
Blood Angels, Chaos Marines
Literally put your kid gloves on for these poor saps. Their play styles are either outright hard countered by Tau in general, and/or literally anything they can take is badly overcosted. For these match-ups, this is the best time to bring out those Tau units you'd typically never run, such as Stealth Suits, Kroot, Vespids, etc...
Oh, and don't run ANY formation against these guys! (especially the Chaos Marines, who are easily the worst army in the game!) You don't need the added bonuses that formations offer to steamroll these armies. Just showing up is almost all you need to do!

You forgot Orks. Bottom tier as well, UNLESS they run Greentide which puts them to tier 2.

How to determine whether you are TFG:

Question 1: Is your army painted?

Question 2: If the answer to question 1 is "no," are you in the process of changing that?

If the answer to question 1 and 2 are both "no," you are probably TFG. If not, proceed to question 3:

Question 3: Do you play Tau, Eldar or Necrons?

Question 4: If the answer to question 3 is "yes," did you start playing your army before people were commonly complaining about them being OP?

If the answer to 3 is "yes" and 4 is "no," then you are almost certainly TFG. Otherwise, proceed to question 5:

Question 5: Do you run an army list that would cause a reasonable casual player to cry "CHEESE!"

If the answer to question 5 is yes, then you are TFG. If the answer to question 5 is "no," then you might still be TFG: proceed to question 6:

Question 6: Did you make your decision to play your army, not because you thought that the army was "cool" (e.g., "Space marines are super soldiers? EPIC!"), but because of how they would play on the table?

If the answer to question 6 is "yes," then you very well may be an utterly detestable TFG. If not, you still might be TFG, but I don't feel like writing more.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Experiment wrote:Basically, the following are pretty much on the same level; Tau, Eldar, Necrons, Codex Marines, Dark Angels
All of these armies have shiny, 7.5 edition codices to play with, including the ultra powerful Decruion/Gladius/Lion's Blade/Hunter Cadre/etc... style detachments.

Does having to blow up an extra 10 rhinos really scare you that much?

 Quickjager wrote:
You forgot Orks. Bottom tier as well, UNLESS they run Greentide which puts them to tier 2.

He also forgot Guard, which means we must REALLY suck. So bad we're not even on a tier!

I was in a similar situation about a month ago and even made a thread just like this asking almost the same question.

Here it is if you want to read it as it does pertain to you as well. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/676187.page

I was worried that I was being TFG because I was trying to bring strong lists and play at my club who use fairly casual lists. Now I play Orks mainly so my ability to be TFG is pretty limited, but as many people have said its really in your attitude.

Remember you are playing the game WITH someone and not against them. Its a cooperative experience even if it is competitive. The best games are played with friends so try and be a friend to those you play with. That means set up games with them in advance and look to adjust your power level to meet theres. Its never fun rolling over someone or being rolled over.

Now I like to think I am good at the game as well, but remember that there is always a bigger fish. Do not let your pride become arrogance and even then try to hide your pride. Avoid bragging and self promotion at all costs.

I dont like making weak lists either. I want to bring a good list, but what is most important to me is having a fun game. When I wanted to do my 1850 gladius list I gave my CSM player friend a 500 point handicap. He was cool with it because he got more toys and it led to a much better game.

When I played my Buzgob stompa I gave my friend camo cloaks and camo netting on all his tanks + a free pask upgrade. He didnt want to accept the upgrades, but I insisted. That was about 200 free points for him and you know what? We had an awesome game that came right down to the wire. An added bonus to this is that it makes you look like a nicer guy who is genuinely interested in having fun games. Let your gamer pals know you care about their fun and you want to have great games with them. Work with them to achieve this.

If you really want to bring hardcore lists ask your friends to take a 200 point handicap to make the game more fair, but make sure to talk about the codexes being on different power levels and never the people behind them.

For instance which of these statements seems more friendly?

"Hey man would you be cool with taking a 200 point handicap in your favor for this battle? I feel like Tau are too strong right now, but they are my army and I like playing them. If you add 200 points to your army we can have a much more fair game to make compensate for the brokenness of my codex."

Versus

"Hey man would you be cool with taking a 200 point handciap in your favor for this battle? I think we are just different kinda players and I just bringing it more than you are. If you add those points it will compensate for me being better and give us a better game."

Treat your fellow gamers as friends and remember you are working with them to make a great game for the both of you. Its not about winning. Its about having fun.

I dont know about you, but I think its always better to have a great game and lose than have a boring game and win.

Can someone please explain where the stigma for playing strong lists come from? I completely understand when play groups decide on a certain strength level, but even for random pick up games. Purely anecdotally speaking; for random pick up games of magic the gathering if you are playing modern/ standard its assumed that your deck is or is trying to contend with a level of competition unless casual is explicitly stated. When I read these forums i get the opposite impression where most people are on a no competitive or your tfg rampage.

Ozomoto wrote:
Can someone please explain where the stigma for playing strong lists come from? I completely understand when play groups decide on a certain strength level, but even for random pick up games. Purely anecdotally speaking; for random pick up games of magic the gathering if you are playing modern/ standard its assumed that your deck is or is trying to contend with a level of competition unless casual is explicitly stated. When I read these forums i get the opposite impression where most people are on a no competitive or your tfg rampage.

It's not about taking a string list, it's about taking a strong list against someone who isn't forewarned, prepared or interested in playing it; particularly in 40k, where there are balance issues, a lot of people trend towards non-competitive play for a number of reasons, including that they find competitive lists boring to play with or against, they find it lacks narrative, they can't afford the 'best' stuff, or they'd simply rather build an army they like the look and play of rather than 'Powerful Thing x As Many Times As You Can Fit It Into A List'.

I know nothing about Magic, but I'd assume there's less of a narrative element to it than 40k? Is it common to build your deck based on certain characters or themes or events? With 40k, that's definitely there, particularly as you have to spend time assembling and painted the models too, there's more of an emotional investment.

There;s also the fact that no one likes a forgone conclusion. If you're the kind of people that bring the same list every week, and the first time you play, one side absolutely dominates the other, what's the point in playing again. I'm not talking about a lucky victory or a close-fought game, those are often the best as it gives you something to come back and fight for next time, but if you get wiped off the board by turn 3, and the person who did the wiping is going to be playing exactly the same list next week, then why bother playing them again?

So again, the issue is not taking a competitive list; if you're at a tournament or preparing for one, and/or your opponent is prepared and forewarned and happy to face the best you can bring, then by all means, bring out every nasty model or killer combo you have. But when you're facing someone who's looking for a fun afternoon chucking dice and laughing, and trying to tell a story with their minis, consider that they might not want to tell that same story again, 'The Day The 197th Deployed And Were Shot To Bits'

Or as I said to my pretty casual gaming group last week, 'we're all here for fun. If anyone brings a competitive list without warning, I think I'll just come along, vomit in a bag and go home. Same result, but saves me two hours!' Luckily, most of them are of a similar mindset!

Casual is the default assumption because the rules are written with a casual game in mind. They are not well suited to highly competitive play due to horrible balance between armies. If you bring a even a semi-competitive Tau or Eldar army against Chaos Marines, the CSM are going to be badly butchered unless something goes horribly wrong for the Tau.

It's not really fair to the other guy to expect that he must play one of the top tier codices or accept losing every single game he plays. Some people just like to play CSMs, or Sisters, or BA, or Guard. Unlike Magic, where all of the colors can have a competitive deck built around them, some armies just aren't competitve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

Ozomoto wrote:
Can someone please explain where the stigma for playing strong lists come from? I completely understand when play groups decide on a certain strength level, but even for random pick up games. Purely anecdotally speaking; for random pick up games of magic the gathering if you are playing modern/ standard its assumed that your deck is or is trying to contend with a level of competition unless casual is explicitly stated. When I read these forums i get the opposite impression where most people are on a no competitive or your tfg rampage.

It's not about taking a string list, it's about taking a strong list against someone who isn't forewarned, prepared or interested in playing it; particularly in 40k, where there are balance issues, a lot of people trend towards non-competitive play for a number of reasons, including that they find competitive lists boring to play with or against, they find it lacks narrative, they can't afford the 'best' stuff, or they'd simply rather build an army they like the look and play of rather than 'Powerful Thing x As Many Times As You Can Fit It Into A List'.

I know nothing about Magic, but I'd assume there's less of a narrative element to it than 40k? Is it common to build your deck based on certain characters or themes or events? With 40k, that's definitely there, particularly as you have to spend time assembling and painted the models too, there's more of an emotional investment.

There;s also the fact that no one likes a forgone conclusion. If you're the kind of people that bring the same list every week, and the first time you play, one side absolutely dominates the other, what's the point in playing again. I'm not talking about a lucky victory or a close-fought game, those are often the best as it gives you something to come back and fight for next time, but if you get wiped off the board by turn 3, and the person who did the wiping is going to be playing exactly the same list next week, then why bother playing them again?

So again, the issue is not taking a competitive list; if you're at a tournament or preparing for one, and/or your opponent is prepared and forewarned and happy to face the best you can bring, then by all means, bring out every nasty model or killer combo you have. But when you're facing someone who's looking for a fun afternoon chucking dice and laughing, and trying to tell a story with their minis, consider that they might not want to tell that same story again, 'The Day The 197th Deployed And Were Shot To Bits'

Or as I said to my pretty casual gaming group last week, 'we're all here for fun. If anyone brings a competitive list without warning, I think I'll just come along, vomit in a bag and go home. Same result, but saves me two hours!' Luckily, most of them are of a similar mindset!

Magic has narrative elements, but they're almost entirely divorced from gameplay. It's a much better balanced game, and you can build a competitive deck based around nearly any theme from any of the colors. But, you can even build competitve decks based solely around narrative elements, simply because the balance is that good. I don't know for sure, because I quit shortly after the Mirari cycle, but I would assume that this has held true in the decade since I quit playing.

Ozomoto wrote:
Can someone please explain where the stigma for playing strong lists come from? I completely understand when play groups decide on a certain strength level, but even for random pick up games. Purely anecdotally speaking; for random pick up games of magic the gathering if you are playing modern/ standard its assumed that your deck is or is trying to contend with a level of competition unless casual is explicitly stated. When I read these forums i get the opposite impression where most people are on a no competitive or your tfg rampage.

In short, from these conversations there is a separation between playing at a 40k tournament and playing outside of tournaments.

With MtG standard there is the cycle you're allowed to pick from. That keeps the meta changing. With 40k you have armies of varying power levels and release cycles/dates. If everyone was only allowed to play units from the last three codex/supplement releases- i.e. 40k "standard" - in pickup games (allies table scrapped) then it would certainly be closer to what MtG attempts and achieves. But that's not what 40k is about.*

And there's fluffy lists - lists people build for the joy it brings them.


*Do not take as an excuse for the lack of balance between forces.

Having more models than you need for any single list is a godsend. Tailoring the strength of your list down can be key to having enjoyable games for both people with stronger armies like Tau. Before any and every game I've gotten into the habit of asking my opponents if they're okay playing against a Riptide, or 2 Riptides depending on the points level. If not, have an alternative list that fills the points with more Crisis suits or Skyrays or something. If you're experienced in your local meta and know the sorts of lists people bring, tailor your lists to make the games more interesting. If you know there's a kid who plays CSM straight out of Dark Vengeance with a few Helbrutes and Terminators, tailor your list accordingly so you don't steamroller them. If games are one sided and uninteresting, it's not your opponent's fault for being bad; it's your own fault for not reading the level of gamesmanship required.

Tau are flexible and versatile and are just as much fun without their big toys as they are when using them. Some of my best games have been those with no Riptides to crutch on where I've been relying on good positioning and the occasional assault rather than removing whole squads with an IA. Another alternative would be to try playing with very limited, or even no markerlights.

Lastly, don't try to game the rules. This forum sees a lot of Tau players whining. Most of the whining seems to be about "nerfs" from the ITC FAQ. Although it's not enforcable or even necessarily correct, they cast judgements on some of the more abiguous Tau rules. If you're using the Kauyon detachment and gaming the focused fire rule (that allows multiple units to share markerlights), just stop. Most gaming groups will houserule this anyway because it's completely bonkers when taken RAW. If you want to get Tau hate, that's the surefire fastest way to do it.

Ozomoto wrote:
Can someone please explain where the stigma for playing strong lists come from? I completely understand when play groups decide on a certain strength level, but even for random pick up games. Purely anecdotally speaking; for random pick up games of magic the gathering if you are playing modern/ standard its assumed that your deck is or is trying to contend with a level of competition unless casual is explicitly stated. When I read these forums i get the opposite impression where most people are on a no competitive or your tfg rampage.

Some of what the above responders said, but mostly...

When you get curb stomped in Magic, it takes less than 10 minutes. It's a slap in the face, but it only stings a little and it's gone within moments. You may only need to change a few cards (or just get better draw luck) to get right back in the saddle. No biggie.

When you're getting beat down in 40k, unless you just concede, it's going to take a few hours. It can be an emotional rollercoaster (which will be worse if your opponent is a bad sport or TFG) where you say to yourself "I spent a full year painting this army, and it's garbage compared to this newer codex" (or something similar). It can be a pride withering slap that makes you start hating the game, and there are no quick fixes.

Traditio wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Experiment wrote:Basically, the following are pretty much on the same level; Tau, Eldar, Necrons, Codex Marines, Dark Angels
All of these armies have shiny, 7.5 edition codices to play with, including the ultra powerful Decruion/Gladius/Lion's Blade/Hunter Cadre/etc... style detachments.

Does having to blow up an extra 10 rhinos really scare you that much?

As a Daemon player, absolutely it does.
Besides, 8-10 free Razors is just hugely demoralising, as you suddenly realise that for example, your 1500pts army is now facing what is more or less a 2000pts army.

Generally speaking, I feel that when it comes to casual gaming/pick-up gaming, if you play an army that has gotten it's 7.5 update/super detachment, you should always come prepared with a seperate list that forgoes using your special detachment/formations, as they're really just too much against anyone who's still left behind with a 7th (or worse yet) 6th edition codex.

Being TFG is not just about what army you field, but also your general attitude towards the game and others. I always thought TFG was someone who exploited rule loopholes, relentlessly spammed certain units, but also being argumentative, uncompromising and generally not giving a damn about the other player having fun or not.

From what you describe, you are by no means TFG just for playing Tau and using the units that are there in your particular book.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that experienced players have no problem with your Tau army. You've got nothing to worry about


EDIT: Of course if I were to bring my Blood Angels against a strong Tau list it would feel very one sided. However, I would not blame my opponent for bringing the best list they can from their chosen army, nor would I expect them to tailor their list with not so good units just to accommodate my much poorer army. I chose to play Blood Angels, so I should deal with it.

It seems there are VERY different opinions of how TFG is defined

 _ghost_ wrote:
It seems there are VERY different opinions of how TFG is defined

That's because what people consider to be rude and jerkish behaviour is different. For some people, it's an attitude. For others, it's an army list. For yet others, it's just a label that they apply to anyone that beats them. Personally, I think it's an attitude. It's about wanting to dominate people weaker than you instead of testing your strength.

 Yarium wrote:

 _ghost_ wrote:
It seems there are VERY different opinions of how TFG is defined

That's because what people consider to be rude and jerkish behaviour is different. For some people, it's an attitude. For others, it's an army list. For yet others, it's just a label that they apply to anyone that beats them. Personally, I think it's an attitude. It's about wanting to dominate people weaker than you instead of testing your strength.

I agree with this. I think it is about attitude and being on some kind of power trip with no regard for the other player. There is a difference between choosing a strong list from a book because you like the models and want a good chance at winning and choosing a list with the intention of absolutely destroying the other player and peeing them off. I guess it is a fine balance and also how that person behaves towards other people during the game too.

I got to "Only Two Riptides" and stopped reading.

Experiment wrote:As a Daemon player, absolutely it does.
Besides, 8-10 free Razors is just hugely demoralising, as you suddenly realise that for example, your 1500pts army is now facing what is more or less a 2000pts army.

Generally speaking, I feel that when it comes to casual gaming/pick-up gaming, if you play an army that has gotten it's 7.5 update/super detachment, you should always come prepared with a seperate list that forgoes using your special detachment/formations, as they're really just too much against anyone who's still left behind with a 7th (or worse yet) 6th edition codex.

In order to get those 10 extra razorbacks, rhinos or drop pods, the marine player has to field:

2 HQs which are worth at least 90 points per model (captain or chaplain).
6 squads of tactical marines
2 assault squads
2 devastator squads

(I omit discussion of alternatives like bikes, since bikes don't come with dedicated transports).

Let that sink in for a moment. In order to get those extra rhinos, the marine player has to devote points for 10 squads of what are arguably some of the most overcosted, underperforming units in the entire game and at least 2 HQs (which, without upgrades, come armed wiith a bolt pistol and chainsword (captain) and bolt pistol and power mace (chaplain) respectively)...in effect, a massive point sink. And in return for that, he gets to pick between free drop pods or free ground vehicles which have paper thin armor values, and he still has to pay for the upgrades for those vehicles.

I honestly do not understand the rage. Making fun of how useless tactical marines are (how they are, in effect, just an expensive troop tax) is a veritable meme at this point. Not to mention that it's also generally agreed that space marine assault squads (especially without jump-packs!) are a joke. But you are bothered if this gets balanced out by me being able to bring a free 35 point transport with paper thin armor and a stormbolter?

[And in all fairness, in the previous codex, assault marines could take a free transport anyway if they forewent their jump packs.]

But I tell you what, my friend. I'll forgo the free transports if you agree at the beginning of the game not to summon a single unit to the field that wasn't there at your initial deployment.

I simply have to ask: have you actually played against a gladius strike force battle company yet?

Ozomoto wrote:
Can someone please explain where the stigma for playing strong lists come from? I completely understand when play groups decide on a certain strength level, but even for random pick up games. Purely anecdotally speaking; for random pick up games of magic the gathering if you are playing modern/ standard its assumed that your deck is or is trying to contend with a level of competition unless casual is explicitly stated. When I read these forums i get the opposite impression where most people are on a no competitive or your tfg rampage.

Comes from several reasons.

Some of it comes from that this is more than just a game it's a hobby. Many people have taken the time to assemble, convert, and paint a themed army. This can take months or even years. Due to this level of investment of both time and money it can be demoralizing to get smashed by the new hotness. Most people I know play the armies they do because something about the army other than the power of the army appeals to them. For Instance I've been a marine player since 5th edition, and my codex has ebbed and flowed a bit in that time (not as bad as many armies but still) but nothing would make me switch to another army because I like my marines, my rhinos, etc. They appeal to me on a level apart from just winning games. People who put that much time in deserve more than a game of put models on the table and take them off. Self awareness of how strong your book is good for the health of the hobby.

Another reason is 40ks background is very much part of the game for me. I love seeing armies that respect and reflect the background. Many fluffy armies are themselves powerful but when I see armies that just reek of gamyness it breaks my immersion and makes the game less enjoyable for me. An example of this in my own army is the double gladious. It's a very fluffy formation that is often perverted to be min maxed. Six squads of tacs, two assault marines and two devastators is very much a reflection of the background. What is not is taking min squads with no upgrades to get free razorbacks.

Traditio wrote:

Spoiler:

Experiment wrote:As a Daemon player, absolutely it does.
Besides, 8-10 free Razors is just hugely demoralising, as you suddenly realise that for example, your 1500pts army is now facing what is more or less a 2000pts army.

Generally speaking, I feel that when it comes to casual gaming/pick-up gaming, if you play an army that has gotten it's 7.5 update/super detachment, you should always come prepared with a seperate list that forgoes using your special detachment/formations, as they're really just too much against anyone who's still left behind with a 7th (or worse yet) 6th edition codex.

In order to get those 10 extra razorbacks, rhinos or drop pods, the marine player has to field:

2 HQs which are worth at least 90 points per model (captain or chaplain).
6 squads of tactical marines
2 assault squads
2 devastator squads

(I omit discussion of alternatives like bikes, since bikes don't come with dedicated transports).

Let that sink in for a moment. In order to get those extra rhinos, the marine player has to devote points for 10 squads of what are arguably some of the most overcosted, underperforming units in the entire game and at least 2 HQs (which, without upgrades, come armed wiith a bolt pistol and chainsword (captain) and bolt pistol and power mace (chaplain) respectively)...in effect, a massive point sink. And in return for that, he gets to pick between free drop pods or free ground vehicles which have paper thin armor values, and he still has to pay for the upgrades for those vehicles.

I honestly do not understand the rage. Making fun of how useless tactical marines are (how they are, in effect, just an expensive troop tax) is a veritable meme at this point. Not to mention that it's also generally agreed that space marine assault squads (especially without jump-packs!) are a joke. But you are bothered if this gets balanced out by me being able to bring a free 35 point transport with paper thin armor and a stormbolter?

[And in all fairness, in the previous codex, assault marines could take a free transport anyway if they forewent their jump packs.]

But I tell you what, my friend. I'll forgo the free transports if you agree at the beginning of the game not to summon a single unit to the field that wasn't there at your initial deployment.

I simply have to ask: have you actually played against a gladius strike force battle company yet?

I would assume he is more concerned with the free TL HB on the free Razorbacks, which can then be upgraded on the cheap.

VictorVonTzeentch wrote:I would assume he is more concerned with the free TL HB on the free Razorbacks, which can then be upgraded on the cheap.

It's really not that cheap. It's 20 points per model to get those kinds of upgrades. And again, I wish to emphasize the massive "troop tax" which it takes to get all of those razorbacks.

If I have 10 "free" razorbacks, it's because I'm fielding 10 squads of "joke" troops and two relatively expensive HQs.

Cant you just take the 10 squads at their bare bones 5 men base?