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.

 koooaei wrote:
Interestingly enough, i've had some limited success with witches. The opponent moved 3 razorbacks within 20' of them. So, they disembarked, moved and made a charge tying up all 3 eventually. The raider ate overwatch. No escape rule and 4++ in mellee came in really handy. I took a blast pistol for the squad leader and it was chipping a couple wounds off a razor every turn. Not such an amazing feat of course - mainly because the opponent made a mistake by bunching up razorbacks near witches (they have a very long move for infantry indeed) - but they weren't useless - that's for sure. In fact, they seem to be better than other de infantry - at least for me.

Well I sometimes use them too, but only in full wych cult lists since I love themed lists. They're not useless, I agree, but even gretchin could score some points against competitive lists.

Other only DE infanty are kabalite warriors which are superior and have better synergy with the majority of the DE lists which are shooting oriented and have almost nothing against infantries but those poisoned shots, and wracks, another mediocre troop choice that can become decent with the haemonculus buff which makes them T5 for free and a decent CC unit overall since the haemy is by far the most performing DE HQ.

As much as I love wyches (I own 30+ models) I still consider them among the worst troops in 40k. People complain about tacticals and someone listed even necron warriors among the worst troops available, wyches are not even remotely viable as these units.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Has there ever been an edition where Tactical marines were good?

Since 3rd edition certainly not.
But bolter can now damage any unit out there. This makes them more useful.

There's not very many troops that I'm not happy taking now. I personally don't care for my Chaos Cultists much any longer, because for just a few points more I get 3+ saves and much better attacks, even if it's on half the number of wounds. Cultists used to be a requirement just because regular Chaos Space Marines were so bad for so many more points. Now, there's reasons to take Cultists, but Chaos Space Marines are better than before for cheaper, so I'm fine taking them too.

CSM aren't awful in cases when you can't take cult troops. Especially for night lords. A couple min squads in a rhino to get this extra -ld to the opponent is neat. They won't kill all that much on their own but the bonuses are respectable.

Aaranis wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
Necron warriors are quite bad, T4 4+sv w/ a RF1 24' s4 ap-1 1d gun with the only transport option in our codex that actually nerfs them if you take it. No customisation options, and most aura buffs only affect their RP rolls/survivability. 5" movement, and 12ppm, with a squad of 20 needed to even try to get RP.

I suppose they can be considered okay if RP is allowed to them, which seems to happen to some players, but others not. If they dont roll for RP they are a really sub-par unit.

Worst internal troop, and one of the worst external troops.

Not cheap enough to spam, too slow to use their damage output effectively, die to a strong breeze, not customisable enough to tailor to different armies/battle requirements. 240 points is a considerable chunk of an army per squad, if you want to run 2 effective squads its almost 1/4 of your army... :(

I disagree with you, all games I played against Necrons the Warriors were really good, not unstoppable-broken good but still really good. My opponent drops them from a Night Scythe (or Doom Scythe don't remember), gets his Command Barge nearby to grant them BS2+, shoot at their target with a Triarch Stalker beforehand and there, you have 20 Warriors shooting twice at BS2+, rerolling ones to Hit. With S4 AP-1 it gets the job done.

Granted, they have the support of two units for this to be achievable. I don't know much about Necron list building but I believed it was all about boosting your Warriors and Immortals, seeing as they are pretty good ? I admit their transports options really sucks though, when you start to play loads of them.

zerosignal wrote:Necrons is all about crypteks/ overlords to buff the large units up.

I'm seriously confused as to why people think Necrons are bad; in the mini-tournament I last played in, the Ron player whupped everyone's ass bar the tournament caliber guy playing Mechanicum w/ Cawl. That was something like 5 wins straight.

Yep I mean they can be good, that combo is over 500 points to get 40 s4 ap-1 1D shots, not terrible but that's over 1/4 of your army.

There's nothing inherently wrong with necrons, were just overcosted for what we do. We're still viable in casual settings (which I assume your tourney was) and if opponents don't know how to play against us, but overall both competitive tournament and a lot of casual settings (see dakka's post for our win rate) we are bottom teir.

My vote goes Cult Acolyte hybrids.

11p for T3 and 5+ save, no survivability.

Special melee weapons costs way too much, starting at 23p up to 30p

Can only use auto pistols or hand flamers (8p) to ranged option.

There's nothing inherently wrong with necrons, were just overcosted for what we do. We're still viable in casual settings (which I assume your tourney was) and if opponents don't know how to play against us, but overall both competitive tournament and a lot of casual settings (see dakka's post for our win rate) we are bottom teir.

This is why I've shelved my Necrons waiting for better days to come.
Necron Warriors are not bad with their 4+ save. But the 5+ RP doesnt safe them. If the enemy targets a Warrior unit (in a larger game), the unit will be gone.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Has there ever been an edition where Tactical marines were good?

Since 3rd edition certainly not.
But bolter can now damage any unit out there. This makes them more useful.

Ironically thats when I started using/reying on tacticals.

A 20 model buffed necron warriors unit is almost unkillable. A cryptek nearby gets +1 to RP, thats a 50% chance. They cryptek also gives a 5+ invuln sv. A ghost ark lets you do RP rolls for slain models, which means you get two RP rolls for one slain model. Thats a 75% chance that a warrior gets up again. Those who dont reanimate arent lost, they can be reanimated next turn, slain models arent removed. You can remove losses from the back of the unit, and place reanimated models in front of the unit, making it move forward faster. And if they get within 12" their shots double. Which model get a AP-1, rapid fire 1 weapon for 12ppm ??

Tacticals are stronger this edition than they've ever been, really. They're definitely not the worst unit-- actually, I'd say scouts are usually worse than tacticals unless you use them in a highly specialized way, and in that case they just don't fill the roles tacticals can.

 Melissia wrote:
Tacticals are stronger this edition than they've ever been, really. They're definitely not the worst unit-- actually, I'd say scouts are usually worse than tacticals unless you use them in a highly specialized way, and in that case they just don't fill the roles tacticals can.

The 3 worst units have already been mentioned.

Dire Avengers
Rangers
Tactical Squads

Renegade militia are pretty bad. BS 5+ but will thier weapons are pointed for 4+

I don't find chaos marines that bad really. 2x5 man sqds giving you 4 special weapons (combis on champ) in a rhino isn't half bad, plus you're filling your other slots with cultists to get the CPs. Certainly have a use.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Tacticals are stronger this edition than they've ever been, really. They're definitely not the worst unit-- actually, I'd say scouts are usually worse than tacticals unless you use them in a highly specialized way, and in that case they just don't fill the roles tacticals can.

The 3 worst units have already been mentioned.

Dire Avengers
Rangers
Tactical Squads

I think tactical squads definitely need to be on this list. They are pretty terrible for their points and I much prefer scouts because, at the end of the day, I really just need to 1) get the cp from a battalion detachment and 2) screen my more important units and possibly grab a couple of objectives. Point for point, scouts are way better at this than tactical squads which have been pretty disappointing in pretty much every game I've used them.

 koooaei wrote:
Interestingly enough, i've had some limited success with witches. The opponent moved 3 razorbacks within 20' of them. So, they disembarked, moved and made a charge tying up all 3 eventually. The raider ate overwatch. No escape rule and 4++ in mellee came in really handy. I took a blast pistol for the squad leader and it was chipping a couple wounds off a razor every turn. Not such an amazing feat of course - mainly because the opponent made a mistake by bunching up razorbacks near witches (they have a very long move for infantry indeed) - but they weren't useless - that's for sure. In fact, they seem to be better than other de infantry - at least for me.

I thought No Escape only worked on Infantry.

Tactical Marines are at worst 30% overpriced. They're absolutely worth at least 10 points apiece, and most people would probably be pretty happy to take them at 11. They're definitely not in the same category as Dire Avengers, and I think you can find quite a few other Troops choices that are worse off.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Tactical Marines are at worst 30% overpriced. They're absolutely worth at least 10 points apiece

So Sisters of Battle should be seven points apiece?

 Melissia wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Tactical Marines are at worst 30% overpriced. They're absolutely worth at least 10 points apiece

So Sisters of Battle should be seven points apiece?

And regular IG 2 pts/each, since they're supposed to be less than half the price of sisters.

This gives you 1 pt conscripts.

neat.

I think Gretchin rate pretty highly for poor troop choices.

T2 6+ save models with laspistols. yes they are cheap, but in the ork codex so are Boyz, so why do I want 2 gretchin, especially when I need to pay for an elite model to babysit them or watch them to evaporate to morale. They are basically terrible versions of conscipts.

At equal points they are the same durability as 5 tactical marines against S4 Ap 0 shooting. Both take~ 30 hits to kill all models before morale. The big difference is you don't need to kill all the gretchin. Those 21 Gretchin Killing 12 ensures you wipe out the rest in morale unless you pay to have a unit babysit them (warboss or Runtherd)

If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.

sossen wrote:
If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.

They aren't bad for hteir points, they don't need a discount ,and yes, actually, you should, because then they become too powerful for their points-- which is what you're wanting, not for them to be good, but for them to be objectively better than everything else.

Sisters of Battle are usually three-four points less than marines, because they lose -1ws, -1s, -1t, and a substantial amount of special rules and access to special weapons options (no plasma, grav, lascannon, or ML, no power fist, lightning claws, or thunder hammers, etc). Making Sisters one point less than marines instead of the current four basically gaks all over sisters, and makes sisters completely unplayable in the new space marine heavy meta you're creating.

 Melissia wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Tactical Marines are at worst 30% overpriced. They're absolutely worth at least 10 points apiece

So Sisters of Battle should be seven points apiece?

I think everyone thinks that standard Sisters are in a good spot, so... no? I offered that as the lowest price that anyone could plausibly think Marines should cost -- this is assigning very little value to their extra CC potential, and probably assuming a meta full of fairly high-strength weapons and relatively few bolters. I'm not going to defend it as the best possible price for them. I'd be inclined to give 11 points a shot, though. Sisters would still shoot 22% better while being only 8% less durable in the face of S4 attacks.

sossen wrote:
If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.

But the other units aren't great for their points either, for much the same reason (the specialists are better than the generalists).

IG squads are outshined by conscripts (durability specialists) and scions (damage specialists). Guard gets these in the troops slot is part of the reason they're so good right now. Even if you made them balanced, Veterans will still be better.

SoB squads are outshined by Dominion squads, because why get 3/5 special weapons when you can get 5/5 and a free special move for like 1 pt.

Other troops suffer from the 'not specialist' syndrome within their own armies just as badly as Space Marine Tactical Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
Tactical Marines are at worst 30% overpriced. They're absolutely worth at least 10 points apiece

So Sisters of Battle should be seven points apiece?

I think everyone thinks that standard Sisters are in a good spot, so... no? I offered that as the lowest price that anyone could plausibly think Marines should cost -- this is assigning very little value to their extra CC potential, and probably assuming a meta full of fairly high-strength weapons and relatively few bolters. I'm not going to defend it as the best possible price for them. I'd be inclined to give 11 points a shot, though. Sisters would still shoot 22% better while being only 8% less durable in the face of S4 attacks.

Standard Sisters aren't even in lists in the SOB tactics thread because they're too generalist and the Dominions are more specialized.

So no, they're in an awful spot. I'm kind of bitter about it too because I love the idea of standard sister squads, but there's simply no reason not to field the specialists, much like tacts.

 Melissia wrote:

sossen wrote:
If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.

They aren't bad for hteir points, they don't need a discount ,and yes, actually, you should, because then they become too powerful for their points-- which is what you're wanting, not for them to be good, but for them to be objectively better than everything else.

Sisters of Battle are usually three-four points less than marines, because they lose -1ws, -1s, -1t, and a substantial amount of special rules and access to special weapons options (no plasma, grav, lascannon, or ML, no power fist, lightning claws, or thunder hammers, etc). Making Sisters one point less than marines instead of the current four basically gaks all over sisters, and makes sisters completely unplayable in the new space marine heavy meta you're creating.

Lets separate the two:

Are they bad for their points? Maybe, you disagree, the results and mathhammer imply that they are.

If they are bad for their points and are given a 1 pt discount, does that necessarily make them OP? No, a <10% pt discount is very unlikely to make a bad unit OP. Does it necessitate discounts for other units? That only depends on if those units are bad or not in their own right.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Standard Sisters aren't even in lists in the SOB tactics thread because they're too generalist and the Dominions are more specialized.

So no, they're in an awful spot. I'm kind of bitter about it too because I love the idea of standard sister squads, but there's simply no reason not to field the specialists, much like tacts.

This is clearly a question of internal balance and not about how Sisters actually stack up on the field. Like, yes, as long as we insist on using the same prices for tactical marines and devastator marines, then we have very little reason to ever take tactical marines except for trying to put detachments together. Battle Sisters still perform very well and are clearly one of the top Troops picks in the game. Dominions are just crazy good.

sossen wrote:
If tac marines are bad for their points and are given a discount to increase their viability, that doesn't mean that you should give a discount to all other units.

I keep having to reiterate this because it's a point that's missed.

They have the stats of a 13-14 point unit, but you can't equip them to do anything well. After all, Devastators are the same points and you can do a lot with them.

What they need is the Skitarii/SoB thing where you get two Special Weapons at the minimum squad size, and at max size the Heavy Weapon is available. Either that, or make both a second special weapon and heavy weapon available at 10 man squads. Chaos Marines would need the same treatment as Tactical Marines either way, but they're still better (though definitely not by much) because they can double up on the same Special or Heavy Weapon at 10, but it isn't really helping when you choose vs Havocs or Chosen. Then Tactical Marines would have that issue vs Devastators and Command Squads.

Ergo that's my proposed fix, but really they don't plug any holes for a good price and don't fill any roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm sure I'll be ignored again though.

So, the real poopers, as far as I can see, are:

Dire Avengers: Horribly overpriced. They're essentially as good as Fire Warriors, with a few things juggled here or there. However, they aren't actually complete garbage, or at least wouldn't be if they were priced appropriately.

Storm Guardians: The best I can say about them is that they suck less than they did in 7e. That's not saying much.

Termagants: All they have going for them is being cheap, and Rippers do that better. As attackers, either Hormagaunts or Genestealers do it far better, and if you want to shoot, you're coming at it the wrong way. As objective-holders, Warriors do it better and provide their own synapse to boot.

Tac Marines and standard Chaos Marines are pretty bleh too, but they have some utility, even in their slots. The above are just outclassed - whatever you want them to do, something else in the same slot does it better and they're puke compared to their equivalents from other codices.

I'd agree on the specialist/generalist angle, though. I like generalists in principle, but GW consistently makes them pay more for their jack-of-all-trades nature than it's actually worth on the tabletop.

Dionysodorus wrote:
while being only 8% less durable in the face of S4 attacks.

10 bolter rounds (standard tactical or sisters squad volley before upgrades) against sisters deals about one and a half (1.481) wounds. 10 bolter rounds against marines deals basically one (1.111) wound, which is a 33% increase in damage taken compared to marines.

33% is a lot more vulnerable than 8%.

And bear in mind, you can do the same damage to sisters with standard plasma as you do against marines with overcharged. Assault cannons also wound sisters on a 2+, which is terrifying with how many TLAC units there are out there-- and sisters already need to get in short range to begin with. Battle Sisters are also uniquely vulnerable to basic power swords or... any melee, really, they fall apart like tissue paper, and no, tacticals do not.

Using Tacticals over Battle Sisters provides a marked improvement in unit performance. You can just do so much more with Tacticals than you can ever hope to with basic Battle Sisters. Which is why Sisters players don't use battle sisters unless we have to to gain CP or ObSec.

 koooaei wrote:
grots. T2 s2 ws5+ bs 4+(!) Ld5, move 5, 6+ armor, have s3 ap- 12' pistols. Cost 3 ppm.

The only thing they're good at is filling troop slots if you DON'T have 30 pts to get boyz instead. But you should always have 30 pts to field boyz unless you're playing <60 pt games.

The answer to the OP's question was, is, and shall forever be, grots.

Though, in honestly, they are able to effectively ignore morale via warbossess/runtherds, but in the end, they don't have any kind of combat effectiveness whatsoever.

In the past, their best feature was providing a cover save to units behind them, but that's not a thing anymore.

I suppose there's something to be said for having 30 point troops choices, but many detachments don't even require troops.

This is a game where all arounder type units tend to suffer because they are not efficient in their role. Giving troops Ob sec helps them a bit, but in the environment today where you can easily spam your specialist units most troop choices suffer.