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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

fe40k wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Well glad to see the winning list was less boring than a 3 Baneblade list.

Oops.

Actually; it is less boring than a 3 Baneblade list - let me be clear, I'm not talking about which list is more powerful here.

With a 3 Baneblade list, if I didn't bring enough anti-tank firepower, I flat out lose. With a TacSquad/Razorback list, at least all my guns have some sort of target, and I can hope that I get lucky enough to wipe out enough TacSquads before they wipe out my vehicles - at which point, perhaps my tanks can fight the remaining Razorbacks (Gulliman is still impossible to deal with however).

Again, its not about power; it's about whether or not my guns have applicable targets, and I believe I can have a chance based on my TAC list. [That said, the Gulliman list might as well be an auto-lose just like triple baneblades; but at least I can pretend to play it out - with the baneblades; I can't shoot them, I can't charge them, I can't lock them in CC - all I can do is hope I destroy them before they destroy me. There's no tactics or fun there.

Damn, I almost fell asleep reading the army list and it's less boring than Baneblades.

Oh well.

3 Baneblades is a shorter list though, so less chance of falling asleep.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

fe40k wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Well glad to see the winning list was less boring than a 3 Baneblade list.

Oops.

Actually; it is less boring than a 3 Baneblade list - let me be clear, I'm not talking about which list is more powerful here.

With a 3 Baneblade list, if I didn't bring enough anti-tank firepower, I flat out lose. With a TacSquad/Razorback list, at least all my guns have some sort of target, and I can hope that I get lucky enough to wipe out enough TacSquads before they wipe out my vehicles - at which point, perhaps my tanks can fight the remaining Razorbacks (Gulliman is still impossible to deal with however).

Again, its not about power; it's about whether or not my guns have applicable targets, and I believe I can have a chance based on my TAC list. [That said, the Gulliman list might as well be an auto-lose just like triple baneblades; but at least I can pretend to play it out - with the baneblades; I can't shoot them, I can't charge them, I can't lock them in CC - all I can do is hope I destroy them before they destroy me. There's no tactics or fun there.

Damn, I almost fell asleep reading the army list and it's less boring than Baneblades.

Oh well.

3 Baneblades is a shorter list though, so less chance of falling asleep.

Says you. I've perfected rapid sleeping to an art form.

....now if only I can control it to happen anywhere other than at work.

I mean, outside of the special characters, it's a fairly standard marine list fluff-wise, so if you find that boring maybe you just find marines boring.

Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.

It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).

Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.

To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.

Congrats to Lawrence for the win. Interesting results. Would be interesting to see how the various armies were represented at the heat, as this seems to be a factor that is over-looked here on Dakka (along with hundreds of other things whilst they cry the sky is falling)

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.

It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).

Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.

To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.

Go win a GT with said list and report back.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.

It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).

Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.

To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.

Wow, I'm impressed with your knowledge, tac squads must indeed be garbage.

I look forwards to your impending tournament win, since you know how to optimize the list of even the winner of THIS tournament.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.

It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).

Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.

To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.

Laughable post. Well done.

Honestly, tactical squads simply aren't the garbage you've been making them out to be.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.

It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).

Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.

To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.

YES! Do damage slower, that will ensure efficiency!

You guys are a bunch of clowns if you think this has anything to do with the tactical squads. This is all about drop number. He easily could have replaced 6 tactical squads with 3 preditors and trippled his las cannon number. It only would have cost him 1 command point. Which means Jack gak to a space marine player anyways - our strategems suck immensely - and even less to an ultramarine. I mean let's get real here - his list is not optimized - he didn't even give his tactical sargents bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.

It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).

Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.

To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.

YES! Do damage slower, that will ensure efficiency!

Yeah...because assaulting a line of lemon russ with thunderhammer vets that can't fall back and shot isn't a winning strategy. I can safely tell you this army did not face imperial guard. He would have lost easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Tactical squads are the worst unit in the game lol. 6 razors with Guilliman and a storm raven being -2 to hit because of Tiggy is pretty good though.

It's questionable why he even included 6 troops at all because he only had 1 battalion. I guess he figured he has to put something inside them to keep his drops low and go first every game (which I'm sure is the reason he won first anyways).

Why didn't he take a close combat unit for his storm raven? seems silly not to when it's basically impossible to take out at -2 to hit. Seeing armies like this winning a GT makes me feel pretty good about winning one myself. Considering this list is not optimized.

To optimize this list you remove all the tac squads - you take 3 scout squads with a missile launcher and you put a unit of company vets with combi flamers or thunder hammer storm shields in the raven.

Wow, I'm impressed with your knowledge, tac squads must indeed be garbage.

I look forwards to your impending tournament win, since you know how to optimize the list of even the winner of THIS tournament.

You know with the information from this link it is entirely possible that this guy never faced a good army.

And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.

 Melissia wrote:
And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.

All I said was it would have made his army better. His core is good. Gulli, tiggy, raven, and 6 razors. The las cannon tacs are not optimal though. 99% of competitive marine players will agree with me.

Look, this is the underhive of Dakka 40K (Contrary) General... there are as many "haters" as "fanboys" for and against Marines and everything else.

Further - results from 1 event don't automatically dictate OP or nerfed... but c'mon now; Tactical marines are not garbage and you simply cannot prove otherwise.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Look, this is the underhive of Dakka 40K (Contrary) General... there are as many "haters" as "fanboys" for and against Marines and everything else.

Further - results from 1 event don't automatically dictate OP or nerfed... but c'mon now; Tactical marines are not garbage and you simply cannot prove otherwise.

I can prove though mathematics that their damage per point and defense per point are not good by comparison to other units. I can attest to countless games of playing with and against them that they provide nothing that many other choices offer for less points or do twice as good for a little more points. This is in fact - the worst tactical marines have ever been. Which is saying a lot - they have always been bottom of the barrel.

Anyone know what the GSC player ran?

Xenomancer you are the deffinition of armchair general

How arrogant.

 Galas wrote:
Xenomancer you are the deffinition of armchair general

How much arrogance.

I'm really not being arrogant. Tactical marines do suck. I am just trying to help you guys understand that tournaments are like lotteries - your army composition being stronger is like buying more tickets. However - a guy that bought more tickets can still lose to the guy that bought 1. This guy could have boguht more tickets by making a better composition but it didn't matter - he won anyways.

To do a bit of my own armchair strategizing:
Tactical Squads weren't a bad choice in this particular list, specifically because Imperial Guard are going to be a common enemy, and when facing IG, you really want that S9 to be wounding Russes and Baneblades on 3s.
Tactical Squads in general are still not a great troops choice, but they ARE a troops choice, which provides other benefits as well - They're pretty cheap, provide more Command Points than any alternative except scouts (who can't bring Lascannons) and they get Objective Secured, which can be quite helpful.


The only thing I might personally have done different is swap two of the Tactical squads for Devestators, drop the Multi-Meltas for Heavy Bolters, and add in some armorium cherubs with the spare points. (There'd still be 27pts left over for another Lascannon and maybe a Storm Bolter on the Captain, as well.) It's a minor change, at best.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Look, this is the underhive of Dakka 40K (Contrary) General... there are as many "haters" as "fanboys" for and against Marines and everything else.

Further - results from 1 event don't automatically dictate OP or nerfed... but c'mon now; Tactical marines are not garbage and you simply cannot prove otherwise.

I can prove though mathematics that their damage per point and defense per point are not good by comparison to other units. I can attest to countless games of playing with and against them that they provide nothing that many other choices offer for less points or do twice as good for a little more points. This is in fact - the worst tactical marines have ever been. Which is saying a lot - they have always been bottom of the barrel.

Tac marines are worse now that their guns are more multi-target capable, they can split fire, and they can rapid fire and charge in the same turn?

Maybe your energy would be better spent trying to figure out how he got value out of units you think are so bad.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'm really not being arrogant. Tactical marines do suck. I am just trying to help you guys understand that tournaments are like lotteries - your army composition being stronger is like buying more tickets. However - a guy that bought more tickets can still lose to the guy that bought 1. This guy could have boguht more tickets by making a better composition but it didn't matter - he won anyways.

So what is your tournament-winning record then? Seeing how you have such an amazing understanding of listbuilding and the game in general you should win quite often.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Look, this is the underhive of Dakka 40K (Contrary) General... there are as many "haters" as "fanboys" for and against Marines and everything else.

Further - results from 1 event don't automatically dictate OP or nerfed... but c'mon now; Tactical marines are not garbage and you simply cannot prove otherwise.

I can prove though mathematics that their damage per point and defense per point are not good by comparison to other units. I can attest to countless games of playing with and against them that they provide nothing that many other choices offer for less points or do twice as good for a little more points. This is in fact - the worst tactical marines have ever been. Which is saying a lot - they have always been bottom of the barrel.

Tac marines are worse now that their guns are more multi-target capable, they can split fire, and they can rapid fire and charge in the same turn?

Maybe your energy would be better spent trying to figure out how he got value out of units you think are so bad.

Every unit in the game can do that now. It doesn't make tactical better.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.

All I said was it would have made his army better. His core is good. Gulli, tiggy, raven, and 6 razors. The las cannon tacs are not optimal though. 99% of competitive marine players will agree with me.

Not sure I agree.
The point of the tacticals is having lots of objective secured units. Which means you go and win objectives and that is what counts in 5 out of 6 games (the Relic is a bit stupid imo but...)
I guess you can say "I will table my opponent every single game" but there are a fair few armies where that is unlikely to happen.
Killing 3 squads of scouts is quite a bit easier than killing 6 squads of tactical marines.

Ushtarador wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'm really not being arrogant. Tactical marines do suck. I am just trying to help you guys understand that tournaments are like lotteries - your army composition being stronger is like buying more tickets. However - a guy that bought more tickets can still lose to the guy that bought 1. This guy could have boguht more tickets by making a better composition but it didn't matter - he won anyways.

So what is your tournament-winning record then? Seeing how you have such an amazing understanding of listbuilding and the game in general you should win quite often.

Well I can't prove it to you but I've played in about 6-7 local tournaments and I've won 4 of them. As well as winning 2 team tournaments out of 3 I have attended. Didn't make final table in only 1 game. I wasn't playing OP armies ether. I've never gone to a grand tournament at war-hammer world though - maybe one day - I've just come into the finances that I can actually do things like that. It wouldn't matter if I've never played in a tournament though - tactical marines are objectively bad - just like terminators and devastator centurions.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Look, this is the underhive of Dakka 40K (Contrary) General... there are as many "haters" as "fanboys" for and against Marines and everything else.

Further - results from 1 event don't automatically dictate OP or nerfed... but c'mon now; Tactical marines are not garbage and you simply cannot prove otherwise.

I can prove though mathematics that their damage per point and defense per point are not good by comparison to other units. I can attest to countless games of playing with and against them that they provide nothing that many other choices offer for less points or do twice as good for a little more points. This is in fact - the worst tactical marines have ever been. Which is saying a lot - they have always been bottom of the barrel.

Tac marines are worse now that their guns are more multi-target capable, they can split fire, and they can rapid fire and charge in the same turn?

Maybe your energy would be better spent trying to figure out how he got value out of units you think are so bad.

Every unit in the game can do that now. It doesn't make tactical better.

Given that they're generalists instead of specialists, and they can take more types of weapons than most other units, I'd say the changes benefit them more than most.

Tyel wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
And yet, your suggestion of using predators instead... wasn't the winning list.

All I said was it would have made his army better. His core is good. Gulli, tiggy, raven, and 6 razors. The las cannon tacs are not optimal though. 99% of competitive marine players will agree with me.

Not sure I agree.
The point of the tacticals is having lots of objective secured units. Which means you go and win objectives and that is what counts in 5 out of 6 games (the Relic is a bit stupid imo but...)
I guess you can say "I will table my opponent every single game" but there are a fair few armies where that is unlikely to happen.
Killing 3 squads of scouts is quite a bit easier than killing 6 squads of tactical marines.

Rules: Warhammer 40,000 Matched Play (see pages 214-215 of the rulebook).
Army size: 2,000 points.
Missions: Eternal War.
Number of games: Five.
Army selection: Battle-forged with a maximum of three detachments.
Publications in use: All current and in-print Warhammer 40,000 Index books and Codexes from Games Workshop and Forge World, unless their release falls on the weekend of the event. We expect you to use the most current datasheets for your models – e.g. those found in a Codex rather than an Index if a Codex is available for your army. This means that you may use Faction-appropriate Index datasheets that might not appear in your Codex (such as Chaplain on Bike)
Meals: Lunch is provided on both days.

here are the rules to the event - objective secured will hardly matter in eternal war missions. Things like - "hold the center" ect are what you see in eternal war missions. This is all about destruction. It's also almost always going to favor guilliman who is a zone control monster.

If Tactical Marines are bad, and you can still win with six units of them in a list, then something is seriously wrong with the rest of that faction. Nerf all other Space Marine models!

Of course Tacticals aren't that bad. Many Space Marine players are young and inexperienced, and blame their models for their losses.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You know with the information from this link it is entirely possible that this guy never faced a good army.

I believe this is Lawrence from (youtube) Tabletop Tactics. I'm sure he has played against strong IG lists in the past and knew what he might be facing in this tournament. One of the regulars on his channel plays guard almost exclusively.

Granted, his youtube channel/website is for entertainment and they typically feature armies that are more varied than the standard 'tournament spam' lists. Though they all seem to be experienced players, so he has a strong foundation to play against.

Tau droppping off now as people learn to counter the one gimmick build and power creep sets in.

I hope the Eldar are super op again. I never thought I would say that again. Almost no xenos viability in 8th.

 Gamgee wrote:
Tau droppping off now as people learn to counter the one gimmick build and power creep sets in.

I hope the Eldar are super op again. I never thought I would say that again. Almost no xenos viability in 8th.

Wraithgard go buffed and didn't go up in price. Things are looking promising.