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.
Yes. Do the math. 10 squads at 70 points a piece. That's 40 guys with boltguns and 10 guys with a boltpistol and chainsword (and no jump-pack). And again, I wish to emphasize: those guys with boltpistols and chainswords already had free transports in the last codex (by switching out the jump-packs). Plus two 90 point HQs.
Are you really shaking in your boots over this?
I mean, I know, I know, Eldar have scat bikes and wraithknights, Necrons have troops which just don't die. Skitari have all kinds of nonsense and don't even get me started about Tau...but those space marines...
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/02/17 19:18:24
your spending 70 points to get 55 free. There are stronger marine builds no doubt but it is a strong build on the virtue of your getting so many tanks for free.
HoundsofDemos wrote: your spending 70 points to get 55 free. There are stronger marine builds no doubt but it is a strong build on the virtue of your getting so many tanks for free.
Ok. Let's look at this in context. I can spend 90 points go get:
5 guys with boltguns and a transport with, again, paper thin armor, which can carry 6 guys and is armed with a lascannon.
What can you get for 90 points?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/17 19:21:19
Yes. Do the math. 10 squads at 70 points a piece. That's 40 guys with boltguns and 10 guys with a boltpistol and chainsword (and no jump-pack). And again, I wish to emphasize: those guys with boltpistols and chainswords already had free transports in the last codex (by switching out the jump-packs). Plus two 90 point HQs.
Are you really shaking in your boots over this?
I mean, I know, I know, Eldar have scat bikes and wraithknights, Necrons have troops which just don't die. Skitari have all kinds of nonsense and don't even get me started about Tau...but those space marines...
Me? No, because its a game why shake in your boots over anything involved.
Im just saying this is by no means as bad as you have convinced yourself it is.
VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
Me? No, because its a game why shake in your boots over anything involved.
Im just saying this is by no means as bad as you have convinced yourself it is.
No, no. I don't think that it's bad. I think it's either "OK" or "pretty good." It's not overpowered or unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination.
Has any Tau, Necron or Eldar player here been tabled by a space marine battle company?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/17 19:23:06
It really only matters because of how easily the list takes objectives, since literally every model has Obsec. A game vs a competative Gladius will be the reverse of necrons; everything dies and does next to nothing back but wins anyway.
Swampmist wrote: It really only matters because of how easily the list takes objectives, since literally every model has Obsec. A game vs a competative Gladius will be the reverse of necrons; everything dies and does next to nothing back but wins anyway.
This. Basically this. Basically, the formation says:
"Yeah. You have a bunch of useless units. Here's like 8 more. Now your useless units won't be quite as outnumbered (if, of course, you're willing to pony up for all of those rhino/razorback/drop pod models)."
Seriously. To all of you who are complaining about the "free" points that we get, why don't you try playing space marine army lists with heavy amounts of tactical marines, assault marines and devastators?
Let's see if you are still complaining about the "free" transports afterwards.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/17 19:32:29
I'll admit, that I dont play competitively and haven't played in a while, but when I did all I used were Tacs, Assault Marines and Devastators and always had fun and won alot.
I imagine if I had free Razorbacks and ObSec it would have been slowed against the guys I played with.
In regards to the Gladius Strike Force, I think the only real way this wins well in competitive games is that if you take them as Iron Hands, they all get FNP and IWND army wide. It's really greatest for Maelstrom, as you can hold/contest several objectives at once. As for firepower, it's okay, but it's definitely more objective focused.
Swampmist wrote: Actually, it's more-so White Scars. Khan giving everyone scout helps a lot.
Eh, fifty fifty. Army wide FNP and IWND on those trnasports is nasty, but I can see Scout being great too. Do Raven Guard still give Scout and Shrouded?
Nope, they now give all models outside of transports shrouded for the first turn only. And the other bonus is only for jumppack models. And people complain that BTs are the only ones who restrict competative play .
Swampmist wrote: Nope, they now give all models outside of transports shrouded for the first turn only. And the other bonus is only for jumppack models. And people complain that BTs are the only ones who restrict competative play .
Well, that's sucky. Although I heard the Kau'yon Strike gave them some decent formations
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 areTFG. 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?
I disagree on a few points of this. Going by this list I am a TFG, as I got into necrons after their 7.5 had been out for ages and I knew their power level.
I didn't buy them because they were the OP, I got them because I enjoyed their lore the most and I liked the idea of a robot army. I am conscious of their power level in my games with my friends, we have a talk about what we wanna do and tailor our lists to that point. Even in normal games with them I don't run Decurion all the time, as I find it gets boring running the same thing over and over again.
I don't consider myself a TFG just because I have the option to potentially curb stomp people. I mean it's nice knowing I have a cheese factory relative to some codexes, but it doesn't mean I have to eat it all the time.
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 areTFG. 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?
I disagree on a few points of this. Going by this list I am a TFG, as I got into necrons after their 7.5 had been out for ages and I knew their power level.
I didn't buy them because they were the OP, I got them because I enjoyed their lore the most and I liked the idea of a robot army. I am conscious of their power level in my games with my friends, we have a talk about what we wanna do and tailor our lists to that point. Even in normal games with them I don't run Decurion all the time, as I find it gets boring running the same thing over and over again.
I don't consider myself a TFG just because I have the option to potentially curb stomp people. I mean it's nice knowing I have a cheese factory relative to some codexes, but it doesn't mean I have to eat it all the time.
Ok. I propose a quick "TFG re-check" question for the Necron, Tau and Eldar rule:
"If you answered '...' to the above questions, is your win to loss ratio substantially greater than 1:1 when playing against players of comparable skill who do not run cheese/OP armies, in particular, those non-cheese/OP armies which are not Necron, Tau or Eldar?
If the answer to the above question is 'yes,' then you areTFG."
Additional check question:
"If you answered '....' to the above questions, but you also answered that your army is painted or that it is going to be painted, did you/are you going to paint it yourself, or have someone else do it? If the latter, then you areTFG."
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/18 14:37:02
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 areTFG. 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?
I disagree on a few points of this. Going by this list I am a TFG, as I got into necrons after their 7.5 had been out for ages and I knew their power level.
I didn't buy them because they were the OP, I got them because I enjoyed their lore the most and I liked the idea of a robot army. I am conscious of their power level in my games with my friends, we have a talk about what we wanna do and tailor our lists to that point. Even in normal games with them I don't run Decurion all the time, as I find it gets boring running the same thing over and over again.
I don't consider myself a TFG just because I have the option to potentially curb stomp people. I mean it's nice knowing I have a cheese factory relative to some codexes, but it doesn't mean I have to eat it all the time.
Ok. I propose a quick "TFG re-check" question for the Necron, Tau and Eldar rule:
"If you answered '...' to the above questions, is your win to loss ratio substantially greater than 1:1 when playing against players of comparable skill who do not run cheese/OP armies, in particular, those non-cheese/OP armies which are not Necron, Tau or Eldar?
If the answer to the above question is 'yes,' then you areTFG."
Additional check question:
"If you answered '....' to the above questions, but you also answered that your army is painted or that it is going to be painted, did you/are you going to paint it yourself, or have someone else do it? If the latter, then you areTFG."
I picked tau because they looked good and were the only army smart enough to bring a gun to a knife fight. My army is painted save for some units I bought back in octauber (I don't use an air brush and it takes me a long time to get my units to the standard I like). I picked tau back last December when I started collecting/painting but not playing. Back then I remember them being good but not top tier.
Swampmist wrote: It really only matters because of how easily the list takes objectives, since literally every model has Obsec. A game vs a competative Gladius will be the reverse of necrons; everything dies and does next to nothing back but wins anyway.
This. Basically this. Basically, the formation says:
"Yeah. You have a bunch of useless units. Here's like 8 more. Now your useless units won't be quite as outnumbered (if, of course, you're willing to pony up for all of those rhino/razorback/drop pod models)."
Seriously. To all of you who are complaining about the "free" points that we get, why don't you try playing space marine army lists with heavy amounts of tactical marines, assault marines and devastators?
Let's see if you are still complaining about the "free" transports afterwards.
Whine all you want about the Gladius supposedly being a 'hard mode' army. It's so-called "tax" can be heavily cheapened by taking minimum sized squads, Grav/Melta spam is hugely effective, and it's a proven tournament winner! So it doesn't point-and-delete units like Eldar/Tau lists. So what, you're still playing with a large pts advantage, something that no one else gets. Alongside access to the dumbest gun in the game in the Grav Cannon w/amp.
You know what Daemons really suck at? Popping vehicles. When you have literally no Shooting phase, and rely heavily on psychic shooting/buffs/hexes, having to cut your teeth trying to open up 6-10 'free' Razorbacks is about as much 'fun' as having your eyeballs pulled out. (at least the non-amped Grav is nearly useless!)
Against a non-optimised Daemon army, insisting on playing Gladius (especially when asked not to) is a TFG move.
The gladius strike force is a skew, and like all skews, it has counters and armies it just rolls over.
Against eldar? It doesn't do great. Bikes, WK, Spiders, FD, WG, Hawks, many units that are seen in the competitive lists can pop rhinos/rbs. It's still a good list here but it's not fantastic.
Against Necrons? It does really well here. Most necron armies don't bring anti-tank weapons since vehicles are seen as weak and gauss handles them just fine. But with that many transports....necrons can't kill them all. They just can't.
Against Wolves? It does really well here. The deathstar will have a hard time popping all of the transports before the game ends, same with the rest of the army.
Daemons are in a similar boat to the necrons. Tau it can be very list dependent. Some lists will fall in to the eldar camp, others will fall into the daemons camp. I will say that many of the competitive Tau lists I've seen would struggle against the Gladius strike force, but as a codex they don't have to.
Marines, oddly enough, do okay. Split fire and cent spam helps a bit.
Frozocrone wrote: You're problem is that you're bringing semi-comp lists against what seem to be casual players.
I think the actual problem is that the original poster is trying to play competitively in a game that was never meant to be competitive.
SG
I feel like that is more or less an excuse for GW not knowing how to make a game balanced competitively.
Or, maybe GW is just being truthful that they really don't care for & don't want an actual competitive "Tournament" system. (shockingly enough)
The fact is, for a good while now, their design process has been models first - then rules after.
Trying to force the game into a polished hyper competitive rules set is playing the game well outside its intended design. Hence why every competitive event goes about house ruling the hell out of the basic game.
Jaxler wrote: I'm in a situation where I feel like bringing a "fluffy list" is just not optimal at all, and that unless I take a list I know I can probably do good with in all situations I just don't feel like I'm doing right. Frankly, I don't like to say I'm win at all cost (As I play tau, and certainly don't bring any ghost keels or storm surges, and limit myself to two riptides max). Still though, I've only been playing for like, two to three months, and I've by in large won most of my matches, and tabled a few guys. I've only been beaten twice, though this was by some hyper assault armies that hard countered me, and the people I was playing were far more experienced than me. The lack of close games I've had (I've only had four or so close games, most of which I still won). I don't think I'm actually capable of nerfing my list in order to make it more "friendly". I don't want a good game, I want an honest one, with someone who is trying hard, but still trying to have fun. To me, making a list intentionally sub par seems unauthentic. Now for reference the list I'm usually running includes some fire warriors, path finders, two riptides 6-7 crisis suits and a cadre fireblade, as well as 3 broadsides.
Now to the point. I guess to a certain level I feel like I'm beating a lot of people who played way longer than I, and I keep running into people who say "Well, I know you'll win but okay." and it's making me feel like perhaps I'm a TFG. I know I'm not bringing the worst gak possible, but is playing tau alone something bad? Honestly when I talk to the far more 'competent' players at my LFGS they seem to have no problem with my tau or tau in general, but when I play against the normal casual people it seems the bias is huge, and it's making me feel bad for not running something that is bad. How should I feel?
Based on what you're telling me, there seems to be an understanding where you play to not bring optimized tournament lists. Alternately, maybe the other players don't have the budget to keep up with the tournament meta.
Either way, you've noticed that other players are not bringing heavily optimized lists, but you are. Using more than one Riptide is a pretty good sign you're TFG. Spamming Crisis Suits is another sign. Here's an idea - try playing Highlander-style - if it's not Troops, you can only have 1 unit of it. And no using a Crisis Suit Commander with bodyguards and an Crisis Suit Team - that violates the spirit of it.
If you want to be a better player, you're going to have to stop crutching on an optimized list from an overpowered codex. If you come with a list that matches your opponent's lists power level more closely, then you'll have closer games, and you'll find closer games are far more fun than curbstomping your opponent on easy mode. You'll also have to learn to use what you have well, which is considerably different from having the better stuff on the table.
I'd posit the idea that EXPECTING a person to play a handicapped list to fall in line with another list's perceived power level makes a person TFG just as much as not caring about the discrepancy in power levels and bringing a hardcore list no matter the opponent.
Both show just as much of a self centered attitude, the former expecting the opponent to be a great sport above all else while the latter expects the opponent to be competent above all else.
It's easy to side with the people expecting everyone to be great sports, as that's what we all should aspire to be, but those looking for hardcore competitive games shouldn't be looked down upon right out of the gate.
Being TFG, to me, is about how one PLAYS the game and how he treats his opponent. Does he care about the social contract shared between himself and his opponent? Is he a good loser as well as a good winner?
Basically, it's just super annoying to hear people say "that guy is using his powerful toys, so he's TFG."
Full disclosure, I play Blood Angels and Tyranids...
Jaxler wrote: I'm in a situation where I feel like bringing a "fluffy list" is just not optimal at all, and that unless I take a list I know I can probably do good with in all situations I just don't feel like I'm doing right. Frankly, I don't like to say I'm win at all cost (As I play tau, and certainly don't bring any ghost keels or storm surges, and limit myself to two riptides max). Still though, I've only been playing for like, two to three months, and I've by in large won most of my matches, and tabled a few guys. I've only been beaten twice, though this was by some hyper assault armies that hard countered me, and the people I was playing were far more experienced than me. The lack of close games I've had (I've only had four or so close games, most of which I still won). I don't think I'm actually capable of nerfing my list in order to make it more "friendly". I don't want a good game, I want an honest one, with someone who is trying hard, but still trying to have fun. To me, making a list intentionally sub par seems unauthentic. Now for reference the list I'm usually running includes some fire warriors, path finders, two riptides 6-7 crisis suits and a cadre fireblade, as well as 3 broadsides.
Now to the point. I guess to a certain level I feel like I'm beating a lot of people who played way longer than I, and I keep running into people who say "Well, I know you'll win but okay." and it's making me feel like perhaps I'm a TFG. I know I'm not bringing the worst gak possible, but is playing tau alone something bad? Honestly when I talk to the far more 'competent' players at my LFGS they seem to have no problem with my tau or tau in general, but when I play against the normal casual people it seems the bias is huge, and it's making me feel bad for not running something that is bad. How should I feel?
Arrogance. There are plenty of Tau players who would absolutely you over with a "non-optimal list".
Jaxler wrote: I'm in a situation where I feel like bringing a "fluffy list" is just not optimal at all, and that unless I take a list I know I can probably do good with in all situations I just don't feel like I'm doing right. Frankly, I don't like to say I'm win at all cost (As I play tau, and certainly don't bring any ghost keels or storm surges, and limit myself to two riptides max). Still though, I've only been playing for like, two to three months, and I've by in large won most of my matches, and tabled a few guys. I've only been beaten twice, though this was by some hyper assault armies that hard countered me, and the people I was playing were far more experienced than me. The lack of close games I've had (I've only had four or so close games, most of which I still won). I don't think I'm actually capable of nerfing my list in order to make it more "friendly". I don't want a good game, I want an honest one, with someone who is trying hard, but still trying to have fun. To me, making a list intentionally sub par seems unauthentic. Now for reference the list I'm usually running includes some fire warriors, path finders, two riptides 6-7 crisis suits and a cadre fireblade, as well as 3 broadsides.
Now to the point. I guess to a certain level I feel like I'm beating a lot of people who played way longer than I, and I keep running into people who say "Well, I know you'll win but okay." and it's making me feel like perhaps I'm a TFG. I know I'm not bringing the worst gak possible, but is playing tau alone something bad? Honestly when I talk to the far more 'competent' players at my LFGS they seem to have no problem with my tau or tau in general, but when I play against the normal casual people it seems the bias is huge, and it's making me feel bad for not running something that is bad. How should I feel?
Arrogance. There are plenty of Tau players who would absolutely you over with a "non-optimal list".
I'd rather they go all out, table me turn 1-2 and tell me how I fethed up. I'd love of people played their nastiest cheese and ruin me so I can learn how to handle a similar list in the future.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/19 21:43:06
~1.5k
.
12,000 
you over with a "non-optimal list".
1,500 points
