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.

I wonder about Nids... I think folks are hesitating to build them knowing their codex is right around the corner. Personally I believe they are plenty competitive - but the reason I'd never bring them to a tournament is because they are so much work!

Even just getting them out of the case is tiring, let alone each movement/charge phase...

Mchaagen wrote:

 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.

knowing what to expect against a strong AM list is laughable. They can beat you multiple way because literally ever unit in their codex is better than yours. I mean - these are some real uphill battles from the start. You almost can't call them battles. It's how I know he didn't face any legit AM armies. Do you really think this guy would have a chance against a supreme command russ division with a baneblade? And a batallion composed of conscripts commissars and mortars? NO - nothing stands a chance against that.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Mchaagen wrote:

 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.

knowing what to expect against a strong AM list is laughable. They can beat you multiple way because literally ever unit in their codex is better than yours. I mean - these are some real uphill battles from the start. You almost can't call them battles. It's how I know he didn't face any legit AM armies. Do you really think this guy would have a chance against a supreme command russ division with a baneblade? And a batallion composed of conscripts commissars and mortars? NO - nothing stands a chance against that.

I have no idea. I certainly can't claim that I know for a fact what he faced.

This is why I've been saying this edition is much more tactics focused than just listbuilding. You can have a statistically stronger army on paper but if you don't know how to use it, you're gonna get krumped.

That or "everyone's" math was wrong and Tactical squads are clearly just as broken as Scions.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This is why I've been saying this edition is much more tactics focused than just listbuilding. You can have a statistically stronger army on paper but if you don't know how to use it, you're gonna get krumped.

That or "everyone's" math was wrong and Tactical squads are clearly just as broken as Scions.

I dunno. My observation is that there's less tactics and more list-building than ever before; but just that the emphasis of list building is on "volume of fire" above and beyond everything else. I will admit to being wrong on this though.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

But it isn't though, is it? If you did a little research on who actually won this heat then you would see it's Lawrence from Table Top Tactics (Great Youtube channel and website by the way) He placed 1st here and has done so for many different tournaments (as well as placing 2nd, 3rd etc.)

And my second post in the thread ends up being prophetic to the rest of the thread. Someone mentioned the genestealer cult list-- I'm kinda curious about that now, too.

Adeptus Ministorum placing top 15? Sisters of Battle soon.

Also, the tacs were a cheap way to get Razorbacks on the table. Given Lascannons, they can cover a large area of the field and throw lascannon shots down field, with re-rolls from the HQs, so those things are going to hit and they're going to do damage.

Must just be AM painted purple.

 Cream Tea wrote:
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.

This is the most condescending bs i've ever read.

Space Marine players are bad, that's why they don't win more!

Take Guilliman out of this list and he gets curb stomped every single game.

I love how polarized this forum is that people are genuinely angry because their faction *won* a tournament or happy that their faction lost.

Whatever happened to having pride in your own faction rather than just spouting toxicity at others?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I love how polarized this forum is that people are genuinely angry because their faction *won* a tournament or happy that their faction lost.

Whatever happened to having pride in your own faction rather than just spouting toxicity at others?

The same forum treats all factions of space marines like they're the same. Not all of us can use Guilliman. I can't just repaint my collection, or magically turn Grey Knights into Dark Angels, for example. Surprised i had to spell this out.

That'd be like me saying "well Xenos did okay, so sorry Orks, you should be proud of Tau."

Allow Guilliman to buff all factions and flavors of space marines like he does for Ultramarines, and i'll change my tune.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

The more important Rules Pack question is did they use Swiss pairing or that random pairing gak used previously?

Isnt the point of Guilliman to make Marines better better? Isnt he himself not a SM?

Thats like Saying Harlequins are bad without Starweavers... YES they are without, but they are part of them so you use them... yeah you can use harlequins on foot.... but its not going to be good.

Guilliman is a tool, just like a Storm Raven is a tool, SM can use that tool and shouldnt be label "a bad book b.c you need 1 tool"

That means my Harlequins are bad b.c i need "One tool, aka Starweaver"

spelling

When even your most fringe faction (grey knights) can share 11 datasheets with your base faction in the index, it's tends to get hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Where as Orks and Tau don't share any units.

Incidentally this is why I don't bother separating Ynnari from Craftworld or Dark Eldar either, and why I don't bother making a distinction between the various legions when I talk about CSM.

 Hollow wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

But it isn't though, is it? If you did a little research on who actually won this heat then you would see it's Lawrence from Table Top Tactics (Great Youtube channel and website by the way) He placed 1st here and has done so for many different tournaments (as well as placing 2nd, 3rd etc.)

The same Lawrence that pulled off a 7e ITC Dark Eldar win with mass Reaver Jetbikes? Yeah, I can buy it.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Cream Tea wrote:
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.

This is the most condescending bs i've ever read.

Space Marine players are bad, that's why they don't win more!

Take Guilliman out of this list and he gets curb stomped every single game.

Space Marines are the most popular army in the game, and have been since time immemorial. GW's marketing is heavily focussed on them. This attracts newer players, it's common knowledge that SM are even more common as a player's first army than they are in general.

That doesn't mean that all SM players are inexperienced, far from it. A new player wouldn't have won this tournament for example. Many Space Marine players are highly accomplished, and do very well at events.

I simply can't see how Tactical Marines could ever be among the worst units in the game, that's just hyperbole. I play craftworld Eldar, and all my Troops choices seem to me to be inferior to Tactical Marines, especially Dire Avengers. And apparently you can win tournaments with six squads of Tacticals, even if they're not the most optimal choice they're clearly not the worst.

Yet you hear people complaining about them all the time. Oh well, hyperbole is so mcommon in discussions about this game it get a bit tiresome for any faction.

I'm just sick of complaining, it may have flipped me a bit.

Edit: Of course you can't take Guliiman out of this list and expect it to perform. It's build around him, that doesn't make the rest of the list crap.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.

But it isn't though, is it? If you did a little research on who actually won this heat then you would see it's Lawrence from Table Top Tactics (Great Youtube channel and website by the way) He placed 1st here and has done so for many different tournaments (as well as placing 2nd, 3rd etc.)

The same Lawrence that pulled off a 7e ITC Dark Eldar win with mass Reaver Jetbikes? Yeah, I can buy it.

That was at No-Retreat wasnt it? with HEAVY restrictions to many factions i believe. (If my Memory is right, and i think it is, b.c i talked to him about it that it was a friendly tournament).
Spelling

Lawrence, the winner, is a great player who has won many tournaments in the past with less able army lists. Not only this but he is a top lad who makes brilliant and often narrative driven battle reports.

Even he admitted that his list for this was probably broken.

Gulliman is a bad unit because he is so obviously better than the alternatives. SM have some really interesting HQs that never need to see use because he supersedes them all.

 Marmatag wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I love how polarized this forum is that people are genuinely angry because their faction *won* a tournament or happy that their faction lost.

Whatever happened to having pride in your own faction rather than just spouting toxicity at others?

The same forum treats all factions of space marines like they're the same. Not all of us can use Guilliman. I can't just repaint my collection, or magically turn Grey Knights into Dark Angels, for example. Surprised i had to spell this out.

That'd be like me saying "well Xenos did okay, so sorry Orks, you should be proud of Tau."

Allow Guilliman to buff all factions and flavors of space marines like he does for Ultramarines, and i'll change my tune.

Gulliman is in the same codex as all of the other space marine units. Tau units are not in the Ork codex. Likewise, if you play marines, you can still take allies like crazy.

Just so you know, though, I don't disagree with the core of what you are saying. Making a special character like Gulliman a necessary unit to make an army competitive is a stupid idea for balance. All units within a codex would be competitive in an ideal world. In a more realistic sense, I would hope for more units to be viable. The same is true for armies like Death Guard relying on Mortarion (to a lesser extent) or Ad Mech using Cawl in most lists.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
When even your most fringe faction (grey knights) can share 11 datasheets with your base faction in the index, it's tends to get hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Where as Orks and Tau don't share any units.

Incidentally this is why I don't bother separating Ynnari from Craftworld or Dark Eldar either, and why I don't bother making a distinction between the various legions when I talk about CSM.

Is there no difference between Tyranids and Astra Militarum either? Seeing as how they are linked via GSC.

Normally I'd agree, SM factions tend to be similar, but in this case Guilliman is one of the most powerful units in 8th and is restricted to blue marines with golden details. Shouldn't be too hard to make the distinction when he's on the board, just look for a big guy in blue armor in the middle of the blob of razorbacks. Go to any big tournament and you'll find at least a dozen copies of that model.

Guilliman is a game changer who is only available to one SM chapter, which makes that chapter very distinct.

Likewise, an Ynnari army has its own army-wide special rule that overwrites the Craftworld, Drukhari and Harlequin special rules. That makes them very distinct.

sossen wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
When even your most fringe faction (grey knights) can share 11 datasheets with your base faction in the index, it's tends to get hard to tell where one ends and the other begins. Where as Orks and Tau don't share any units.

Incidentally this is why I don't bother separating Ynnari from Craftworld or Dark Eldar either, and why I don't bother making a distinction between the various legions when I talk about CSM.

Is there no difference between Tyranids and Astra Militarum either? Seeing as how they are linked via GSC.

Normally I'd agree, SM factions tend to be similar, but in this case Guilliman is one of the most powerful units in 8th and is restricted to blue marines with golden details. Shouldn't be too hard to make the distinction when he's on the board, just look for a big guy in blue armor in the middle of the blob of razorbacks. Go to any big tournament and you'll find at least a dozen copies of that model.

There's not much of a difference between GSC and IG for me but weirdly, GSC is different to Nids simply because they only share, arguably, two units (the Patriarch/Broodlord and Genestealers obviously). And yes I am fully aware of the irony that it should be the other way around.

I'm weird like that.

3 chaos lists in the top 15, I wonder how many malefic lords there were between them?

 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.

99% of competitive space marine players didn't win this tournament.

Part of me is glad GSC was in the top ten. Part of me is also sad that it was likely due to IG Artillery and Magus spam/Genestealers in Chimeras, rather than a pure GSC force.

I wonder what the list was even then.

Lord of War: Roboute Guilliman

HQ: Tigurius

HQ: Space Marine Captain with Teeth of Terra (relic)

Troops: 6 Tactical Squads (lascannon in each squad. Sergeants carrying chainsword and bolt pistol)

Dedicated Transport: 6 Razorbacks (Twin assault cannons)

Flyer: Stormraven Gunship (lascannon, multi-meltas, hurricane bolters)

Hmmm. Wouldn't it make more sense to bring 3 tactical squads for the CPs, and then 3 more devastator squads? You get free sigmums with devestators, and he's clearly using the 3 troop slot detachment. You can even get 3 cherubs then if you can scrounge up 5 more points.

You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right? The workhorse of the list was the Razorbacks and Rowboat. You could remove just ONE of those elements and the list would've gone nowhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl 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.

99% of competitive space marine players didn't win this tournament.

It happened once. Remember in 6th edition when someone did a Drop Pod Tactical list with Calgar?
If one list is your proof, you need to explore just a little more.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right? The workhorse of the list was the Razorbacks and Rowboat. You could remove just ONE of those elements and the list would've gone nowhere.

So what you are saying is that, basic troops are just there to support the rest of the army components, and are those the ones that needs to do the heavy lifting for the army?
Man, Who could have thought of that?

 Galas wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right? The workhorse of the list was the Razorbacks and Rowboat. You could remove just ONE of those elements and the list would've gone nowhere.

So what you are saying is that, basic troops are just there to support the rest of the army components, and are those the ones that needs to do the heavy lifting for the army?
Man, Who could have thought of that?

I'm saying the Tactical Marines could've been replaced with literally anything and the same list would've won.
Do you honestly think the list would've done the same without Rowboat and the Razorbacks?