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.

Thariinye wrote:...Logically written thoughts

Couldn't agree more. Well put.

TedNugent wrote:ASM can use jetpacks ..

Jump infantry get Hammer of Wrath - e.g. S4 autohits at I10 per model.

Others have mentioned this, but I thought I'd reiterate. HoW just doesn't happen with JP units. Moving 6" then the random charge distance is far too risky for what amounts to 1 attack.

PredaKhaine wrote:I'd put BA above normal SM's and DA. The ability to have jump packs on scoring units is better for objective taking.
They can also randomly get FNP/Furious charge (can't remember which it is, maybe both) due to the blood rolls at the start of the game.
If you put in a sanguinary priest they definitely get a bonus. (although that is adding non-troops)

It's almost like you didn't read anything. If the JP units are hanging back, they're not contributing. Even a small 5 man squad is 90pts that's not helping out in the game until the end. Wasting points like that in a rather elite army is not a way to win. You've just given yourself a 90pt handicap. It's not like they can't be ignored until later, since they won't be relevant until later anyway.
If they're not hanging back then they're probably in combat, where due to their lack lustre performance have either lost, ran and been finished off, or are stuck there. That scoring unit won't last long. At least TACs can take a heavy weapon and contribute from turn 1 while waiting to score later.

I'm starting to notice that sanguinary priests aren't as strong as they used to be either. They're less likely to survive due to precision shots, barrage sniping and challenges.

Martel732 wrote:
Not winning at all is pretty bad. If that result does not make the BA bad, what does? I mean I'm rocking about 45% wins and I'm pretty unhappy with them.

I assume that was directed at me. I am also a Warmachine/Hordes player and in that game you lose until you figure out how to play your list. If i hadn't started playing that before this happened I would probably have been raging about my army and sold it off instead of the new list building and trying new things method that I am doing now.

There's a limit to how much the BA can get out of trying new things when most of the codex is now overpriced compared to its on the field utility.

Sanguinary priests are still worth it I think because you can give them a power axe and let the sarge suck up the challenge. And FNP does work sometimes. Sometimes. Are they fantastic? No.

Martel732 wrote:
There's a limit to how much the BA can get out of trying new things when most of the codex is now overpriced compared to its on the field utility.

This sounds like me several years ago. If you notice my Dakka handle name, it's the name of a Chaos Chosen marine from a bit of fluff from 2 Chaos codexes ago. Back when the 5th edition Chaos codex came out I was really upset about it. They ruined my army the way I liked to play it and nothing anyone could say could convince me I could have fun with it. I had almost 4,000 points fully painted that I sold off in disgust. They had also previously ruined my fantasy Chaos army when they split Daemons off from the Chaos hordes book and took away the mingling with Beastmen. At this point, I am resigned to each new rules edition or each new army book that comes out will mess up what I am doing and just go with it. You either like your army enough to see it through or you don't and do something else.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at. I guess I get props for winning with BA when I do win.

I think what I am trying to say is to pick the army you like the looks/fluff of and the play style you like most and play it. Things will always change and you'll have to adapt. If you like shooting with a small assault force or no assault at all, play Vanilla Marines. If you like close quarters fighting and a challenge right now, play BA.

Right now I am shooting and have a small assault force with BA. That's my current adaptation.

 labmouse42 wrote:


This break down made me laugh at how subjective it is

BA : TACs ( or Assault Marines)
CD : TACs are better than Plague Bearers or Horrors.
CSM : Plague Marines/Noise Marines/Fearless cultists are better than TACs.
None of these are troops except cultists which are not fearless without a lord, so they come with a huge tax
DA : TACs
DE : Warriors are better troops than TACs. In today's infantry heavy meta, massive poisoned weapons are supriour.
Again a bit inaccurate, DE warriors are better now but are no where near as good as tacs. Tacs hit DE and wound DE on 3's and ignore their armor entirely all while having the usual bumps in skills.
Eldar : Guaridan Jet Bikes are better than TACs. The ability to move 36" a turn, ignore terrain, and score is huge.
Seriously? Guardian jetbikes outshine EVERY other scoring unit at mobility. Thats also about all they do well aside from dying and failing LD
GK : Strike squads are better
Not so sure. I agree warp quake is huge in certain matchups but they still are expensive and die like any other marine while having crappy AT and with universal 24" range, the last FAQ really took their teeth away with kill zones.
IG : PG Vets are better
PG vets are great offense but are not nearly as durable and btw you are including the chimera here I assume which isn't fair. But even with that chimera, when it explodes you just lost your unit.
Necrons : Warriors are better. They are cheaper, have a better gun, and get a 5+/4+ reanimation protocols roll. Immortals are better.
Again you are factoring royal court ie. HQ slots when considering the 4+ RP. That aside I don't agree, 4+ AS is MUCH worse. Immortals I would say are equal but again not better per point. The necron units pack a better survival rate at small arms fire but combat tactics makes the marines able to always play on their own terms. Again what makes these guys seem so much better is their broken transport not them individually. Don't believe me? Imagine TACS with access to NS
Orks : Shoota boys are better
Great tar pits, ok shooting. Problems are like others, can't tie C:SM down in a fight. Focus fire and a 6+ save makes these guys die in droves. Once below 10 they are garbage.
SoB : TACs are better than battle sisters
C:SM : TACs
SW : GHs are better
absolutely no argument here. GH are by far the best MEQ in the game. My biggest complaint with them however is they cannot combat squad. You have no idea how irritating it can be to have your opponent double out his scoring potential on you in objective games. Though this is a small price to pay.
Tau : TACs are better than fire warriors
Tyranids : Termigons are better than TACs. Unit spawning FTW. Heck, even cheap fearless units are better than TACs.
Again this is not fair, your comparing an HQ that can slot out to troops under another requirement. That aside if we are going to ignore points then there isn't a unit on the list better then the Tervigon.

So out of the armies, we have the following breakdowns.
Better than TACS : CSM, DE, Eldar, GK, IG, Necrons, Orks, SW, Tyrnaids
Armies using TACS : BA, DA, C:SM
Worse than TACS : CD, SoB, Tau

So, TACs score 10th out of 13 for 'best troop'. That seems to me like their pretty bad.
I'm not saying C:SM/BA/DA are bad. They have excellent units, but they have crappy troop choices.

Placing them in 10th is unfair really, as I feel ATSKNF, combat tactics and combat squads makes them point for point better troops then just about every other xenos. Better scorers? No, as stated guardian jetbikes are better at the grab and necrons or orks are better at holding them. TACS are more rounded and useful though in grind out circumstances.

Martel732 wrote:
Right now I am shooting and have a small assault force with BA. That's my current adaptation.

Unfortunately that is not what the BA book is designed to do. Vanilla does this strategy much better as several posters here have said. I tried to do this, but the selections leave a lot to be desired since you have to sacrifice their built in close combat ability while using their higher point cost shooting options. I am now working on lists that use my favorite models and units and seeing if i can win instead of trying to use things i didn't like or trying to play a style i didn't originally want to. BA are in a really awkward place this edition with everything they were designed to do being worse or harder to accomplish.

What built in close combat ability? That's the problem. They don't have any.

Martel732 wrote:
What built in close combat ability? That's the problem. They don't have any.

Furious charge is an army feature for BA and it is only a close combat ability. They have the best close combat dreadnoughts as well as the expensive death company that can do a ton of damage at the expense of a shooty option that other books may have. The army as a whole is designed for short range to close combat and both of those are worse now, whether it's because of a special rule changing (Furious charge losing the init bonus) or a basic rule change (random charge distance) the strength and theme of the BA army is weak this edition.

I don't think BA are bad, but I don't run a ton of troops in my lists. This thread is pretty damning to BA as a force, but everyone seems to be targetting their assault squads as being the issue. If assault marines are considered crap, just run less of them and add in more of what BA CAN do well.

Fast Vindicators are pretty amazing.

Baal predators can scout move and have a S6 AP3 template. Everyone loves it on the Heldrake (for good reason, as 360 torrent is better than what the Baal can bring), but no one even seems to talk about running it on the Baal even though it's much cheaper.

Drop podded Death Company.

Drop podded Furioso Dreadnaughts with Frag cannons.

Attack Bikes (or a normal bike squad) backed up by Librarians and Sang Priests on bikes for mobile and hard to take out FnP.

Out of break time, but there's just a few things that BA do well...

I've tried low troops, but it doesn't seem to work too well in 6th edition. The BA non-troop stuff is not so amazing that we can count on tabling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, flame tanks are much, much easier to frag than flame fliers. Although, admittedly, it *is* a way to deal with grey hunters.

Red Corsair wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:


This break down made me laugh at how subjective it is

BA : TACs ( or Assault Marines)
CD : TACs are better than Plague Bearers or Horrors.
CSM : Plague Marines/Noise Marines/Fearless cultists are better than TACs.
None of these are troops except cultists which are not fearless without a lord, so they come with a huge tax
DA : TACs
DE : Warriors are better troops than TACs. In today's infantry heavy meta, massive poisoned weapons are supriour.
Again a bit inaccurate, DE warriors are better now but are no where near as good as tacs. Tacs hit DE and wound DE on 3's and ignore their armor entirely all while having the usual bumps in skills.
Eldar : Guaridan Jet Bikes are better than TACs. The ability to move 36" a turn, ignore terrain, and score is huge.
Seriously? Guardian jetbikes outshine EVERY other scoring unit at mobility. Thats also about all they do well aside from dying and failing LD
GK : Strike squads are better
Not so sure. I agree warp quake is huge in certain matchups but they still are expensive and die like any other marine while having crappy AT and with universal 24" range, the last FAQ really took their teeth away with kill zones.
IG : PG Vets are better
PG vets are great offense but are not nearly as durable and btw you are including the chimera here I assume which isn't fair. But even with that chimera, when it explodes you just lost your unit.
Necrons : Warriors are better. They are cheaper, have a better gun, and get a 5+/4+ reanimation protocols roll. Immortals are better.
Again you are factoring royal court ie. HQ slots when considering the 4+ RP. That aside I don't agree, 4+ AS is MUCH worse. Immortals I would say are equal but again not better per point. The necron units pack a better survival rate at small arms fire but combat tactics makes the marines able to always play on their own terms. Again what makes these guys seem so much better is their broken transport not them individually. Don't believe me? Imagine TACS with access to NS
Orks : Shoota boys are better
Great tar pits, ok shooting. Problems are like others, can't tie C:SM down in a fight. Focus fire and a 6+ save makes these guys die in droves. Once below 10 they are garbage.
SoB : TACs are better than battle sisters
C:SM : TACs
SW : GHs are better
absolutely no argument here. GH are by far the best MEQ in the game. My biggest complaint with them however is they cannot combat squad. You have no idea how irritating it can be to have your opponent double out his scoring potential on you in objective games. Though this is a small price to pay.
Tau : TACs are better than fire warriors
Tyranids : Termigons are better than TACs. Unit spawning FTW. Heck, even cheap fearless units are better than TACs.
Again this is not fair, your comparing an HQ that can slot out to troops under another requirement. That aside if we are going to ignore points then there isn't a unit on the list better then the Tervigon.

So out of the armies, we have the following breakdowns.
Better than TACS : CSM, DE, Eldar, GK, IG, Necrons, Orks, SW, Tyrnaids
Armies using TACS : BA, DA, C:SM
Worse than TACS : CD, SoB, Tau

So, TACs score 10th out of 13 for 'best troop'. That seems to me like their pretty bad.
I'm not saying C:SM/BA/DA are bad. They have excellent units, but they have crappy troop choices.

Placing them in 10th is unfair really, as I feel ATSKNF, combat tactics and combat squads makes them point for point better troops then just about every other xenos. Better scorers? No, as stated guardian jetbikes are better at the grab and necrons or orks are better at holding them. TACS are more rounded and useful though in grind out circumstances.

This brings up a particular issue with troops, and really with most units: what roles are the units playing on the battlefield? Even for Troops, the way that different troops operate can be entirely different than the way other troops operate. Guardian Jetbikes want to do nothing, and then zoom around turn 5 and grab an objective, hoping the game ends. DE Trueborn want to sit in their open-topped transports and fire their whatever-guns. Tacticals and their like generally are survivable infantry that can contribute something to the battle while they're on foot. They can camp objectives or go upfield. Thus, many of the troops listed here are still good, but they're not competing with Tacticals in the same role. Of those that are directly competing, GH are still 'strictly better' (although not 100% accurate, the MtG term fits) than all other tactical units, but I'd still argue that C:SM tacticals are good in that category.

PM are more survivable, but much more expensive (thus putting out less effective firepower for their points), and need a lord to make them troops. Thus they're better at holding objectives, but not at contributing firepower to a battle.
NM have great long range shooting (you'll not find me arguing against how good blastmasters are), but they can only be equipped to do either long range shooting or moving upfield, not both. They also need a lord to be troops.
Strikes have better shooting at 12-24", but suffer from the aforementioned cost problems. Furthermore even with Force weapons, they want nothing to do with CC, and can't get out of it as easy as C:SM tacticals.
Necron Warriors and Immortals are nice, and have a bit better shooting than Tacticals, but they don't even have ATSKNF. They'll do wonderfully in a shootout (Warriors equivalent, Immortals a bit better), but they're even more boned in CC than DA Tacticals that have to stick around in a losing fight, as Ld10 doesn't matter when you lose combat by more than a few, and your I2 will basically ensure you get swept.

So, we have some weaknesses to other troops (except GH) that occupy mostly the same roles as C:SM tacticals (survivable foot troops). The tactical space marines of Codex: Space Marines aren't the best, certainly not, but they're not totally outclassed by all the other viable troops in the game, not by a longshot.

You can see that, even in survivable infantry, none of these troops (except GH) want to be in CC much at all. The fact that GH are perfectly fine with being charged is one of the biggest reasons they're so amazing. What Combat Tactics gives C:SM tactical marines over all of the other non-GH survivable foot dudes is the ability to get out of combat. The way you deal with survivable infantry is either to torrent them down with superior shooting, or tie them up in CC. Vanilla Tactical Marines can't get tied up in CC unless they're winning it. Yes they can be outshot, but one of the critical methods of destroying infantry like them is to silence their shooting with fast CC units. They can't be silenced like that, in fact it just lets them get more shooting in.

Brotherjanus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What built in close combat ability? That's the problem. They don't have any.

Furious charge is an army feature for BA and it is only a close combat ability. They have the best close combat dreadnoughts as well as the expensive death company that can do a ton of damage at the expense of a shooty option that other books may have. The army as a whole is designed for short range to close combat and both of those are worse now, whether it's because of a special rule changing (Furious charge losing the init bonus) or a basic rule change (random charge distance) the strength and theme of the BA army is weak this edition.

That reminds me of something I forgot to write about earlier, the Furioso Dreadnoughts. They also suffered this edition, not especially from any CC nerfs, but from nerfs to walkers. They can still do crazy awesome things (watch a blood talons DC Dread with Prescience on it just delete infantry swarms), but now that krak grenades can kill them all walkers that have less armor than Ironclads or Contemptors are vulnerable in CC. So BA having CC dreads means that this is another of the areas in which they're just not quite as sturdy as they were last edition.

Edit: Ignore some of what I just said about Furiosos. If they're actually AV13 instead of AV12, then they're still fine. AV13 means they're not killed by Krak grenades. They still are somewhat worse due to general vehicle nerfs, but if they're AV13, then they don't have the new walker weaknesses.

In this new edition, the missions are mostly objective based which requires you to play more troop heavy. If you do skimp on troops, you have to bank on a table wipe, which BA are hard pressed to do now. Since 2 of the 5 troop units they have can never score and their Tacticals and Scouts are worse than other marine's versions you are compelled to play the Assault Squads. The Assault Squads are better than other army's versions but right now the better use for them is as a minimum squad in a cheap razorback. This does not keep to their theme of being "Masters of the Skies". If this is what you want to do, then my suggestion of playing Vanilla marines for a shooty army still stands.

(my original post got erased when the site locked up, i forgot this next part)

I love the Furioso dread in a drop pod with a frag cannon, heavy flamer, and magnagrapple. It has the potential to do a crazy amount of wounds but you have to put the magnagrapple on it to avoid losing out on some kills. I have stopped using my Death Company dreads as they have constantly been killed by terrain, overwatch, or just in combat in general and have become less fun for me.

Quality of troops is very subjective. Your welcome to view TACs as top tier if you like. I view them as closer to the bottom because they are moderare at the job of troops --- objective grabbing/holding and damage output. TACs have average resiliance and bad damage output.

 Red Corsair wrote:
None of these are troops except cultists which are not fearless without a lord, so they come with a huge tax

Taking a MoN/MoS lord unlocks cult troops. PMs are extremely good troops as they have good damage output and are extremely durable at holding objectives. Noise marines have extremely high damage outputs. Furthermore a lord 'tax' implies something you must buy that's not very useful. A CSM lord is an excellent buy for its points.

 Red Corsair wrote:
[Again a bit inaccurate, DE warriors are better now but are no where near as good as tacs. Tacs hit DE and wound DE on 3's and ignore their armor entirely all while having the usual bumps in skills.

We can agree to disagree here. DE warriors are 53% the cost of C:SM TAC marines. This means they have twice the bodies to absorb shots and to return shots. Your also assuming that there is no cover. What really push large DE squads into the realm of 'good' is joining them with an IC like Eldrad. You may view this as a 'tax' but the way eldar/DE units are designed to work is through synergy.

 Red Corsair wrote:
[Seriously? Guardian jetbikes outshine EVERY other scoring unit at mobility. Thats also about all they do well aside from dying and failing LD

What is the role of troop choice? If your looking for units with high killy power, normally troops are not your go-to. Troops are there to take objectives and win the game. Jetbikes actually excel at this role! If your playing book missions, they also excel at taking the relic. While they have crappy damage output, they excel so strongly at their primary role its hard not to take them.

 Red Corsair wrote:
[Placing them in 10th is unfair really, as I feel ATSKNF, combat tactics and combat squads makes them point for point better troops then just about every other xenos. Better scorers? No, as stated guardian jetbikes are better at the grab and necrons or orks are better at holding them. TACS are more rounded and useful though in grind out circumstances.

You said yourself the problem. Jetbikes are better at grabbing objectives, and necrons/orks are better at holding them. Well rounded is all fine and good, but it makes for a lackluster troop. You know the phrase, jack of all trades and master of none? That's the TAC squad. It can do everything a little bit but fails when pushed up against a specalist unit. They can't outshoot sternguard. They can't outassault DE wytches. They can't outlast plague marines.

The proof is in the pudding, good sir. Go look in the Army Lists section. How many competitive C:SM lists spam TAC squads? Normally they take a minimal amount and then rely upon sternguard/tanks/stormtalons to do the heavy lifting. When I played a C:SM army I used bikes -- which I think are much better than TAC squads.

Simply put, TAC squads are the achilles heel of the C:SM codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thariinye wrote:
This brings up a particular issue with troops, and really with most units: what roles are the units playing on the battlefield? Even for Troops, the way that different troops operate can be entirely different than the way other troops operate. Guardian Jetbikes want to do nothing, and then zoom around turn 5 and grab an objective, hoping the game ends. DE Trueborn want to sit in their open-topped transports and fire their whatever-guns. Tacticals and their like generally are survivable infantry that can contribute something to the battle while they're on foot. They can camp objectives or go upfield. Thus, many of the troops listed here are still good, but they're not competing with Tacticals in the same role. Of those that are directly competing, GH are still 'strictly better' (although not 100% accurate, the MtG term fits) than all other tactical units, but I'd still argue that C:SM tacticals are good in that category.

That's a well though out arguement.

As I mentioned, the point of any 'troop' at the end of the day is to take objectives and deliver some damage output. Given a choice between the two, taking objectives is the more important role.

Some troop choices, like 30 ork shootas/guants do this by just blobbing over objectives and using their bodies to ablative absorb damage. Others grab objectives late game like eldar jetbikes. Some just stand and take whatever you can throw at them like plague marines.

So how are some units better? We could break units down and assign values to what we think their capacity to take objectives and deal damage is. Its a lot of work, but that could be a fun excercise.

 Thariinye wrote:
You can see that, even in survivable infantry, none of these troops (except GH) want to be in CC much at all.

Plague Marines don't care if they are charged either. Defensive gernades are great for that.
Why would you not want orks or nids in assault if the oppertunity is there? If I had 30 ork shoota boys, I would be more than happy to assault 10 marine TACs.

"Simply put, TAC squads are the achilles heel of the C:SM codex."

But not as bad as in 5th.

While I adore GHs, people tend to overlook the single weakness they have. Lack of heavy weapons. As a SW player I dislike having to buy a Razorback so I can have one scoring unit near my home objective, while still contributing. It'd be nice if I could toss a LC into a squad like DA.

Still, GHs are probably the best troop choice there is (IMO only IG vets compete for that title), and certainly the best MEQ.

That's funny, because I have been known to leave the heavies at home for tactical squads so they have 100% effectiveness on the move.

Martel732 wrote:
That's funny, because I have been known to leave the heavies at home for tactical squads so they have 100% effectiveness on the move.

So what do you do when it's turn 4 and all your troops are mid-field or in the enemy DZ against a gun line army? One cool thing about TACs is that you can combat squad them leaving a small heavy weapon team at home. I don't want to start running back home by turn 3, but I have done occasionally and it feels rather silly.

I despise my units not contributing, and having a cheap 5 man squad sit at home feels so wasteful. Normally they have a flamer and TL Las razorback, and just try to be inoffensive while everything else gets all up in my opponent's gak.

I often use tacs the way you describe, but for a few lists that employ sniper scouts, I push the tacs forward.

Martel732 wrote:
I often use tacs the way you describe, but for a few lists that employ sniper scouts, I push the tacs forward.

Yeah; SW don't get the option of a slightly cheaper, long range, 2+ cover save unit to camp. Meh, I wouldn't trade that anyway. I just live with my small unit that doesn't do a lot, and my GHs who run backwards if I'm worried about losing an objective to an enemy unit in my half.

Martel732 wrote:
"Simply put, TAC squads are the achilles heel of the C:SM codex."

But not as bad as in 5th.

Your correct there. They are not as bad as they were, but they are still not good.

Why would you take TACs over scouts/bikes?

The SW solution: bring more GH, dare people to dislodge you. Can't SW take riflemen dreads in the elite slot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Simply put, TAC squads are the achilles heel of the C:SM codex."

But not as bad as in 5th.

Your correct there. They are not as bad as they were, but they are still not good.

Why would you take TACs over scouts/bikes?

Bikes, no; scouts, maybe.

You mentioned something very simple here Martel732.

If your playing C:SM, why the heck are you not taking 2 squads of grey hunters and a rune/wolf priest as allies?
That really helps to shore up the C:SM weakness of crappy TACs and still gives some of the strong advantages of C:SM (null zone, storm talons, etc)

Yes, I've considered it. I just don't have the resources to get the codex/models. Plus I really wanted null zone for my BA, which you mean I ally with vanilla. But there's no reason vanilla shouldn't ally with SW.

Martel732 wrote:
The SW solution: bring more GH, dare people to dislodge you. Can't SW take riflemen dreads in the elite slot?

Yeah, but I never have enough points for more than one small squad of WG. When I do have points, I tend to get excited about Lone Wolves, just because I think they're cool.

I'm just asking because that would help the GH's lack of ranged weaponry. The riflemen dread is so good.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Fragnaughts for BA. They are great in drop pods( as long as they have AT support). BA have some of the cheapest heavy weapons for their devastator squads, which gets even better when you have a Divination Libby cast Prescience and the ignore cover powers on them. Plus, Baal Preds can put out silly amounts of firepower.

Lucarikx

 Lucarikx wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Fragnaughts for BA. They are great in drop pods( as long as they have AT support).

Lucarikx

See my last post above this.