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.
Breng77 wrote: Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
Literally anyone can kill 5 Marines. They aren't holding the objective better even though they've got a rule that would take that assumption.
Literally anyone can kill 20 boyz. Whats your point?
Literally anyone can kill anyone in this game, that's kinda the point. Marines are generally harder to kill than most other units mentioned though. With a 2+ cover save it'd take either a large amount of low-grade firepower, or a decent amount of high AP fire.
I'm used to playing as eldar and orks, though in my youth I played as tyranids. As far as basic units goes, Marines were always the annoying hard to kill sods that would mow me down with their long range powerful shootiness. (Well ok, eldar also had decent shootiness, but they also die pretty easily).
Edit:
Just to add, I'm not saying TACs are super good. Few troops choices are super good. Troops are meant to be an average, relatively cheap, source of bodies that support your elites/gunline/etc. TAC's aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible. They certainly aren't the worst troops. They're in the middle.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/29 02:38:43
Marines don't have enough powerful long range shooting because everything is so damn expensive. The only way to squeeze enough oomph out seems to be Girlyman, who is denied to all other chapters.
"Just to add, I'm not saying TACs are super good. Few troops choices are super good. Troops are meant to be an average, relatively cheap, source of bodies that support your elites/gunline/etc. TAC's aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible. They certainly aren't the worst troops. They're in the middle."
I think this is a tempting conclusion, but their table coverage sucks. Also, remember that only half of objectives will be in cover if you opponent doesn't want them in cover.
Tacs don't really support anything. If I could a tac marine as a casualty for other squads, THEN they'd be support. As they are, they just get ignored until it's mop-up time.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/29 02:45:43
"Just to add, I'm not saying TACs are super good. Few troops choices are super good. Troops are meant to be an average, relatively cheap, source of bodies that support your elites/gunline/etc. TAC's aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible. They certainly aren't the worst troops. They're in the middle."
Super good troop choices shouldnt exist. Its a contradiction in terms.
Otherwise, the fluff has some flaws.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
"Just to add, I'm not saying TACs are super good. Few troops choices are super good. Troops are meant to be an average, relatively cheap, source of bodies that support your elites/gunline/etc. TAC's aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible. They certainly aren't the worst troops. They're in the middle."
Super good troop choices shouldnt exist. Its a contradiction in terms.
Otherwise, the fluff has some flaws.
But they should at least be worth taking. That's what Tactical Marines and Storm Guardians aren't.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
"Just to add, I'm not saying TACs are super good. Few troops choices are super good. Troops are meant to be an average, relatively cheap, source of bodies that support your elites/gunline/etc. TAC's aren't cheap, but they aren't terrible. They certainly aren't the worst troops. They're in the middle."
Super good troop choices shouldnt exist. Its a contradiction in terms.
Otherwise, the fluff has some flaws.
But they should at least be worth taking. That's what Tactical Marines and Storm Guardians aren't.
Indeed, Storm Guardians are geared towards cc but not good enough to take them.
The controversal about Tactical Marines seems to go on.
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a "" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
venom is only 5 man capacity. Sure witches belong in the conversation of razors. Melle units destroy razors - a unit of 10 could easily prevent it from falling back. Also - I said all around transport - being able to hold 10 models is a pretty important feature. And dark lances arent mediocre weapons - they are great weapons. Disintegrators have multiple shots too.
The problem with 10 wyches in a raider is their cost, they are expensive for drukhari standards and far from being deadly. 5 wyches in venoms are way more common since a wych cult army should spam at least 5 units of wyches. The 10 man squad (actually 9) may work only if joined by the succubus which makes the unit even more expensive. Raiders are T5 4+ transports and drukhari always start second due to their high number of drops, never forget this. That's why venoms are handy.
1.8 dead wyches in overwatch is actually a big deal, it means almost half squad dead. Always charge with their transport.
Kabalite warriors are way more useful, they're cheaper than wyches, shooty like the rest of the army and drukhari need those poisoned shots since they don't have other tools against infantries. Kabalite warriors can also include a blaster for only 15 points that gives them versatility.
Wyches could work in a full wych cult army, and since I love the theme I sometimes play it, but succubus, reavers and now even beasts were nerfed and hellions are still weak, so those wyches are actually far from being a decent troop choice. They're not garbage but not particularly effective, mediocre is the right word to define them.
Amishprn86 wrote: If your charging with your Wcyhes 1st out of LoS your playing DE wrong.
PS: All DE melee units are niche, this includes wychs, they all have 1-2 rolls and as soon as you take them out of those roles they are bad.
I'm not sure I understand this statement. Charging out of LoS??? It can't be the average situation, even with a terrain full of buildings it's not that easy to do it.
Amishprn86 wrote: If your charging with your Wcyhes 1st out of LoS your playing DE wrong.
PS: All DE melee units are niche, this includes wyches, they all have 1-2 rolls and as soon as you take them out of those roles they are bad.
I'm not sure I understand this statement. Charging out of LoS??? It can't be the average situation, even with a terrain full of buildings it's not that easy to do it.
I'm not saying its common, i'm saying if your Wcyhes are charging 1st and not out of LoS your doing it wrong. Use your vehicles to charge 1st, or beasts or something that wont die/take wounds or doesnt care if they do take wounds.
PS, every table should have enough terrain to give LoS blocking, firing lanes and general cover, otherwise its just a who goes 1st and shoots better game.. In a normal game there should be ways to charge out of LoS, sure you might not always get to but the options should still be there somewhere.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/29 09:17:19
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I agree with you but as you said it's not that easy to do it every time.
DE vehicles are also paper things so it's quite common that you have some wyches without their transport that are forced to assault on their own, otherwise they would be obliterated next turn.
Breng77 wrote: Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
Literally anyone can kill 5 Marines. They aren't holding the objective better even though they've got a rule that would take that assumption.
They absolutely are the objective better, as it is no more difficult to kill the considerably more expensive devastator squad. So given that their durability per point is better than the devastator squad (unless you take only 1 heavy weapon, at which point the squads are the same), and they have a rule that means unless another unit with that rule is near the objective they claim it no matter what, means they are better at camping an objective than a devastator squad. Especially because many units have to kill all 5 to take the objective away whereas they only need to kill enough devastators to outnumber them. If you went equal points of models a 5 man devastator squad with say 4 lascannons is more expensive than a 10 man Tactical squad with a heavy weapon and possibly a special weapon. So it has double the wounds for the same points.
The big difference is if you don't expect that objective to try to be claimed by other units. At that point you could argue for trying to do more damage from your back field (on forward objectives tacticals are much better because they can take special weapons, and are much more likely to compete for control against other units.
I'm not arguing that taking a 10 man tactical squad as an objective camper is a great idea, only that they are better at it than most other marine options for the points. The problem is that it takes sacrificing killing power elsewhere to do this, and right now the edition tends to be about killing especially as many boards don't have enough terrain.
venom is only 5 man capacity. Sure witches belong in the conversation of razors. Melle units destroy razors - a unit of 10 could easily prevent it from falling back. Also - I said all around transport - being able to hold 10 models is a pretty important feature. And dark lances arent mediocre weapons - they are great weapons. Disintegrators have multiple shots too.
The problem with 10 wyches in a raider is their cost, they are expensive for drukhari standards and far from being deadly. 5 wyches in venoms are way more common since a wych cult army should spam at least 5 units of wyches. The 10 man squad (actually 9) may work only if joined by the succubus which makes the unit even more expensive. Raiders are T5 4+ transports and drukhari always start second due to their high number of drops, never forget this. That's why venoms are handy.
1.8 dead wyches in overwatch is actually a big deal, it means almost half squad dead. Always charge with their transport.
Kabalite warriors are way more useful, they're cheaper than wyches, shooty like the rest of the army and drukhari need those poisoned shots since they don't have other tools against infantries. Kabalite warriors can also include a blaster for only 15 points that gives them versatility.
Wyches could work in a full wych cult army, and since I love the theme I sometimes play it, but succubus, reavers and now even beasts were nerfed and hellions are still weak, so those wyches are actually far from being a decent troop choice. They're not garbage but not particularly effective, mediocre is the right word to define them.
Wyches become a far better investment when you're running 5 in a raider. My standard troop unit for DE currently is a raider containing 5 wyches with hydra, BP, Ago, and Phantasm, and 5 wracks with electrocorrosive/hexrifle and ossefactor. That fills 2 troop slots, has zero morale issues, puts out a decent amount of hurt on whatever you need it to and still benefits from everything that the wyches have to offer - namely the Hekatrix and No Escape.
When I run a full wych cult army (which surprisingly does work pretty well in an environment that is more thematic/TAC rather than the kind of fluff impaling WAAC tournament lists) I will run that unit as 2x5 wyches, and I've occasionally toyed with Incubi as the killers rather than wracks, but I've become addicted to battalions so wracks are my go-to.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Breng77 wrote: Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
Literally anyone can kill 5 Marines. They aren't holding the objective better even though they've got a rule that would take that assumption.
They absolutely are the objective better, as it is no more difficult to kill the considerably more expensive devastator squad. So given that their durability per point is better than the devastator squad (unless you take only 1 heavy weapon, at which point the squads are the same), and they have a rule that means unless another unit with that rule is near the objective they claim it no matter what, means they are better at camping an objective than a devastator squad. Especially because many units have to kill all 5 to take the objective away whereas they only need to kill enough devastators to outnumber them. If you went equal points of models a 5 man devastator squad with say 4 lascannons is more expensive than a 10 man Tactical squad with a heavy weapon and possibly a special weapon. So it has double the wounds for the same points.
The big difference is if you don't expect that objective to try to be claimed by other units. At that point you could argue for trying to do more damage from your back field (on forward objectives tacticals are much better because they can take special weapons, and are much more likely to compete for control against other units.
I'm not arguing that taking a 10 man tactical squad as an objective camper is a great idea, only that they are better at it than most other marine options for the points. The problem is that it takes sacrificing killing power elsewhere to do this, and right now the edition tends to be about killing especially as many boards don't have enough terrain.
OS only matters when getting the objectives on your opponent's side, because the opponent will want to kill opposition entirely to make sure there's no retaliation to take them back. OS doesn't work for dead units, and 5 Marines, as I've said, isn't hard to kill.
So if you're camping 5 Tactical Marines on a home objective, you pay for a useless ability, as would most camping troops. You might as well then go for Devastators (Signum + Cherub + more Lascannons) or Scouts (get a Sniper Rifle with your ML and get units deader).
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/29 14:25:58
Breng77 wrote: Not really as they don't have objective secured and as such can have the objective taken from them. They are objectively worse at holding objectives, they are just better at killing things.
Literally anyone can kill 5 Marines. They aren't holding the objective better even though they've got a rule that would take that assumption.
They absolutely are the objective better, as it is no more difficult to kill the considerably more expensive devastator squad. So given that their durability per point is better than the devastator squad (unless you take only 1 heavy weapon, at which point the squads are the same), and they have a rule that means unless another unit with that rule is near the objective they claim it no matter what, means they are better at camping an objective than a devastator squad. Especially because many units have to kill all 5 to take the objective away whereas they only need to kill enough devastators to outnumber them. If you went equal points of models a 5 man devastator squad with say 4 lascannons is more expensive than a 10 man Tactical squad with a heavy weapon and possibly a special weapon. So it has double the wounds for the same points.
The big difference is if you don't expect that objective to try to be claimed by other units. At that point you could argue for trying to do more damage from your back field (on forward objectives tacticals are much better because they can take special weapons, and are much more likely to compete for control against other units.
I'm not arguing that taking a 10 man tactical squad as an objective camper is a great idea, only that they are better at it than most other marine options for the points. The problem is that it takes sacrificing killing power elsewhere to do this, and right now the edition tends to be about killing especially as many boards don't have enough terrain.
OS only matters when getting the objectives on your opponent's side, because the opponent will want to kill opposition entirely to make sure there's no retaliation to take them back. OS doesn't work for dead units, and 5 Marines, as I've said, isn't hard to kill.
So if you're camping 5 Tactical Marines on a home objective, you pay for a useless ability, as would most camping troops. You might as well then go for Devastators (Signum + Cherub + more Lascannons) or Scouts (get a Sniper Rifle with your ML and get units deader).
You obviously play a different game than I do, where home objectives are never contested. I contest them all the time. So yeah OS matters.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
1. Those Tactical Marines won't do practical damage to your tanks, and honestly if they weren't camping on an objective they wouldn't be targeted. Devastators would be targeted because they're actually dangerous. See the pattern there? You ignore the units that don't matter.
2. That's not swingy. The common loadout here is 5 Marines + Lascannon, which is 90 points. How much is the Scion squad with 2 Plasma Guns and 1-2 Plasma Pistols?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
I don't play vs many superheavy tanks. However, ut seems pretty trivial for you to blow me off the objectives if I don't do something about your tanks. It's like trying to sit back and hold objectives vs 7th ed scatbikes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/29 14:34:55
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
1. Those Tactical Marines won't do practical damage to your tanks, and honestly if they weren't camping on an objective they wouldn't be targeted. Devastators would be targeted because they're actually dangerous. See the pattern there? You ignore the units that don't matter. 2. That's not swingy. The common loadout here is 5 Marines + Lascannon, which is 90 points. How much is the Scion squad with 2 Plasma Guns and 1-2 Plasma Pistols?
I can't afford plasma on my scions while still simultaneously supporting my big tanks. So it's 90 points of bolters + 2+ save (presumably the objective is in cover) + lascannon vs 50 points of 4 Hot-Shot Lasguns and 3+ save + a Hot-Shot Laspistol or Bolt Pistol. I do have one power sword on one unit, to hit 2000 points flat. I can do the math if you like. To be fair if I were list tailoring I'd not even take the lascannon, since that just makes them more expensive and less good in this scenario. That said, I understand that most TAC lists are going to bring some kind of heavy weapon and a lascannon is fine.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
I don't play vs many superheavy tanks. However, ut seems pretty trivial for you to blow me off the objectives if I don't do something about your tanks. It's like trying to sit back and hold objectives vs 7th ed scatbikes.
It would be if I have LoS. Objective placement before the game is part of the strategy, and if you saw an army like mine I'd hope you'd have the good sense to deploy them out of LoS. That's why I bring scions and not infantry squads (who are cheaper and therefore could get upgrades): most opponents put the objectives in really finnickey places and I have to drop on them rather than just walking upfield.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/08/29 14:41:23
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
1. Those Tactical Marines won't do practical damage to your tanks, and honestly if they weren't camping on an objective they wouldn't be targeted. Devastators would be targeted because they're actually dangerous. See the pattern there? You ignore the units that don't matter.
2. That's not swingy. The common loadout here is 5 Marines + Lascannon, which is 90 points. How much is the Scion squad with 2 Plasma Guns and 1-2 Plasma Pistols?
I can't afford plasma on my scions while still simultaneously supporting my big tanks. So it's 90 points of bolters + 2+ save (presumably the objective is in cover) + lascannon vs 50 points of 4 Hot-Shot Lasguns and 3+ save + a Hot-Shot Laspistol or Bolt Pistol. I do have one power sword on one unit, to hit 2000 points flat. I can do the math if you like. To be fair if I were list tailoring I'd not even take the lascannon, since that just makes them more expensive and less good in this scenario. That said, I understand that most TAC lists are going to bring some kind of heavy weapon and a lascannon is fine.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
I don't play vs many superheavy tanks. However, ut seems pretty trivial for you to blow me off the objectives if I don't do something about your tanks. It's like trying to sit back and hold objectives vs 7th ed scatbikes.
It would be if I have LoS. Objective placement before the game is part of the strategy, and if you saw an army like mine I'd hope you'd have the good sense to deploy them out of LoS. That's why I bring scions and not infantry squads (who are cheaper and therefore could get upgrades): most opponents put the objectives in really finnickey places and I have to drop on them rather than just walking upfield.
So you want to compare 90 points of Tactical Marines to a squad with no upgrades?
Also I don't believe you. You post your list and I'll find room from taking away useless upgrades. They might not be useless to you and they might even be fluffy, but you creating a bad unit is your own fault. You don't HAVE to take the unit like that. If anything, you should make the Scions first and then build the rest of the Tank army.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
1. Those Tactical Marines won't do practical damage to your tanks, and honestly if they weren't camping on an objective they wouldn't be targeted. Devastators would be targeted because they're actually dangerous. See the pattern there? You ignore the units that don't matter. 2. That's not swingy. The common loadout here is 5 Marines + Lascannon, which is 90 points. How much is the Scion squad with 2 Plasma Guns and 1-2 Plasma Pistols?
I can't afford plasma on my scions while still simultaneously supporting my big tanks. So it's 90 points of bolters + 2+ save (presumably the objective is in cover) + lascannon vs 50 points of 4 Hot-Shot Lasguns and 3+ save + a Hot-Shot Laspistol or Bolt Pistol. I do have one power sword on one unit, to hit 2000 points flat. I can do the math if you like. To be fair if I were list tailoring I'd not even take the lascannon, since that just makes them more expensive and less good in this scenario. That said, I understand that most TAC lists are going to bring some kind of heavy weapon and a lascannon is fine.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
I don't play vs many superheavy tanks. However, ut seems pretty trivial for you to blow me off the objectives if I don't do something about your tanks. It's like trying to sit back and hold objectives vs 7th ed scatbikes.
It would be if I have LoS. Objective placement before the game is part of the strategy, and if you saw an army like mine I'd hope you'd have the good sense to deploy them out of LoS. That's why I bring scions and not infantry squads (who are cheaper and therefore could get upgrades): most opponents put the objectives in really finnickey places and I have to drop on them rather than just walking upfield.
So you want to compare 90 points of Tactical Marines to a squad with no upgrades?
Also I don't believe you. You post your list and I'll find room from taking away useless upgrades. They might not be useless to you and they might even be fluffy, but you creating a bad unit is your own fault. You don't HAVE to take the unit like that. If anything, you should make the Scions first and then build the rest of the Tank army.
EDIT: Things are broken at work, gonna write it in.
2nd Concordian ISHTR 5th Company: 2000 points
Super-Heavy Detachment: Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Battalion Detachment: HQ: Primaris Psyker w/ Force Stave 40
Dedicated Transport: Trojan w/ Heavy Bolter, Pintle Storm Bolter 100
Martel732 wrote:You are assuming that putting them out of LoS is even possible. Board conditions seem to be one of the biggest divergences in these discussions.
That's not unsurprising considering how diverse boards can be. Around here we try to get as much LOS blocking terrain as possible in each DZ, and then one piece in the middle, but not much around the sides (ruins, hills, etc rather than full on buildings, monuments, or cliffs).
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's worth noting that the only non-mandatory weaponry in that list are some of the lascannons on the superheavies, the 0-pt tempestor command rod which replaces a 1 pt pistol, the pintle storm bolters (which are super good for their points, like, really good) and the one power sword on the one sergeant.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/08/29 15:27:04
Wyches become a far better investment when you're running 5 in a raider. My standard troop unit for DE currently is a raider containing 5 wyches with hydra, BP, Ago, and Phantasm, and 5 wracks with electrocorrosive/hexrifle and ossefactor. That fills 2 troop slots, has zero morale issues, puts out a decent amount of hurt on whatever you need it to and still benefits from everything that the wyches have to offer - namely the Hekatrix and No Escape.
When I run a full wych cult army (which surprisingly does work pretty well in an environment that is more thematic/TAC rather than the kind of fluff impaling WAAC tournament lists) I will run that unit as 2x5 wyches, and I've occasionally toyed with Incubi as the killers rather than wracks, but I've become addicted to battalions so wracks are my go-to.
In my wych cult list I run 2x9 wyches with 1 agoniser and 1 blast pistol in raiders, both units joined by a succubus and 3x5 wyches in venoms, also these units with blast pistol and agoniser. Then 2x6 reavers with 2 blasters and talons each and 3 ravagers with dark lances. I know reavers are not amazing and I could run more wyches/scourges/beasts/flyers, maybe another raider with incubi but I love the models, they absolutely fit the theme, and I don't actually own other wyches, the beastpack or any flyers. Hellions are one the units that I hate most, so not an option for me
In a dedicated list wyches could be average/decent I think, but generally speaking they're still terrible. Tac marines, compared to them, are gold
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
1. Those Tactical Marines won't do practical damage to your tanks, and honestly if they weren't camping on an objective they wouldn't be targeted. Devastators would be targeted because they're actually dangerous. See the pattern there? You ignore the units that don't matter.
2. That's not swingy. The common loadout here is 5 Marines + Lascannon, which is 90 points. How much is the Scion squad with 2 Plasma Guns and 1-2 Plasma Pistols?
I can't afford plasma on my scions while still simultaneously supporting my big tanks. So it's 90 points of bolters + 2+ save (presumably the objective is in cover) + lascannon vs 50 points of 4 Hot-Shot Lasguns and 3+ save + a Hot-Shot Laspistol or Bolt Pistol. I do have one power sword on one unit, to hit 2000 points flat. I can do the math if you like. To be fair if I were list tailoring I'd not even take the lascannon, since that just makes them more expensive and less good in this scenario. That said, I understand that most TAC lists are going to bring some kind of heavy weapon and a lascannon is fine.
My superheavy tank company only has 3 5-man units of scions to take the opponent's objectives from him. If (and this is a good assumption), the superheavies are too busy engaging threats to their survival (e.g. devastator squads, lascannon predators) to clear objectives, then I have to rely on my little 5-man squads. Space Marine tactical marines will give them a run for their money in a gun-battle, and may even kill them (with such small numbers, 5 on 5, it's very swingy based on dice rolls).
If, however, you put a 5-man lascannon devastator squad on your objectives, then I can kill two birds with one stone - nuke the squad with a superheavy as part of my routine destruction of enemy AT assets, and free up the objective.
Marines don't have the point efficiency to have expendable crapheads sit in the back and do nothing. When I push someone's deployment zone, I have to bring all my BA. I have no objective campers.
Well, you've doomed yourself to lose to my superheavy tanks with that mindset. You absolutely need to have the objectives at the end of the game, because I will likely score more secondaries than you with the firepower I'm slinging downrange.
My superheavy tank army is the pinnacle of "play the mission" for my opponents and if you're determined to, well, not do that, then don't be surprised at the result.
I don't play vs many superheavy tanks. However, ut seems pretty trivial for you to blow me off the objectives if I don't do something about your tanks. It's like trying to sit back and hold objectives vs 7th ed scatbikes.
It would be if I have LoS. Objective placement before the game is part of the strategy, and if you saw an army like mine I'd hope you'd have the good sense to deploy them out of LoS. That's why I bring scions and not infantry squads (who are cheaper and therefore could get upgrades): most opponents put the objectives in really finnickey places and I have to drop on them rather than just walking upfield.
So you want to compare 90 points of Tactical Marines to a squad with no upgrades?
Also I don't believe you. You post your list and I'll find room from taking away useless upgrades. They might not be useless to you and they might even be fluffy, but you creating a bad unit is your own fault. You don't HAVE to take the unit like that. If anything, you should make the Scions first and then build the rest of the Tank army.
EDIT: Things are broken at work, gonna write it in.
2nd Concordian ISHTR 5th Company: 2000 points
Super-Heavy Detachment: Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Lord of War: Stormhammer w/ Stormhammer Cannon, Twin Battle Cannon, Co-Axial Lascannon, Hull Lascannon, 2 Sponson Lascannon, 4 sponson Heavy Bolters, Pintle Storm Bolter 504
Battalion Detachment: HQ: Primaris Psyker w/ Force Stave 40
Dedicated Transport: Trojan w/ Heavy Bolter, Pintle Storm Bolter 100
Martel732 wrote:You are assuming that putting them out of LoS is even possible. Board conditions seem to be one of the biggest divergences in these discussions.
That's not unsurprising considering how diverse boards can be. Around here we try to get as much LOS blocking terrain as possible in each DZ, and then one piece in the middle, but not much around the sides (ruins, hills, etc rather than full on buildings, monuments, or cliffs).
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's worth noting that the only non-mandatory weaponry in that list are some of the lascannons on the superheavies, the 0-pt tempestor command rod which replaces a 1 pt pistol, the pintle storm bolters (which are super good for their points, like, really good) and the one power sword on the one sergeant.
I'll be back home in a few hours so I can get to work on that. However the initial standout is the Trojan, which I know nothing of the rules.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Insectum7 wrote: Just came in 2nd in a local tourney with a 1500 point list with 30 generic csm. Basic marines aint too bad.
6*5 or 3*10?
3*10. Twin Lascannons on 2 and twin MLs on the third.
Can choas marines take 2 heavies per 10?
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
" I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever." 
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
