Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Did... did you read my post?

He was the one that charged me with tactical marines...

Which you literally had to let happen.

Would you camp backfield objectives with Wyches instead?

Change the Kalabites to Fire Warriors or 10-man Guardian Squads. Even at same-point unit sizes, the Marines would still win those charges, if the opponents let it happen.

Perhaps we should just accept that you don't care about what your proposed changes does to those who don't play your way, and move on with our lives.

If you can't get why being potentially better in CC matters even if you don't get into CC, I don't see how this conversation is going to be productive.

Have you ever seen 5 Tac Marines sit on an objective with 5 other troops and *not* charge? Now, I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't seen equal numbers of each on an objective in 8th, but in the specific discussion of if "super obsec" would be useful, how is the CC discussion not relevant? How likely is "super obsec" to be relevant in a case where Marines *wouldn't* be able to charge the other guy?

We're talking past eachother here. I hope your hatred of "CAAC" players doesn't help worsen the game.

"If you can't get why being potentially better in CC matters even if you don't get into CC, I don't see how this conversation is going to be productive. "

If it wasn't so trivial to gut marines with Xeno shooting, this would be a LOT more relevant.

I don't hate any players. I just hate having 1000's of points of elite infantry turned off by a few chaff units.

CAAC actually ruins the game, because those players actually refuse to accept what's actually wrong. If everything is balanced, the crummy L2P argument from the CAAC players that somehow refuse to prove they're better than tournament players cam actually go away. A balanced game benefits both parties. So no, anyone who is CAAC can stay out of the entire Proposed Rules Subforum in general.

Also if wyches are cheaper, yeah they'd be the better camper. Also probably the better screener. In fact, nothing in the Dark Eldar camp seems to be made for camping. Aren't Wracks supposed to be slightly durable or am I thinking of something else?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you were really that savvy, you'd be dominating tournaments as apparently no other tournament player can pull anything off like you can.

Not at all, all I have to be is not completely defeatist in the way Martel is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
CAAC actually ruins the game, because those players actually refuse to accept what's actually wrong. If everything is balanced, the crummy L2P argument from the CAAC players that somehow refuse to prove they're better than tournament players cam actually go away. A balanced game benefits both parties. So no, anyone who is CAAC can stay out of the entire Proposed Rules Subforum in general.

So am I a CAAC player because I don't go to big tourneys but manage to be competitively locally?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you were really that savvy, you'd be dominating tournaments as apparently no other tournament player can pull anything off like you can.

Not at all, all I have to be is not completely defeatist in the way Martel is.

Then why aren't Tactical Marines consistently dominating tournaments like they should be then? Are tournament players really so bad they can't get as much mileage out of a tactical Marine like you can?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you were really that savvy, you'd be dominating tournaments as apparently no other tournament player can pull anything off like you can.

Not at all, all I have to be is not completely defeatist in the way Martel is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
CAAC actually ruins the game, because those players actually refuse to accept what's actually wrong. If everything is balanced, the crummy L2P argument from the CAAC players that somehow refuse to prove they're better than tournament players cam actually go away. A balanced game benefits both parties. So no, anyone who is CAAC can stay out of the entire Proposed Rules Subforum in general.

So am I a CAAC player because I don't go to big tourneys but manage to be competitively locally?

I know you're not competitive at your locals based off the list being ran. You're trying to pull a Jancoran. Please don't do that and just own up to it

Tac Marines might not be dominating tournies, but over the last few editions they've been more common amongst top lists than the majority of Troops available in the game.

I'm not saying Tac Marines are OP. I'm saying that they compare reasonably to most troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you start using CAAC as an epitaph, don't be surprised when it excites the conversation negatively.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then why aren't Tactical Marines consistently dominating tournaments like they should be then? Are tournament players really so bad they can't get as much mileage out of a tactical Marine like you can?

There's no logic behind this. If tourneys are benefitting from running OP units, and Tacticals are not OP units, why would they be run in tourneys? I merely say Tacticals are decent units, and that a lot of people don't use them well, because their generalist role makes it harder to squeeze the potential out of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you were really that savvy, you'd be dominating tournaments as apparently no other tournament player can pull anything off like you can.

Not at all, all I have to be is not completely defeatist in the way Martel is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
CAAC actually ruins the game, because those players actually refuse to accept what's actually wrong. If everything is balanced, the crummy L2P argument from the CAAC players that somehow refuse to prove they're better than tournament players cam actually go away. A balanced game benefits both parties. So no, anyone who is CAAC can stay out of the entire Proposed Rules Subforum in general.

So am I a CAAC player because I don't go to big tourneys but manage to be competitively locally?

I know you're not competitive at your locals based off the list being ran. You're trying to pull a Jancoran. Please don't do that and just own up to it

A: There's nothing particularly qualifying you to be an expert in that assessment. You're just some dude on the internet like I am.

B: It's moot. Most 40K players are not tourney goers. As someone who doesn't go to big tournies, arguably I'm more representative of the 40K community than someone who goes to big tournaments all the time.

Bharring wrote:
Tac Marines might not be dominating tournies, but over the last few editions they've been more common amongst top lists than the majority of Troops available in the game.

I'm not saying Tac Marines are OP. I'm saying that they compare reasonably to most troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you start using CAAC as an epitaph, don't be surprised when it excites the conversation negatively.

Absent in 6th, then they get free vehicles in 7th, and then they pop up once or twice in 8th and that's more common. Right.

And yeah I think CAAC players should be removed from the conversation because they don't understand grasping balance.

More common than what, though? Wyches? Guardians? Immortals? Kroot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would argue that those who are deriding people for being 'CAAC' players for not coming to the same conclusion are not inherently more authoritative on balance.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then why aren't Tactical Marines consistently dominating tournaments like they should be then? Are tournament players really so bad they can't get as much mileage out of a tactical Marine like you can?

There's no logic behind this. If tourneys are benefitting from running OP units, and Tacticals are not OP units, why would they be run in tourneys? I merely say Tacticals are decent units, and that a lot of people don't use them well, because their generalist role makes it harder to squeeze the potential out of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you were really that savvy, you'd be dominating tournaments as apparently no other tournament player can pull anything off like you can.

Not at all, all I have to be is not completely defeatist in the way Martel is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
CAAC actually ruins the game, because those players actually refuse to accept what's actually wrong. If everything is balanced, the crummy L2P argument from the CAAC players that somehow refuse to prove they're better than tournament players cam actually go away. A balanced game benefits both parties. So no, anyone who is CAAC can stay out of the entire Proposed Rules Subforum in general.

So am I a CAAC player because I don't go to big tourneys but manage to be competitively locally?

I know you're not competitive at your locals based off the list being ran. You're trying to pull a Jancoran. Please don't do that and just own up to it

A: There's nothing particularly qualifying you to be an expert in that assessment. You're just some dude on the internet like I am.

B: It's moot. Most 40K players are not tourney goers. As someone who doesn't go to big tournies, arguably I'm more representative of the 40K community than someone who goes to big tournaments all the time.

Which means, even if they WERE decent they'd pop up more. "Decent" units get taken all the time to tournaments. Guess which "decent" isn't showing up?

A. I used to do tournaments in 4th before I moved states and lost all my Necrons. Then I tried making Necrons and Marines but lost those to a fire. Now I'm building. Again.
Rest assured that, once one of the armies is complete, you'll see me in tournaments again instead of borrowing most of my models.
B. Which makes it mob rule. I don't trust the average 40k player overall to make balance changes. Have you SEEN most of the changes people try to make here?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which means, even if they WERE decent they'd pop up more. "Decent" units get taken all the time to tournaments. Guess which "decent" isn't showing up?

I remember one with Tacticals Otherwise I think most tourney goers are using a different philosophy when they put their lists together. As a generalist unit Tacticals often don't fit that philosophy, but I wouldn't say that makes them not decent.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

A. I used to do tournaments in 4th before I moved states and lost all my Necrons. Then I tried making Necrons and Marines but lost those to a fire. Now I'm building. Again.
Rest assured that, once one of the armies is complete, you'll see me in tournaments again instead of borrowing most of my models.

Sure, sure. . . and if I didn't have a newborn and was trying to buy a house in an expensive neighborhood and have heavy product deadlines, I'd consider it too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

B. Which makes it mob rule. I don't trust the average 40k player overall to make balance changes. Have you SEEN most of the changes people try to make here?

So you're the authority on who takes part in the conversation because... ?

Those Gulliman + Tac + Razorback lists are actually doing pretty well in tourny's you know.
And it does include multiple tactical squads.

Just sayin'.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which means, even if they WERE decent they'd pop up more. "Decent" units get taken all the time to tournaments. Guess which "decent" isn't showing up?

I remember one with Tacticals Otherwise I think most tourney goers are using a different philosophy when they put their lists together. As a generalist unit Tacticals often don't fit that philosophy, but I wouldn't say that makes them not decent.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

A. I used to do tournaments in 4th before I moved states and lost all my Necrons. Then I tried making Necrons and Marines but lost those to a fire. Now I'm building. Again.
Rest assured that, once one of the armies is complete, you'll see me in tournaments again instead of borrowing most of my models.

Sure, sure. . . and if I didn't have a newborn and was trying to buy a house in an expensive neighborhood and have heavy product deadlines, I'd consider it too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

B. Which makes it mob rule. I don't trust the average 40k player overall to make balance changes. Have you SEEN most of the changes people try to make here?

So you're the authority on who takes part in the conversation because... ?

1. Numbers are key. That's why I always bring up the one of the topping 6th edition Chaos Marine lists that had 3 squads of Rubric Marines and Ahriman, yet that wasn't ever used as a defense except by one person on the entire forum.

That's because it was universally accepted that Chaos Marines had a garbage codex with only a few key units doing any heavy lifting. The difference is Loyalist Scum had a bad codex too, but people overall hate Loyalists and therefore nobody cares. As someone that was originally a Chaos Marine player that's pretty annoying to have to defend me trying to improve their codex.

2. If it mattered to you, you'd do more than consider it and just taking time to do it. It hasn't stopped other people, right?

3. My only evidence I can give for that is to look at the extensive changes I tried to make for 7th as a work in progress before tossing it for playing 8th. I tried pretty damn hard and that was only 5 Codices I had done!
Of course 8th is less a dumpster fire for rules, but there's still bad internal balances and external balances abound.

So to wrap up, Tacticals have been in tournaments, even if rarely.

I could go to tournaments if it was a higher priority.

And you're still just some guy on the internet.

So you wan't to try and have a constructive dialog now?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Did... did you read my post?

He was the one that charged me with tactical marines...

Which you literally had to let happen.

Did you read how it happened?

And that... it was a bad decision on his part?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Did... did you read my post?

He was the one that charged me with tactical marines...

Which you literally had to let happen.

Did you read how it happened?

And that... it was a bad decision on his part?

It's something I'd never see in a Tournament report I can tell ya that much. I can also say I feel bad they didn't know the Steel Behemoth rule existed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Did... did you read my post?

He was the one that charged me with tactical marines...

Which you literally had to let happen.

Did you read how it happened?

And that... it was a bad decision on his part?

It's something I'd never see in a Tournament report I can tell ya that much. I can also say I feel bad they didn't know the Steel Behemoth rule existed.

They knew it existed.

And the reason you wouldn't read about it in a tournament is probably that Baneblades and Tactical Marines are neither tournament units.

They knew it existed and chose to charge anyway...

I'm actually at a loss for words.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They knew it existed and chose to charge anyway...

I'm actually at a loss for words.

Why are you at a loss for words? His plan was to get within 1" with me hitting on 6s, so that I would have to fall back to shoot him with anything other than heavy bolters, but I was pinned against my board edge and so would have been hard pressed to do so with tanks that big against so many tactical marines.

The foil came from the Defensive Gunners stratagem.

8th edtion has made larger squads a liability with the leadership/remove model thing

Looking through this thread, I’ve just realised now why units in matched play in AoS come at a discount when taken at maximum size. It’s because it’s almost always better to take greater numbers of smaller units than just one big one. The discount was to even things out. Too bad it’s harder to do that in 40k with the way the current points system is going.

However, AFAIK people still consider number of drops to be a part of their lists for tourneys, no? This would seem to promote larger squads.

I wouldn't mind a rule that allowed Combat Squads to be one drop instead of two, but the rules get a little clunky.

I overreacted yesterday to being told I don't matter, sorry about that.

IIRC, I've seen a writeup of a then-considered-scary baneblade list being tabled by a Tac-heavy list in 8thE at a high-profile event.

I think on the Marines charging thing, we're still talking past eachother. You're saying you never see it. I'm saying it's a threat, and thus most players play to ensure it doesn't happen. Those two don't conflict.

I'm not going to give a bunch of Tacs an easy charge into my FDs or DAs or even Banshees (if outnumbered). I don't see tourny players often give that option.

The usefulness of that option is debateable. But the point was brought up specificly when discussing "Super Obsec" for marines. I wouldn't mind if they got that rule, but the point was that their Assault stats mean they have that effect anyways.

We shouldn't see Tacs get to charge much, at all, in competitive events - much like you don't see the 4-move at high-level chess tournaments. It's not that a guarded queen challenging a king early isn't a threat - it's that most competent players are prepared to handle it. But we also don't see many situations where two roughly-equal-numbers ObSec models sit on the same objective. If we did, we'd see the better-at-CC unit charge the worse one. Even if it's Guardians vs Guardsmen.

When it comes down to it, though, units should be impacting your games beyond the actions they take. Their potential actions matter. For instance, if someone has 10 Reapers next to a Farseer, so you don't deep strike your NDK or DP or something where you wanted to, didn't the Reapers hurt you more than just their shooting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To try to move this back to the topic of the thread - incentivising 10-man (or at least more-than-5-man) Tac squads over 5mans - here are some ideas that have been thrown out here:

1) Frontload the points cost. Sarge goes up 5 or 10 points, Tacs go down 1 or 2 ppm (net slight decrease in Tac points)

2) Super-Obsec, where each Marine counts as 2 or 4 models for the purpose of ObSec

3) Combat Squadding can be chosen when deploying a unit, as a single drop

4) Increase the special/heavy weapon loadout at different model counts (above what it is now, in all cases)

5) Allow Combat Squadding to take up 2 FoC slots

6) Various potential buffs directly to Marines

I like #1 the most.
#2 seems clunky, prone to inflation ("But this chapter counts as SIX!"..), and usually moot.
#3 has some merit, but might be a little confusing
#4 is OK, but I'm not a fan
#5 i think is the wrong direction - it'd be a first (as far as I know)
#6 I don't think addresses the question at hand (and has been talked to death in several threads)

Best option, IMO, would be #1 and #3 - although the specific points for the first option might need to be played with.

I didn't know AOS effectively did #1. For many armies - like Loyalist Marines - it makes a lot of sense. Makes less sense for Alpha Legion or Aspect Hosts, so shouldn't be game-wide. If it's done in AOS on the unit, it'd be better if they did it the same in 40k instead of the janky "Sarge at +5pts" I suggested - Sarge himself isn't the one worth the extra points.

I think the discount is most viable.

 Insectum7 wrote:
However, AFAIK people still consider number of drops to be a part of their lists for tourneys, no? This would seem to promote larger squads.

While that is true - putting units in transports is the most effective way to reduce drops. Razors only hold 6 so favors a 5 man AND rhinos hold 10 so favors 2 5 mans because it gives you 2 troop compared to 1.

The single biggest reason currently is that 10 man squads give up ITC maelstrom objectives less easily.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
However, AFAIK people still consider number of drops to be a part of their lists for tourneys, no? This would seem to promote larger squads.

While that is true - putting units in transports is the most effective way to reduce drops. Razors only hold 6 so favors a 5 man AND rhinos hold 10 so favors 2 5 mans because it gives you 2 troop compared to 1.

Agreed, although the transport route isn't for everybody. Strategic choices and all.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
I agree, with morale being what it is, and the front-loading of squads, having a 'full' squad needs to be incentivized. I liked your previous idea, because it related to 'numbers' within the squad. Too few, and it wouldn't work, but going full size would give you a decent buffer against casualties while still providing the bonus. +1 to advance and charge rolls isn't so bad, but +1 to to hit rolls is pretty powerful for a 'shooty' unit just because it has '6' models in it. We're aiming to encourage the full 10 men, my solution would involve that in some way. The problem here is that once you encourage 10 men, you still want combat squadding (5 men splits) to be viable too.

Very good points. What about a hybrid of the two ideas? In the movement phase, roll 2D6 and if the result is equal to or less than the size of the squad, they add +1 to their advance, charge (and to hit rolls?).
I know I said try letting them shoot/charge/double move in the movement phase but it's probably too time consuming. Or maybe not?

Well, my problem is the not wanting to add too much complication like the test, which could bog down each phase. My own ideas on the subject are probably never going to fly, but looking at other ideas i've seen: What if 6+ tactical marines could add +1 shot at close/long range? It's a flat rate that doesn't offer options or require tests, but it improves their dps (ie lack of volume of shots which is their problem compared to cheaper alternatives), and gives them a reason to take ablative wounds/possibly the whole 10 men. But at the trade-off of being hit harder than msu due to morale and lack of +1 veteran sergeant. Tactical marines are basically a shooty unit at this point. That might encourage 10 man squads again, but then we need to find a reason to combat-squad them instead of just take 2 5-mans. What if the 6+ marines was counted on the entire squad, even when combat squaded? So you'd need to kill 5 marines between 2 5-man squads to kill the bonus? My only problem with this approach, is that while it may work for tacticals and possibly even devastators, it does nothing for assault squads. Who are absolutely dire atm. But, it is another alternative.

Could just have the bonus based as the doctrines from 7th.
A special bonus for each squad type. So maybe having a full squad of 10 assault marines they get an extra attack.
10 devs they get to shoot twice or something