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.

Mchaagen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You know with the information from this link it is entirely possible that this guy never faced a good army.

I believe this is Lawrence from (youtube) Tabletop Tactics. I'm sure he has played against strong IG lists in the past and knew what he might be facing in this tournament. One of the regulars on his channel plays guard almost exclusively.

Granted, his youtube channel/website is for entertainment and they typically feature armies that are more varied than the standard 'tournament spam' lists. Though they all seem to be experienced players, so he has a strong foundation to play against.

Lawrence, no bones about it, is a very competitive player. He doesn't run his youtube channel like it's a tournament every week, but when he goes to a tournament he doesn't pull a single punch.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CassianSol wrote:

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

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

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

The main problem with doing anything about G man is that is forces all space marine competitive players to paint their armies in raven guard (or raptors) colors. The Space marines live and die off their synnergies, and G man is the best in the game at pulling that off. Take that away and, in isolation, space marine units simply under perform in almost every circumstance. Raven Guard based lists weaken their shooting synergy to benefit off of movement shenanigans and baller chapter tactics. But space marines really DO need the rerolls on a competetive level. On a casual level Guilliman is so efficient that he just creates face stomping lists just by existing. But, uh, don't take him if you aren't playing competitively.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Corrode wrote:

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

lol

A guard super heavy list doesn't win tournies. I know people like to freak out about superheavies, but, really, chill out. They're NOT that good.

The second list is much more interesting. And seems to fit with the idea that guard players are experimenting with lists now. It'll be a bit before we know if the buffs Russes got will propel them to the competitive meta. I still think tallarn russ movement tricks are tournament level, but I might be wrong. It also requires LoS blocking terrain

stratigo wrote:



The main problem with doing anything about G man is that is forces all space marine competitive players to paint their armies in raven guard (or raptors) colors. The Space marines live and die off their synnergies, and G man is the best in the game at pulling that off. Take that away and, in isolation, space marine units simply under perform in almost every circumstance. Raven Guard based lists weaken their shooting synergy to benefit off of movement shenanigans and baller chapter tactics. But space marines really DO need the rerolls on a competetive level. On a casual level Guilliman is so efficient that he just creates face stomping lists just by existing. But, uh, don't take him if you aren't playing competitively.

I disagree. Yes, having Bobby G in your Ultramarines is extremely powerful due to the re-rolls etc, it isn’t the only option open to Marine players currently. The Primaris Raven Guard list that won all 5 games at the event is proof of that.
Slightly nerfing/increasing the points cost of Bobby G isn’t going to change how the army performs, you just might have to drop a unit/some special weapons.

I also think there are more options for Marine players beyond Ultramarines and Raven Guard, however, the vast majority of people are not using those other chapters, and thus, aren’t represented well, when they are up against 5 times as many Ultramarine lists. As a result, you’re more likely going to see an Ultramarines victory rather than a Salamander victory for example.

I also disagree with the “take the re-rolls away and Marines under-perform” statement. Surely that just means that with the re-rolls they OVER perform, and the rest of the time they perform as intended? Surely, if re-rolls were all important we’d be seeing a lot more Salamander armies.

People take Ultramarines because it is easy, reliable and works.

Salamander rerolls don't work with razorbacks.

Kdash wrote:

stratigo wrote:



The main problem with doing anything about G man is that is forces all space marine competitive players to paint their armies in raven guard (or raptors) colors. The Space marines live and die off their synnergies, and G man is the best in the game at pulling that off. Take that away and, in isolation, space marine units simply under perform in almost every circumstance. Raven Guard based lists weaken their shooting synergy to benefit off of movement shenanigans and baller chapter tactics. But space marines really DO need the rerolls on a competetive level. On a casual level Guilliman is so efficient that he just creates face stomping lists just by existing. But, uh, don't take him if you aren't playing competitively.

I disagree. Yes, having Bobby G in your Ultramarines is extremely powerful due to the re-rolls etc, it isn’t the only option open to Marine players currently. The Primaris Raven Guard list that won all 5 games at the event is proof of that.
Slightly nerfing/increasing the points cost of Bobby G isn’t going to change how the army performs, you just might have to drop a unit/some special weapons.

I also think there are more options for Marine players beyond Ultramarines and Raven Guard, however, the vast majority of people are not using those other chapters, and thus, aren’t represented well, when they are up against 5 times as many Ultramarine lists. As a result, you’re more likely going to see an Ultramarines victory rather than a Salamander victory for example.

I also disagree with the “take the re-rolls away and Marines under-perform” statement. Surely that just means that with the re-rolls they OVER perform, and the rest of the time they perform as intended? Surely, if re-rolls were all important we’d be seeing a lot more Salamander armies.

People take Ultramarines because it is easy, reliable and works.

I... uh... mentioned that raven guard are really good right? *looks at the post* Ah, I did, yeah.

Rerolls are all important. Every space marine army has them. I bet that raven guard list was rocking a chapter master upgrade. And there are always going to be the reroll 1s in space marine armies. Rerolls are baked into Space marines in a way they aren't for most other factions.

Space marine units are not efficient cost for kill and survivability without the reroll support. Not in the way AM units are (and then they got ways to give full rerolls). Except the storm raven, which is beastly on its own already. And probably razorbacks with assault cannons (not the lascannon ones. Those still need to rock the rerolls). In the way the game plays right now, space marines are huge glass cannons.

There's a reason that space marines have 2 archetypes on the tournament meta. Guilliman and raven guard. And not salamanders.

I played bobby G at the Heat.

Finished 19th

I used a unit of terminators and 5 devastator squads with the banner. I went into the event knowing that this packed a powerful punch, but was ultimately not 'winning' list because its based around marine infantry which at a base level just doesn't compete.

I shouldn't have gotten as high as I did, but I was fortunate in a couple of matchups (got first turn every game), and in one game, seized on a storm raven player downing all three in turn 1.

Ive told you about my list, specifically so that you know im a little biased here. But i believe the problem with big G and by extension the other SM buff auras is that they affect everything.

My fix is simple. Leave him at the same point value he is, but make his buff only affect models with chapter tactics ultra marines.

This means that if you want to get a benefit out of the buff (like i did), you have to make your army much more of a glass cannon, and considerably less mobile (marine infantry cant keep up with big G).

Hey SecretForge, that was my friend with the Stormravens. He got seized on four times last weekend. :(

I think a lot of the problem is the Eternal War missions, where you just kill each other as much as possible while castling up in a small blob then make a dash for objectives on turn five.

If it was Maelstrom Missions, and you had to move here or there to take the objectives as the game progressed it would have been fairer. The whole army wouldn't get all the buffs from the auras.

In Eternal War gunlines, especially those with a lot of guns that may shoot targets out of line of sight, have a significant advantage I feel.

I was surprised when they announced it was Eternal War, but I suppose you don't want people with bent decks of cards in a competitive tournament.

At the 1750-2000 pt level, you have to keep it plain and simple.
Havent seen the missions that were played. Who knows more?

It was Eternal War missions, we didn't play The Scouring. Or whatever they call it now where the Fast Attack choices are effectively objective secured and are worth an extra victory point each.

 XT-1984 wrote:
It was Eternal War missions, we didn't play The Scouring. Or whatever they call it now where the Fast Attack choices are effectively objective secured and are worth an extra victory point each.

Did they roll for them before each round? That's what they said they were doing. Any duplicate deployments or anything?

What's the point of running a GT with eternal war missions? To see who has better defensive gunlines?

 Corrode wrote:

 XT-1984 wrote:
It was Eternal War missions, we didn't play The Scouring. Or whatever they call it now where the Fast Attack choices are effectively objective secured and are worth an extra victory point each.

Did they roll for them before each round? That's what they said they were doing. Any duplicate deployments or anything?

Yeah I even got to roll the big foam dice for the next mission!

Deployment is rolled for by the player as described in each mission. So even though everyone played the same mission each round, the deployment was rolled for on each table.

 koooaei wrote:
What's the point of running a GT with eternal war missions? To see who has better defensive gunlines?

Maelstrom missions are less tactical and more a sort of random game.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
What's the point of running a GT with eternal war missions? To see who has better defensive gunlines?

Maelstrom missions are less tactical and more a sort of random game.

I think you mean Eternal War is less tactical since the mission doesn't matter in the slightest and you just aim to shoot each other. Maelstrom at least forces you to think about the ability to grab and hold objectives whilst also fighting your opponent.

As for Lawrence, he's already promised to do one of his Vox Casts detailing his list and games at the tournament so that will probably pop up in the next week.

Maelstrom missions require a different approach of winning.
For instance, I remember jy2's battle reports with either gate of infinity or bikers.

Does anyone have a link to the actual army lists? I was just curious what some of them fielded.

secretForge wrote:
I played bobby G at the Heat.

Finished 19th

I used a unit of terminators and 5 devastator squads with the banner. I went into the event knowing that this packed a powerful punch, but was ultimately not 'winning' list because its based around marine infantry which at a base level just doesn't compete.

I shouldn't have gotten as high as I did, but I was fortunate in a couple of matchups (got first turn every game), and in one game, seized on a storm raven player downing all three in turn 1.

Ive told you about my list, specifically so that you know im a little biased here. But i believe the problem with big G and by extension the other SM buff auras is that they affect everything.

My fix is simple. Leave him at the same point value he is, but make his buff only affect models with chapter tactics ultra marines.

This means that if you want to get a benefit out of the buff (like i did), you have to make your army much more of a glass cannon, and considerably less mobile (marine infantry cant keep up with big G).

That doesn't make a lot of sense due to how the HQ selections work though. They affect everything but he doesn't? Gotta have a balance between fluff, crunch, and practicality.

I say bump him to a cool 400 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right?

Unless it had to hold objectives with ObSec or face any vehicles at range. Even 72 Assault Cannon shots with all the rerolls will struggle to kill more than a single Rhino equivalent a turn.

Um no? 3 Razorbacks will inflict 9 wounds under the Rowboat aura, so not including the odd Stormbolter, HK Missiles, and weapons from the Stormraven you should be getting 2 dead Rhinos a turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record, 3 Stormbolters would inflict the last wound under the Rowboat aura. Where are you getting "struggling" from?

So what I said was completely accurate? 72 Assault Cannon shots will struggle to kill two Rhinos in a turn. 72 x .888 x .555 x .5 = 17.74, which is less than two Rhinos.

Of course the Stormraven adds to that, but that wasn't the statement.

The six Lascannons give you another (6 x .888 x .888 x .83 x 3.5 = ) 13.7 REQ wounds, just in case you're wondering.

It isn't accurate because you said struggling. 3 Razorbacks with the aura with Assault Cannons and Storm Bolters kill a Rhino a turn. Is it barely over? Sure, but the average shows no struggling.
So I have no idea what you're defending here. Nobody here has yet to disagree with me that removing either Rowboat or the Razorbacks would've propelled the list downwards performance-wise.

The ''Big G'' would eventually not be so successful in maelstrom missions.
Then the armies need to spread out a bit to capture or contest mission objective.

I mean removing Bobby g from the list probably propels it downwards in a 2k fight because now it it is 1640 points...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I mean removing Bobby g from the list probably propels it downwards in a 2k fight because now it it is 1640 points...

Now throw anything else in those 360 points. The list would not have done as well.

And nobody has yet to comment on the similar situations I brought up like this in the past. At least acknowledge you can't or say "I'll get back to you".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You people realize the same list would've won without the Tactical Marines right?

Unless it had to hold objectives with ObSec or face any vehicles at range. Even 72 Assault Cannon shots with all the rerolls will struggle to kill more than a single Rhino equivalent a turn.

Um no? 3 Razorbacks will inflict 9 wounds under the Rowboat aura, so not including the odd Stormbolter, HK Missiles, and weapons from the Stormraven you should be getting 2 dead Rhinos a turn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For the record, 3 Stormbolters would inflict the last wound under the Rowboat aura. Where are you getting "struggling" from?

So what I said was completely accurate? 72 Assault Cannon shots will struggle to kill two Rhinos in a turn. 72 x .888 x .555 x .5 = 17.74, which is less than two Rhinos.

Of course the Stormraven adds to that, but that wasn't the statement.

The six Lascannons give you another (6 x .888 x .888 x .83 x 3.5 = ) 13.7 REQ wounds, just in case you're wondering.

It isn't accurate because you said struggling. 3 Razorbacks with the aura with Assault Cannons and Storm Bolters kill a Rhino a turn. Is it barely over? Sure, but the average shows no struggling.
So I have no idea what you're defending here. Nobody here has yet to disagree with me that removing either Rowboat or the Razorbacks would've propelled the list downwards performance-wise.

To which I say again, that's not the statement. There are no Storm Bolters in my statement, or more importantly, on the Razorbacks in the list as posted in the OP. Six Razorbacks with Assault Cannons only will not, by odds, kill two Rhinos.

More to the point though, they will not kill two Leman Russes, or a single Baneblade chassis, in a round.

The Tacticals with Lascannons nearly double his anti-tank output, especially if he spends a CP to reroll a bad damage roll. At that point he averages a Baneblade kill a turn. If I'm reading correctly, he tabled a triple Baneblade list in 4 turns, and the liklihood of that happening wihout those lascannons is slim at best.

Point being:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

Probably not. They bring valuable anti-vehicle firepower in Ob-Sec, drop-reducing form.

Scouts top out at Missile Launchers, and the heavy IG tanks are T8. Scouts van infiltrate, but then you're more drops, more exposed, worse armor, and away from the buff bubble.

Intercessors have worse anti-tank, and also force more drops, as they can't be transported in the Rhino.

Anything else loses ob-sec. Devastators look enticing but then the opponent has a clear target, and they die first.

Seems like these missions should've really favored IG armies.

Objective Secured is a useless rule. The same list would've done better with using Devastators.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Objective Secured is a useless rule. The same list would've done better with using Devastators.

Hehe. And the most common army is Space Marines. And everyone knows that you don't take tacticals or scouts because they're both the worst units in the game....

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

Probably not. They bring valuable anti-vehicle firepower in Ob-Sec, drop-reducing form.

Scouts top out at Missile Launchers, and the heavy IG tanks are T8. Scouts van infiltrate, but then you're more drops, more exposed, worse armor, and away from the buff bubble.

Intercessors have worse anti-tank, and also force more drops, as they can't be transported in the Rhino.

Anything else loses ob-sec. Devastators look enticing but then the opponent has a clear target, and they die first.

You can watch one of his games v Chaos on the Warhammer channel on Twitch. The Lascannons had an impact. And all of his units benefited from rerolls from Roboute throughout the game.

I like the idea that somehow Devastators or Scouts could outperform the Tacticals, but that's just on paper. This list won on heavy weapons spread out over things with enough wounds to keep shooting.

 daedalus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Objective Secured is a useless rule. The same list would've done better with using Devastators.

Hehe. And the most common army is Space Marines. And everyone knows that you don't take tacticals or scouts because they're both the worst units in the game....

Scouts are the best troop choice actually.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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

Probably not. They bring valuable anti-vehicle firepower in Ob-Sec, drop-reducing form.

Scouts top out at Missile Launchers, and the heavy IG tanks are T8. Scouts van infiltrate, but then you're more drops, more exposed, worse armor, and away from the buff bubble.

Intercessors have worse anti-tank, and also force more drops, as they can't be transported in the Rhino.

Anything else loses ob-sec. Devastators look enticing but then the opponent has a clear target, and they die first.

You can watch one of his games v Chaos on the Warhammer channel on Twitch. The Lascannons had an impact. And all of his units benefited from rerolls from Roboute throughout the game.

I like the idea that somehow Devastators or Scouts could outperform the Tacticals, but that's just on paper. This list won on heavy weapons spread out over things with enough wounds to keep shooting.

And I think thats part of it. The opponent has two targets, they can shoot the Raven at a -2, or shoot a Razorback with Tacticals inside at the start of the game.

If there are Devaststors, the opponent shoots the Razorback with the Devastators, because its the highest potential Lascannon removal target. But the way it's set up, the opponent has the same targets all the time, possibly optimized by using Razorbacks to block some LOS from any dismounted Tacticals, while the Tacticals get the most out of their Lascannons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Objective Secured is a useless rule. The same list would've done better with using Devastators.

Hehe. And the most common army is Space Marines. And everyone knows that you don't take tacticals or scouts because they're both the worst units in the game....

Scouts are the best troop choice actually.

Not for this list.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Scouts are the best troop choice actually.

I mean, I'd actually normally agree with that. (outside of the scope of the winning list) They're probably in a tie with, or slightly behind Scions for possible best troop in the game. There's a lot of people in this thread who would strongly disagree though.

 daedalus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Scouts are the best troop choice actually.

I mean, I'd actually normally agree with that. (outside of the scope of the winning list) They're probably in a tie with, or slightly behind Scions for possible best troop in the game. There's a lot of people in this thread who would strongly disagree though.

Its sort of moot. Tacs and Scouts are different, and do different things. The key is to use the one that works best for the rest of what you bring, and how you plan to play it.

Hey, I like tacs. These are not my arguments, though I repeat them gleefully.

 daedalus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Scouts are the best troop choice actually.

I mean, I'd actually normally agree with that. (outside of the scope of the winning list) They're probably in a tie with, or slightly behind Scions for possible best troop in the game. There's a lot of people in this thread who would strongly disagree though.

I obviously didn't mean in the entire game, but Scouts are definitely a contender for top 5 in that sorta list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Scouts are the best troop choice actually.

I mean, I'd actually normally agree with that. (outside of the scope of the winning list) They're probably in a tie with, or slightly behind Scions for possible best troop in the game. There's a lot of people in this thread who would strongly disagree though.

Its sort of moot. Tacs and Scouts are different, and do different things. The key is to use the one that works best for the rest of what you bring, and how you plan to play it.

Of course if that were the case, why wasn't this brought up with the list in 6th with Pods and Calgar? You miss consistency here and decide that you want a singular tournament to prove your point.