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.

Bharring wrote:On a per-cost basis, Marines are still better than most of the other troops in the game. As stated, for specific purposes, there are troops that outperform them in that role. The role you're looking at is "cheap conscript" - of course conscripts are better. The role the list was looking at was more than "cheap conscript", though. And Conscripts couldn't have done everything Marines did for that player.

It is my understanding that some people believe that there's apparently nothing that conscripts can't do and apparently their every opponent takes them and no one can deal with squads of 5̶0̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶l̶s̶ 30 models and they should only be able to be 3̶0̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶l̶s̶ 10 models large and then finally we'll hear the end of it.

Or some people are just so traumatized that this isn't going to be a thing we're ever really free of hearing the end of, because it's become a borderline religious point.

10 man guard units are pretty terrifying for melee power armor as well, actually. Not for this winning list, of course, I realize.

Bharring wrote:
Tacticals are garbage. For 13 points you only get about twice the durability of awesome units like Dire Avengers - which are dirt cheap at 17ppm!

Guardians are obviously the better screen squad, as they're only 9 ppm. So you can have more squads for fewer points! Only 90 points for a min Guardian squad, whereas Marines have to pay a whopping 65 points! How unfair is that? And for those 90 points, those 10 guardians take almost as much firepower to remove as those 5 Tacs! But the real kicker is Guardians can take one of those OP heavys like a Brightlance! S8 36" range anti-tank doomieness! So you have a moderately survivable 10-man unit that can throw a big shot down-range - take a couple of those, and how can Marine plaryers compete!

/sarcasm

You almost did not need the tag.

This discussion gets into the question of how we consider terms like "good" and "bad" when talking about units. I think we are all seeing these terms are ideals more than absolutes, and express value relative to other units based on points cost.

In other words, it's useful for comparing units in isolation to one another. It's not useful for discussing how a list might perform based on the units selected.

As slayerfan pointed out, sure, an optimal build might look to Devastators, which would allow the army to maximize it's use of heavy weapons. From this standpoint, Tacticals are "bad," they were technically not the best option as they did not offer the same number of shots / bonuses to shooting.

At the same time, the list was "good" enough to take all comers. The straight up comparison between Tacticals and Devastators doesn't give us any insight into how the list would perform within the tournament, in part because it's not possible to account for all the other factors: overall list design, choice of mission, opponent selection, and luck with the dice.

So the "good" / "bad" dichotomy is really just a way of comparing several units in their ideal form, prior to battle. While this approach may be useful in choosing between certain units, it's more of a guideline than anything. The trouble is the inherent judgement of the terms, "bad" implies an army is at a disadvantage for including it, and "good" implies your army stands a better chance of winning for including it.

Horrible, horrible logic to buy into. The thing I hate about Mathhammer is the groupthink that goes along with it and the way certain units are treated as irredeemable as a result of some numbers. Likewise, this silly oversimplification around "good" / "bad" leads to the impression the game's flaws are far worse than what they are. By limiting ourselves to the most optimized lists out there, we lose our appreciation for the way the game is played, which is NEVER completely optimized.

By way of illustration, the "baddest" list I ever put together was in 5th edition. It was a Spawn Rush list, where I took a Chaos Lord, 2 min sized squads of CSM, and 33 Chaos Spawn in units of 3. Completely legal list at the time. For those who don't remember, Spawn were considered the worst unit in the Codex at the time because they had a mindless rule that forced automatic movement. They also had no saves to any wounds (I think each model had 5 back then.)

I won 10 games straight with this list before retiring it out of boredom. The army was autowin, the only real choice I had was where to place the Spawn at the start of the battle. Someone calculated the math for me, it would have taken somewhere around 420 hits with Bolter shots to actually kill all those Spawn - which is not easy to do against beasts that move 18 inches a turn. For some reason, the Mathhammer people missed that - which suggests the dichotomy is actually subjective, not quantitative.

Games like Lawrence's remind us "good" usually does not mean "best."

Do you really think the ACs alone allowed him to table a triple Baneblade list in 4 turns?

Not that 5xLC alone could table that either. But they were certainly part of it.

 daedalus wrote:

Bharring wrote:On a per-cost basis, Marines are still better than most of the other troops in the game. As stated, for specific purposes, there are troops that outperform them in that role. The role you're looking at is "cheap conscript" - of course conscripts are better. The role the list was looking at was more than "cheap conscript", though. And Conscripts couldn't have done everything Marines did for that player.

It is my understanding that some people believe that there's apparently nothing that conscripts can't do and apparently their every opponent takes them and no one can deal with squads of 5̶0̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶l̶s̶ 30 models and they should only be able to be 3̶0̶ ̶m̶o̶d̶e̶l̶s̶ 10 models large and then finally we'll hear the end of it.

Or some people are just so traumatized that this isn't going to be a thing we're ever really free of hearing the end of, because it's become a borderline religious point.

On this forum a unit can only be one of two things:

Insanely OP, to which we should shun it for the pariah that it is.
Insanely garbage, to which we should shun it for the pariah that it is.

There is no middle ground. If it doesn't break the game, it's not worth the time.

Bharring wrote:
Do you really think the ACs alone allowed him to table a triple Baneblade list in 4 turns?

Not that 5xLC alone could table that either. But they were certainly part of it.

He probably had 6X LC, actually.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?

#DidNotWinTheTournament

IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me

"Victory requires no explanation."

The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.

However, if those non-popular options were that viable, don't you think they would appear more often than like every 10 tournaments with dozens of people playing? Your argument doesn't make sense based on that merit alone.

Lots of people take good units, cram them together, and inelegantly mash them to the field while failing to achieve some sort of cohesive synergy. It's not surprising that Tacticals often get overlooked or don't perform well, because they're a trickier unit to get value out of. The number of times I read "my Tacticals sit on objectives" I think makes my point. Many players don't know what to do with them, their experience is lackluster, and they go on choose something else that has a more obvious role.

In the winning list, they had a clear job to do, and fulfilled some additional secondary roles alongside the Guilliman-Razorbacks. They fit the army, and performed well enough to help net the win. What works, works.

You're still avoiding the question. If it actually worked on a consistent basis, it would be seen more at tournaments, correct?

Mecha: I think the middle ground is actually where it's both. Plenty of things have been that over the years...

Tech: One of my points is the measure of "good" vs "garbage". There are over a dozen factions in this game, and most have 2+ troops choices. Tac Marine are likely in the top 5 for choices. Most whole factions don't have a better troop choice. So it may not be the best troop in the game, but that shouldn't get it auto-labeled "garbage".

The other point is I think a lot of the detractors are missing the strengths of the TAC marine. In large part because they've "proven" that they're "garbage", so how could they have any? I'm not arguing that they're better Conscripts than Conscripts. I'm saying there are some things they do better.

Martel:
When I play, I have a lot more options for dealing with a 10-man Guard unit with 1 HW than a 5man Tac squad with 1 HW.

 Blackie wrote:
Number 1 list has 6 units of TAC marines? And there a lot of players that keep saying that TAC marines are garbage. Not mediocre or average, but pure garbage.

If they were pure garbage they wouldn't fit a 1st place tournament list in such high numbers. 6 squads are really a lot, tipycally you don't even spam 6 squads of decent units but only the real good ones.

The majority of troops in this edition may worth something only with the specific buffs that make them work and a list that is built around them.

TAC marines are certainly not great but with some specific buffs and appropriate lists they can be pretty solid. Also conscripts are totally ineffective if they aren't supported by commissars and a strong AM or imperium soup list. Or ork boyz which become a threat and a decent troop only in huge numbers, with tons of buffing characters and an entire list that lacks vehicles and multiwounds models (maybe only cheap artillery) in order to nullify all the opponent's anti tank.

TAC marines are not different than the majority of other troops choices, they're not great but combined with other effective units, and SM have several powerful options, they surely find a room even in super competitive lists. No garbage units can be part of those cheesy lists.

If you're using one tournament as your proof, you have no understanding of how statistics work nor do you care about consistency.

As for consitancy or those saying "Proof my faction sucks!": with a dozen or more factions, a list of top 15 would probably not include at least 1 faction even if the game were perfectly balanced (read: each matchup a 50/50). Numbers don't work that way. Not enough data to be statistically significant, even if it were rigerous.

Bharring wrote:
Mecha: I think the middle ground is actually where it's both. Plenty of things have been that over the years...

Tech: One of my points is the measure of "good" vs "garbage". There are over a dozen factions in this game, and most have 2+ troops choices. Tac Marine are likely in the top 5 for choices. Most whole factions don't have a better troop choice. So it may not be the best troop in the game, but that shouldn't get it auto-labeled "garbage".

The other point is I think a lot of the detractors are missing the strengths of the TAC marine. In large part because they've "proven" that they're "garbage", so how could they have any? I'm not arguing that they're better Conscripts than Conscripts. I'm saying there are some things they do better.

Martel:
When I play, I have a lot more options for dealing with a 10-man Guard unit with 1 HW than a 5man Tac squad with 1 HW.

This coming from the 6th/7th Eldar apologist of the forum. We don't care.

Well, BA don't, because there's like 20 of such unit and I can't engage that many targets.

" I'm saying there are some things they do better. "

But better than guardsmen? I know the melee point, but I've basically written melee off in 8th, and winning lists like this reinforce my thoughts on that.

So with melee discounted, it's about cheap bodies with guns that hide bigger guns.

I can't imagine how you have problems with tac marines but not guardsmen.

I think that those dismissing one tourny as not statistically significant are missing something - the more damning evidence is appeal to authority.

It's only one tourny, so the rankings don't offer a ton of data. But the top 5 players at the tournament probably understand the game better than the average person - even the average person in this conversation. If they assert that a unit isn't garbage, it's not proof the unit isn't garbage, but it is notable evidence so. And if they brought a list with lots of them, that's a very good sign that they are making that assertion.

Bharring wrote:
I think that those dismissing one tourny as not statistically significant are missing something - the more damning evidence is appeal to authority.

It's only one tourny, so the rankings don't offer a ton of data. But the top 5 players at the tournament probably understand the game better than the average person - even the average person in this conversation. If they assert that a unit isn't garbage, it's not proof the unit isn't garbage, but it is notable evidence so. And if they brought a list with lots of them, that's a very good sign that they are making that assertion.

I'm not saying this list he fielding isn't a great list. I'm saying the tac marines are largely interchangeable with other bullet soakers. I'm also saying that this kind of list is not accessible to BA or SW, and probably will never be. So those factions get to line up and die like little bitches because they can't plow through the 200 geq bodies without being manticored off the table.

This list does a pretty good end around with that problem, but again, it's not accessible to most meq players.

I don't think I've had an 8th ed game where there was no CC. But then even when I'm planning on CC, I still need to bring some guns to make it happen.

Slayer,
You can double-discount me, as my second army is Blue Marines! Granted, I don't have or want Roboute G. But as I'm both dirty CWE and poster-boy brokenly good UltraMarines, I guess nothing I say might be relevant?

I've had a lot of CC, but most of it was meaningless chopping of bullet soakers. The ability to leave combat at will is killing power armor assault lists.

Remember the fundamental problem is that your opponent chooses what you assault, but you get to choose what you shoot.

Bharring wrote:
I think that those dismissing one tourny as not statistically significant are missing something - the more damning evidence is appeal to authority.

It's only one tourny, so the rankings don't offer a ton of data. But the top 5 players at the tournament probably understand the game better than the average person - even the average person in this conversation. If they assert that a unit isn't garbage, it's not proof the unit isn't garbage, but it is notable evidence so. And if they brought a list with lots of them, that's a very good sign that they are making that assertion.

Using Appeal To Authority is literally a logical fallacy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I don't think I've had an 8th ed game where there was no CC. But then even when I'm planning on CC, I still need to bring some guns to make it happen.

Slayer,
You can double-discount me, as my second army is Blue Marines! Granted, I don't have or want Roboute G. But as I'm both dirty CWE and poster-boy brokenly good UltraMarines, I guess nothing I say might be relevant?

I'm discounting you because you're the poster child of the Eldar apologist from 6th/7th edition.

Sylagistically, appeal to authority is not provably true. Hence the 'Logical Fallacy' aspect.

For evidence, as opposed to proofs, it is relevant data.

This means, when you're trying to show something it's valid. When you're trying to prove something, it's not.

If a doctor tells you "Don't take medicine X. It will kill you", it doesn't *prove* that medicine X will kill you. But it does provide sufficient evidence for most cases that medicine X will kill you.

The difference between proofs and evidence is both huge and critical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer,
This toxicity is what kills communities. I spent (second half of) 6th and all of 7th saying Eldar OP. But I didn't agree with some of the crazier positions

Things like a termie with an AC being weaker than a jetbike with a scatter laser, model-for-model).

Or CWE Rangers being midelessly broken.

Or Banshees being OP because their pistols having pseudorending.

(All actual conversations that went on).

I did say Eldar were OP. I was very direct about it. But if you label everyone who disagrees on the more extreme points as an Eldar Apologist, you can't have a rational discussion. You can't refine just how OP they are, or which units are actually broken.

If you truly believe anyone that thought that 6th ed Banshees weren't OP on their own can't have a valid opinion, it's going to be hard to have a constructive conversation.

Bharring wrote:

Tech: One of my points is the measure of "good" vs "garbage". There are over a dozen factions in this game, and most have 2+ troops choices. Tac Marine are likely in the top 5 for choices. Most whole factions don't have a better troop choice. So it may not be the best troop in the game, but that shouldn't get it auto-labeled "garbage".

The other point is I think a lot of the detractors are missing the strengths of the TAC marine. In large part because they've "proven" that they're "garbage", so how could they have any? I'm not arguing that they're better Conscripts than Conscripts. I'm saying there are some things they do better.

Once someone reduces the quality of a unit to a set of labels, people determine value based on the labels themselves. Some labels are good, some labels are bad.

In this way, anytime there's a rating system for units, it's really only talking about "good" / "bad." Again, horrible logic to buy into.

Reverse the unit selection process, think about list building. All of my lists are built around a theme, right now it happens to be "maximize lascannon shots because they kill the most stuff, and maximize rerolls because Black Legion does that really well." That means I will select units that can use Lascannons, and I will emphasize things that are mobile - so I can keep everyone close to Abaddon.

I took Predators instead of Havocs because Predators will keep more Lascannons on the table as they take wounds.

I dropped Noise Marines and started taking CSMs because Noise Marines can't take Lascannons. I took large CSM squads because that makes it harder to remove Lascannons. Even when I lose 5 models to morale, there's still 2 Lascannons there (unlike with a 10 man squad, which might disappear.)

I dropped Heldrakes for Helbrutes because Helbrutes can take Lascannons. Then I dropped Helbrutes for Rapier Weapons Batteries because I get more Lascannons with them.

I dropped Combi-Plasma Terminators because deep striking puts them out of Abaddon's reroll bubble and they can't take Lascannons. I replaced them with Cultists to screen the CSMs from charges.

As a consequence, I get 22 rerollable Lascannon shots a turn with 8 command points. Opponents are forced to march up the board to come to me, while I kill their tanks at a rate higher than what they can kill mine. The units that do reach my army are battered and my CSMs are enough to deal with them - not optimized for dealing with them, but enough.

"Good" / "Bad" does not enter into how units are selected for the army. Not saying it's not part of it, but it's a small part compared to "does the unit fit the criteria." It's nice not to be locked into a one-dimensional way of thinking about list building.

Despite all the flack GW gets, sometimes they've balanced things such a way that it's really a decision.

In 6th/7th, Guardians vs DAs were "which do I want", not "This one is better". But Storm Guardians were clearly worse. And SL Windriders were clearly better.

Likewise, in 7th, Dread vs Wraithlord were very equivelent, despite having very different rules. Each was better in different ways.

For the choice to be about the role is idea. For instance, scouts should be picked if you want a weaker unit that could get up closer, or snipers, Tacs were better if you wanted troops to fight battles (notable exception - at times, certain chapter Scouts were actually better boltgunners than Tacs, and someone won a GT with Scout Bolter-spam).

I think that there will always be "OP" options (SL Windriders) and "Trash" options (7th Ed Wyches). But most things have at least some tradeoffs. However, I don't see how Tacs could reasonably be listed as a "Trash" option unless all but 2 or 3 options were also listed as "Trash". And then it loses almost all meaning.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?

#DidNotWinTheTournament

IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me

"Victory requires no explanation."

The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.

However, if those non-popular options were that viable, don't you think they would appear more often than like every 10 tournaments with dozens of people playing? Your argument doesn't make sense based on that merit alone.

Lots of people take good units, cram them together, and inelegantly mash them to the field while failing to achieve some sort of cohesive synergy. It's not surprising that Tacticals often get overlooked or don't perform well, because they're a trickier unit to get value out of. The number of times I read "my Tacticals sit on objectives" I think makes my point. Many players don't know what to do with them, their experience is lackluster, and they go on choose something else that has a more obvious role.

In the winning list, they had a clear job to do, and fulfilled some additional secondary roles alongside the Guilliman-Razorbacks. They fit the army, and performed well enough to help net the win. What works, works.

You're still avoiding the question. If it actually worked on a consistent basis, it would be seen more at tournaments, correct?

And you're here in bad faith, because I just addressed that.

I know I won't convince you of my position, but I don't have to. I do believe you've displayed enough head-in-sand behavior to probably lose some credibility. And maybe the next time Tacticals are being talked about in the tactica forum, a few more people will choose to ignore you and you're bizarre hatred of the unit.

On the flip side, some positivity!:

At least this tournament showed that sufficient skill can trump powerful units, so even in the worse case scenarios you do stand a chance. Also footsloggers might actually have a place in the meta, rather than be seen as comically crap.

Dunno about you but for me that is great news, since it means I can have a genuine challenge while also being able to run actual footslogging armies (I dislike having to mount everything on jump packs or transports).

Dire avengers got a point reduction in their codex. And gardians got a lot of strategem support and special rules. Tacitcals have now been elevated to worst unit in the game.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?

#DidNotWinTheTournament

IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me

"Victory requires no explanation."

The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.

However, if those non-popular options were that viable, don't you think they would appear more often than like every 10 tournaments with dozens of people playing? Your argument doesn't make sense based on that merit alone.

Lots of people take good units, cram them together, and inelegantly mash them to the field while failing to achieve some sort of cohesive synergy. It's not surprising that Tacticals often get overlooked or don't perform well, because they're a trickier unit to get value out of. The number of times I read "my Tacticals sit on objectives" I think makes my point. Many players don't know what to do with them, their experience is lackluster, and they go on choose something else that has a more obvious role.

In the winning list, they had a clear job to do, and fulfilled some additional secondary roles alongside the Guilliman-Razorbacks. They fit the army, and performed well enough to help net the win. What works, works.

You're still avoiding the question. If it actually worked on a consistent basis, it would be seen more at tournaments, correct?

And you're here in bad faith, because I just addressed that.

I know I won't convince you of my position, but I don't have to. I do believe you've displayed enough head-in-sand behavior to probably lose some credibility. And maybe the next time Tacticals are being talked about in the tactica forum, a few more people will choose to ignore you and you're bizarre hatred of the unit.

Are you for real with this? That list is 100% dependent on Guilliman. Only Ultramarines can run an army anything like this. Are you suggesting that Grey Knights, Blood Angels, Dark Angels, and any other successor chapter can get the same mileage out of tactical marines as Ultramarines can, with Guilliman?

Quit being disingenuous for 5 seconds and really think about it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

It doesn't PROVE your point but rather mine. If there were in fact effective strategies, why aren't they showing up at a greater percentage?

#DidNotWinTheTournament

IOW: I cannot argue the point made to me

"Victory requires no explanation."

The logic behind your argument has an obvious, giant, gaping hole in it, and the counter is easy: Popular options are not necessarily the only viable ones. Tactical squads may not be popular in tournaments, but that doesn't meant they aren't viable. Players can come to the table with different armies than what you yourself would bring, and make it work.

However, if those non-popular options were that viable, don't you think they would appear more often than like every 10 tournaments with dozens of people playing? Your argument doesn't make sense based on that merit alone.

Lots of people take good units, cram them together, and inelegantly mash them to the field while failing to achieve some sort of cohesive synergy. It's not surprising that Tacticals often get overlooked or don't perform well, because they're a trickier unit to get value out of. The number of times I read "my Tacticals sit on objectives" I think makes my point. Many players don't know what to do with them, their experience is lackluster, and they go on choose something else that has a more obvious role.

In the winning list, they had a clear job to do, and fulfilled some additional secondary roles alongside the Guilliman-Razorbacks. They fit the army, and performed well enough to help net the win. What works, works.

You're still avoiding the question. If it actually worked on a consistent basis, it would be seen more at tournaments, correct?

And you're here in bad faith, because I just addressed that.

I know I won't convince you of my position, but I don't have to. I do believe you've displayed enough head-in-sand behavior to probably lose some credibility. And maybe the next time Tacticals are being talked about in the tactica forum, a few more people will choose to ignore you and you're bizarre hatred of the unit.

You literally said #didnotwinthetournament and said the unit works in certain lists. Those certain lists pop up every few tournaments once in a blue moon.

Is the unit really effective if that's the case, or is it just a statistical anomaly and the person just did very well? Based off numbers, it's gonna be the latter. You're ignoring the sheer numbers and just saying it worked at one tournament, and thats your proof. That's actual head-in-the-sand behavior, by ignoring everything but the one piece of evidence you have.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dire avengers got a point reduction in their codex. And gardians got a lot of strategem support and special rules. Tacitcals have now been elevated to worst unit in the game.

Pretty sure power armor GKs are worse.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Dire avengers got a point reduction in their codex. And gardians got a lot of strategem support and special rules. Tacitcals have now been elevated to worst unit in the game.

Pretty sure power armor GKs are worse.

PAGK are the best non-HQ units in our codex. Not saying much. But still.

EDIT- wait, no, the best unit is the storm raven.

@Xeno,
That's the kind of extremism I'm referring to.

Are they really worse than:
PAGKs?
Wyches?
Rangers?

And you expanded from Troops to Units...
Vespids?
Vangaurd Veterans?
Tac Termies?

"Wyches"

I'd actually kill for their ability to stay in CC.

Let me give you the normal work flow for my marines in general. Kill some useless chaff units -> die to shooting. Rinse and repeat until all marines are gone. The obvious solution to this is quite trying to act like a balanced force and just shoot back, which is exactly what the winning list did. Kudos to him for sure. The non-vanilla chapters are not going to be nearly as good at this scheme.

(Also, lets see what happens with the CWE dex. I'm unsure that Guardians are now better than Tacs just because of those stratagems. And DAs we don't know if they're 10ppm or 15ppm - the first would be broken, the second wouldn't be better than Tacs.

But that should be relegated to the CWE threads.)