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.

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.

not at all man - they are one of the best power armor units in the game. The come with a storm bolter and a force weapon for 21 points. And they deep strike for free.

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

not at all man - they are one of the best power armor units in the game. The come with a storm bolter and a force weapon for 21 points. And they deep strike for free.

Not setting the bar very high, but they are OK. Top ranking GK lists have more astra militarum units than power armor units.

Our codex is a 1 trick pony, of: Deep strike 10 pagk, use the stratagem & psychic powers, and fire 40x strength 5, ap-1 shots, ignoring cover and LOS, with some rerolls. Outside of this gimmick you get little out of GK that you can't get in another codex with another army.

21 pts for a unit that has to get close? I'll pass. You're still 1 W, T4, 3+. You just give up 8 more points when the wyverns lay waste to your unit.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tactical marines are identical to devestators. Devs can just take more heavies. They don't have to take 4 and it's much more common to take 2. In a competitive list. It's even better with just 1 heavy weapon because for free you get a signum which makes it bs 2+ and a 5 point upgrade lets you shoot it twice (one time use) with cherub. There is 0 reason to take tactical squads in marine lists. Even less reason to take them when you have guilliman spotting you the command points from a battalion.

They don't have obsec and don't generate as many CP as tacs.

Obj sec doesn't matter vs horde lists. CP can be useful, though, for sure.

Bharring wrote:
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.

Nobody said that Banshees were broken or OP, but that their shooting made them more effective vs targets they shouldn't even want to charge, which math showed was the case against Terminators, a 2+ armor save unit. That was even with using Black Templar Chapter Tactics too so I gave them all Counter Attack. As well, Assault Cannon Terminators are weaker per model because that's 60 points compared to 27.
I don't know what happened with Rangers so I cannot comment.

Also only one doctor telling you that a medicine will kill you might sound like a correct metaphor, but I've got two that'll knock your socks off.
This is more comparable to dentists instead. Remember that marketing campaign that said 9/10 dentists say chewing Trident Gum helps fight plaque buildup after a meal? While that was more a marketing strategy, studies DID show that chewing sugarless gum after a meal did do this. Those 9 dentists have multiple sets of data that provide proof of this. It's a reliable method. What we have with this winning list is the one dentist that disagrees and maybe did one study to back his/her claim, and then another study will be conducted showing theyre wrong.
If you want a more specific example relating to actual doctors, I got you covered as well. Everyone knows that the whole anti-vaccine movement was the work of a quack doctor that wanted to sell his own home remedies and make money, but did you know we still have studies that "pop up" now and then that try to support his claim? These are refuted for a reason.

That's why I go by large amounts of data. This happens once in a while, and sometimes even twice. It's just an off piece of data though. Nothing more and nothing less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

not at all man - they are one of the best power armor units in the game. The come with a storm bolter and a force weapon for 21 points. And they deep strike for free.

They're good. Nothing spectacular but decent mostly because of the Deep Strike off setting any initial mobility issues, as well the fact they can switch into Falcions to give you what is basically a 2 attack Marine with a Storm Bolter and better melee abilities. A real great example of a glass cannon.

 koooaei wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tactical marines are identical to devestators. Devs can just take more heavies. They don't have to take 4 and it's much more common to take 2. In a competitive list. It's even better with just 1 heavy weapon because for free you get a signum which makes it bs 2+ and a 5 point upgrade lets you shoot it twice (one time use) with cherub. There is 0 reason to take tactical squads in marine lists. Even less reason to take them when you have guilliman spotting you the command points from a battalion.

They don't have obsec and don't generate as many CP as tacs.

I havnt had a game in 8th come down to victory points - probably about 20 games now. I hear stories about it though. It's just not very important. More las cannons is more dead stuff. The more of the enemy you kill the less they can kill you/claim objectives. Marines with bolters don't do this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I never said they were the best unit - just one of the best in power armor.

Martel732 wrote:
21 pts for a unit that has to get close? I'll pass. You're still 1 W, T4, 3+. You just give up 8 more points when the wyverns lay waste to your unit.

Yes you're right, mono-Grey Knights are not competitive in the slightest bit. The codex did basically nothing to help GK compete as a stand-alone army. Sprinkle some GK in, with Astra Militarum, and you'll do OK.

I am pretty much at the point of giving up on Grey Knights. We got our codex, and we still can't cut it. We won't see any new models, abilities, powers, etc, until 9th edition. This has been hugely disappointing.

Yes, I understand the temptation to say that power armor GK are better than tacs, but in practice, I don't think the stormbolter and power weapon are worth it. Every 10 cleared wounds are costing you over 200 pts, and you don't have the option to cower in cover.

Fun fact: a Tac Marine killed the same number of Termies as a Banshee inside 12", per model. Twice the shots vs twice as deadly per shot. More if they had SS/TH. You probably were either not part of that conversation, or not remembering it. Same thing for the AC Termie conversation, which was per-model: it was proposed rules where they were the same points per-model.

As for the dentists, you're conflaiting proof with evidence again. Studies provide evidence, not proof. Reliable evidence, done well.

Consuming large amounts of data requires time and expertise. Hence why I ask a doctor for any medical question. This appeal to authority is more in line with that than panels and studies: people are making claims, and other people are pointing to those with a greater record of knowing what they're talking about (tourny winners) making a counterclaim.

Tourny winners aren't a proper board of experts for debating the merits for large amount of data. But they are a set of people who, most likely, understand what they should take to a tourny better than the average forum poster.

If one person runs numbers on (non rigerous) data (and isn't peer reviewed), but his conclusions don't match those of people who have had success "in the field", you don't discount either theory, you investigate further.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marines with Bolters don't kill things off objectives as fast as other things. Marines with specials clear most things off objectives about as fast as many glass-cannon troops, but that's half the quesiton.

The other half, which you seem to miss, is that Marines with Bolters are harder to clear off objectives than the average troop. And, while being cleared off, don't lose much firepower until the last 1-3 guys.

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, I understand the temptation to say that power armor GK are better than tacs, but in practice, I don't think the stormbolter and power weapon are worth it. Every 10 cleared wounds are costing you over 200 pts, and you don't have the option to cower in cover.

No they are worth it - if you have a choice between tacs and PAGK youd take a PAGK everytime. For 2 points you also get a heavy 6 str 4 d3 damage gun too - so there is that. Again I am not saying greyknights are good. GW made sure were wern't good by over-costing out stratagems and making immediate erratas to our stuff that was considered good. The army suffers from the core rules not allowing the whole army to strike as one...you know - kind of like an army would ALWAYS be doing in a real tactical situation. It's totally okay for your whole army to be shooting over mountains on turn 1 though without line of site. It's just another bias as fck edition.

Well, given how fast my power armor units die, I respectfully disagree. I'll cower in cover with my lascannon.

Bharring wrote:

The other half, which you seem to miss, is that Marines with Bolters are harder to clear off objectives than the average troop.

You got on this giant rant about samples, and nonsense, and then make a statement like this.

1. Establish what an average troop statline is.

2. Demonstrate mathematically that they're harder to clear, or to outnumber (as outnumbering troop for troop will get them off of the objective).

I can think of several troop choices in the meta that are far more effective at what you've described than tactical marines.

"Marines with specials clear most things off objectives about as fast as many glass-cannon troops, but that's half the quesiton. "

They also cost a prohibitive amount of points.

"The other half, which you seem to miss, is that Marines with Bolters are harder to clear off objectives than the average troop."

Not for their cost. Just call in basilisks/wyverns. Problem solved.

Martel732 wrote:
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.

Just wait for Sanguinus and Leman Russ.

We Xenos, don't have nor are we gonna have something equivalent to a Primarch

 Galas wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

Just wait for Sanguinus and Leman Russ.

We Xenos, don't have nor are we gonna have something equivalent to a Primarch

I guarantee Sanguinius gives CC buffs, which will be T-totally useless in 8th. Chopping conscripts harder doesn't help.

the part i seem to miss is why would i even shoot at a unit as worthless as 5 tacticals with a single las cannon. its damage per point is pathietc. I think I'll shoot the strom raven first and then start focusing on your razorbacks. which are also fairly easy to kill with the right weapons...you know...the weapons I'm talking about - not bolters.

That's why I went with average, instead of most. I think Tacs are better than most troops, but only better than average at being cleared off.

Some gimmes:
Definitely Harder to clear off:
Conscripts
Guards
Necron Warriors

Definitely easier:
Kroot
Dire Avengers
Wyches
Harlequins
Scouts, sans-Cloak
Rangers
PAGK
Kalabites
Genestealers

There are some debatable/close troops (Fire Warriors, scouts in cover with cloaks, etc), but I'm confident the second list is longer than the first.

You don't shoot at them. They're just there to stop people dumb enough to try to do melee and push deepstrikers away from the Bobby G bullet party. Their main feature is that they die half as fast against wyverns and other AP 0 stuff. Without cover, this scheme loses a lot of appeal.

"Genestealers "

Not if you're getting shot with plasma.

Martel732 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

Just wait for Sanguinus and Leman Russ.

We Xenos, don't have nor are we gonna have something equivalent to a Primarch

I guarantee Sanguinius gives CC buffs, which will be T-totally useless in 8th. Chopping conscripts harder doesn't help.

I assume hes going to be a mega beast...just like russ is going to be. You will have a reroll to hits aura I am sure and maybe a 12 inch reroll charge aura. Will be better than Bobby G in CC though. Which is kinda scary to think off.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
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.

Just wait for Sanguinus and Leman Russ.

We Xenos, don't have nor are we gonna have something equivalent to a Primarch

I guarantee Sanguinius gives CC buffs, which will be T-totally useless in 8th. Chopping conscripts harder doesn't help.

I assume hes going to be a mega beast...just like russ is going to be. You will have a reroll to hits aura I am sure and maybe a 12 inch reroll charge aura. Will be better than Bobby G in CC though. Which is kinda scary to think off.

As I said, useless.

I'm still shocked that people say marines in cover are "cowering" instead of, you know, the actual correct attitude, that marines in cover are showing good tactical sense-- even if you're wearing armor, you present as little of yourself to the enemy as possible any way in order to maximize survival, while trying to ensure the enemy cannot do the same thing.

But I guess people think Marines are fething idiots who just walk up and present their faces to be shot. That does explain a lot of peoples' sucking with marines, though.

@Martel
Which troops are better (per point) than the appropriately-kitted Tac squad at clearing things off objectives?

Fire Warriors will do better at clearing out T4 not-great-armor-saves, typically, than the Tac version (with flamers), I think.

Guardians do a little better vs 2+ saves with high T, but they die much, much faster per point, and do precisely 0 outside 12".

PG/Combi does better than Kalabites or DAs at clearing Termies or other heavy infantry, though.

Melta/Combi will do better at popping vehicles than Conscripts/Guardsmen/FW/etc.

Xenos,
If you had a bunch of lasguns, or other small arms, would you really choose hard targets like Razorbacks over the suggested Dev Squads? Marines are durable, but not *that* durable (to small arms).

Compared to Orks, gaunts, guardsmen, and conscripts that can walk across the board with impunity, yeah, it's cowering. Especially for a chapter like BA, who are supposedly aggressive. Even though they haven't been viable since 5th.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
@Martel
Which troops are better (per point) than the appropriately-kitted Tac squad at clearing things off objectives?

Fire Warriors will do better at clearing out T4 not-great-armor-saves, typically, than the Tac version (with flamers), I think.

Guardians do a little better vs 2+ saves with high T, but they die much, much faster per point, and do precisely 0 outside 12".

PG/Combi does better than Kalabites or DAs at clearing Termies or other heavy infantry, though.

Melta/Combi will do better at popping vehicles than Conscripts/Guardsmen/FW/etc.

Xenos,
If you had a bunch of lasguns, or other small arms, would you really choose hard targets like Razorbacks over the suggested Dev Squads? Marines are durable, but not *that* durable (to small arms).

Firewarriors for sure, because they don't have to move as far and cost far less. They also get to cower in cover, more than likely.

I'm not that familiar with this "clearing objective" capability, because my marines are dead before they really get to do much clearing. After seeing this winning list, I understand now what I've been doing wrong.

The special/combi duo ends up making your 5 marines cost so many points is the problem. And they get laid waste to after firing, what, once?

 Melissia wrote:
I'm still shocked that people say marines in cover are "cowering" instead of, you know, the actual correct attitude, that marines in cover are showing good tactical sense-- even if you're wearing armor, you present as little of yourself to the enemy as possible any way in order to maximize survival, while trying to ensure the enemy cannot do the same thing.

But I guess people think Marines are fething idiots who just walk up and present their faces to be shot. That does explain a lot of peoples' sucking with marines, though.

I was picturing more chest bumps, high fives, and keg stands myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To the people who are saying that the only way the list worked was because of Rowbootay Gillaman, what do you they credit him with doing that is so irreplaceable?

This might sound like a stupid question, but you guys obviously know marines better than I do, so I'm trying to make sure I understand.

Bharring wrote:
That's why I went with average, instead of most. I think Tacs are better than most troops, but only better than average at being cleared off.

Some gimmes:
Definitely Harder to clear off:
Conscripts
Guards
Necron Warriors

Definitely easier:
Kroot
Dire Avengers
Wyches
Harlequins
Scouts, sans-Cloak
Rangers
PAGK
Kalabites
Genestealers

There are some debatable/close troops (Fire Warriors, scouts in cover with cloaks, etc), but I'm confident the second list is longer than the first.

Hummm...nope. This is a vacum example. Harelquins are going to be -1 to wound because of a spiritseer and they have 4+ saves - they also are exceptionally killy and might pay for themselves during the game. Genstealers are going to have catalysts for 5++5++ save - they are also cheap and have 4 attacks each with rending in close combat - they pay for themselves the first turn they come on the board usually (and they would never hold an objective anyways - they are just going to keep charging units) Rangers are straight up harder to remove than tacticals...they all have long range weapons and are suited to camp ojectives (they still suck though) kabalites are going to be in a venom - it's -1 to hit and has invo save...its hard to kill. Scouts also suck but they can infiltrate and when necessary can cost less to do the same job poorly. Witches are terrible but if they are locked in CC with a unit on an objective (which is their design) they are much harder to clear than a tactical squad because you can't shoot them. Kroot are bad I'll give you that - their plight isn't nearly as bad because firewarriros a pretty decent and they have great synergy with their HQ. Kroot are actually worse than tactical marines it seems.

Martel - I said per point.
The combi/special does cost points, but it tends to boost the killing power. So you can choose between more survivability (more bodies) and more killiness (more guns).

The math last edition was combi/pg 5man cost the same as 7 DAs. Now combi/pg 5man costs the same as 5 DAs, combis are better, plasma is better, melta is better in some ways, and split weapons are better.

Try clearing Tac Marines off an objective with Kalabites sometime. I don't think it'll work out the way you think it will.

No one where I play is using Kalabites. They are using mass IG artillery. Or bobby G, but with not as many screening crap units, which might be why they aren't quite as good. There is one guy with Bobby G/conscripts though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Martel - I said per point.
The combi/special does cost points, but it tends to boost the killing power. So you can choose between more survivability (more bodies) and more killiness (more guns).

The math last edition was combi/pg 5man cost the same as 7 DAs. Now combi/pg 5man costs the same as 5 DAs, combis are better, plasma is better, melta is better in some ways, and split weapons are better.

Try clearing Tac Marines off an objective with Kalabites sometime. I don't think it'll work out the way you think it will.

I don't care about Eldar troops. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about cheap bodies that basically don't give up any points when they die.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'm still shocked that people say marines in cover are "cowering" instead of, you know, the actual correct attitude, that marines in cover are showing good tactical sense-- even if you're wearing armor, you present as little of yourself to the enemy as possible any way in order to maximize survival, while trying to ensure the enemy cannot do the same thing.

But I guess people think Marines are fething idiots who just walk up and present their faces to be shot. That does explain a lot of peoples' sucking with marines, though.

I was picturing more chest bumps, high fives, and keg stands myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To the people who are saying that the only way the list worked was because of Rowbootay Gillaman, what do you they credit him with doing that is so irreplaceable?

This might sound like a stupid question, but you guys obviously know marines better than I do, so I'm trying to make sure I understand.

No, it also worked because stormravens are really good, and so are asscannon razors. Lascannons are good, too, but this list didn't really have that many of those. Bobby G is the ultimate sheriff; hey babysits all the guns, allowing them to reroll everything and if something does it close enough to assault, he murders it instantly. Marines can obviously roll with the captain/lieutenant combo, which is about half as good for about half the cost. I guess I'm gonna base future lists off this, although I don't own a single asscannon razor. I'l probably use preds instead.

Rangers? Harder to remove than Tacs? In cover, they might approach it per-model (remember: T3 and poor save). Out of cover, nowhere close. But they cost a hell of a lot more, per model, than Marines.

Harlequin ShadowSeers aren't free. Further, a 4++ is nice against Lascannons and such, but until you have a -2 or -3 (in cover) on every shot, Marines are still much more survivable per model. Even with a ShadowSeer, Harlequins will typically be less durable than Marines. And, again, Marines are cheaper.

Of course Harlequins and Genestealers are better in CC. It's what they were made for. The immediate discussion was about being called out for claiming marines were better than *average* at not being cleared off an objective. Both are much, much worse. Overall, I'd put Harlequins in about the same league as Tac Marines. But not for ability to stay on an objective.

why are we talking about troops ability to clear things off of objectives...why are we talking about objecitves - they are almost irrelevent in 8th. the games are over in 3 turns.

2 things in this game matter. Damage per point and defense per point. Number of wounds and number of shots are the most valueable things in the game because the force multiply the best.

Like imagine if guilliman was an AM unit...realistically...gaurd armies would kill you in 2 turns almost automatically. Put that in a marine list though and it takes 3-4 turns.