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.

The Demons 2++ rerollable might not have been obvious, but several variations of the CWE 6e/7e 2++ rerollable were immediately obvious.

But then, CWE had WK, Serpent Spam, and then SL Windriders which were all also obviously OP in the same books.

If your set of theories and knowledge say "This should never happen", but you see examples of it happening, it's time to reexamine those theories and knowledge.

If the claim is that AM (built and played by a highly skilled player) is statistically better and will win, statistically, almost all matches over time, we don't have the data to disprove that (although the current data does refute that, not strongly enough to be conclusive).

But the claim is 'Should basically never lose a game if they build the right list'.

Throw in some fairly supportable assumptions:
-At a large GT, there will be, lets say, 5 or more IG lists built right
-An army that should basically never lose should at least rank in the top 15

Even with those - incredibly weak - assumptions, we now know at least 5 of every top 15 should be IG. If not, one of our assumptions is wrong.

Now, look at tournies since IG dropped. Are 5 of the 15 in each tourny OP?

If not, which assumptions are most likely wrong?

That's how you do proofs. And none of those 3 assumptions are strong enough to actually prove anything. All are wrong in some way.

Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are proving my point for me. You attribute soup success to the units married with AM codex/index. While AM comprise 80-90% of the list in most cases. And you don't see players just replacing the AM elements with space marines or whatever other imperial faction you wish. It is always AM. Case and point. AM are OP.

I don't know what proofs you want? I can prove a lemon russ is more efficient than a preditor - that conscripts are more efficient than tactical marines. I can prove that a shadowsword has more firepower than a space marine falchion which is supposed to have 2 volcano cannons compared to one AND chapter traits can make it EVEN BETTER.

There is practically unlimited proof unless you are being willfully blind to it.

Let's get this out of the way - you may be right about the Codex's power level eventually - but you clearly have no idea what the words "mathematical" and "fact" mean.

Where are you getting these numbers now, 80-90% of mostly AM? ...where are you getting the "data" on what people are replacing units with other units on? You cannot prove ANYTHING you are saying hah.

Are you disagreeing with me that imperial soup lists aren't mostly imperial guard? I am confused...what is your angle here? are you trying to confuse me with semantics?

Lets clear this up right now. Are tournament winning soup lists mostly imperial guard or something else? Because them being mostly imperial guard is something I would call a fact. The data that they are winning more than other armies I would also call a fact.

Confuse you with semantics? ...you are the one making specific numerical claims that you cannot, in any way, prove. Winning Soup armies containing mostly AM? ...I'm willing to bet that is correct, but you said 80-90% and the FACT is you have no idea. You are the one that claimed to have "mathematical fact", and you don't have anything remotely close...

Further are you using the ITC as your proof / "fact" that "they are winning more than other armies"?

Beyond that, as has been stated over and over - these so-called "facts" you have and the relevance to the current AM Codex, of which you have indisputable ZERO data on, is not transferable.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IG right now should basically never lose a game if they build the right list.

I don't think anyone is denying IG aren't really strong and got a boost from the Index to the Codex...but hyperbole like this is ridiculous and does nothing to further the conversation.

People said the exact same things when Eldar and Tau got their books in 6th and 7th. All of this had happened before and will happen again.

Posting nonsense like they'll never ever lose is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on dakka, and I witnessed the birth of the CRASSUS meme.

No this is progress to me...you agree that the AM codex is OP? to what degree yet you aren't certain? I think we are closer in opinion than you think then. I think this is worse than 7th eldar and 6th tau though. way worse than 5th GK.

I've never denied the power of the Guard this edition. They received a lot of buffs, most of them not warranted (unfortunately, several weak units didn't get the love they needed). Overpowered, undercosted, whatever words you want to use accurately describe the power of the Guard. As a full codex, I'd rank them #1 in factions, but other codices have builds that rival the best of the IG. Tournament results show this to be true.

Every time a new overpowered codex gets released, everyone immediately claims its more of a gap than a previous overpowered codex. There's no good way to measure that. I started in 5th so I never witnessed Chaos 3.5, but the GK, SW, and Necron codices of 5th were very strong, the 6th ed Necron codex propelled the game to a new level with the decurion, only made worse by the likes of the Eldar and Tau codices.

Plus, what good does it do to argue over which codex gap is the largest leap? There's no way to measure it.

Ultimately, claiming the Guard are literally unbeatable is hyperbolic nonsense.

Martel732 wrote:
Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

This is also the "alpha strike" edition where you can deep strike without scatter on any turn, and assaulting a tank - even without causing any damage, will neutralize its shooting.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've never seen such blatant disregard for balance

Given GW's loooooooooooooooooooooong history of terrible balance, if this is the worst balanced book you've ever seen, how much did you play previous editions?. Are we going to say that the current IG codex is definitively less balanced than something like say...damn near the entirety of 7E as a whole (between Eldar & Necrons, Gladius, 2++ rerollable invisible deathstars, etc)? 4E Eldar and 3.5E CSM? 5E Space Wolves & GK's? 2E Eldar & Space Wolves? 6E Eldar & Tau? There's a very long list of broken books, I don't think anything has quite hit the levels of balance absurdity 7th peaked at.

2++ reroll stars weren't blatant - they were more subtle. It doesn't just jump right out of the page at you. You had to do a little research to really find the combo. IG stuff is out of the box so much better and clear right in front of you...I didn't play second edition man I'm not sure I was alive yet. I was born in 86 - was I alive yet? I starting in 3rd or 4th edition and didn't get serious about the game until 5th. I saw the blood angels then and the GK then. They were really powerful but the gap was not like this. IG right now should basically never lose a game if they build the right list.

The 2++ reroll stuff was more subtle because it required the use of psychic powers, but that and Invisibility are both far more broken than anything 8E has as yet. Lets also be honest, Scatterbikes and Wraithknights or Necron Decurion's and Wraiths or Gladius detachments weren't exactly spectacularly subtle either, those hopped out of the pages right at everyone as soon as they were seen, as have many other things with many other books in many other editions. I remember 4E Skimmerspam where you couldn't kill Eldar tanks because they could only be hit on 6's in melee, could only be glanced, and you rolled 2D6 pick the lowest for damage, and they could take wargear to ignore the Skimmer downsides (so whereas you need about 18 BS3 Lascannons to average a kill on a Russ, you needed over 100 to kill a Falcon for example). There's been lots of balance sillyness in this game throughout time, and 8E hasn't yet reached the levels of some of the sillier stuff in previous editions. It may yet, but we're a bit off still, most of the big issues with IG appear to be army construction meta issues with Soup and CP's, with a handful of codex costing concerns, as opposed to fundamentally broken stuff like Seerstars or the like.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are proving my point for me. You attribute soup success to the units married with AM codex/index. While AM comprise 80-90% of the list in most cases. And you don't see players just replacing the AM elements with space marines or whatever other imperial faction you wish. It is always AM. Case and point. AM are OP.

I don't know what proofs you want? I can prove a lemon russ is more efficient than a preditor

In what role against what targets? Against weeny infantry, sure the Russ is better, however there certainly isn't a Russ variant that's going to match a Quadlas Predator for long range tank/monster hunting capability. Meanwhile, compare a Stalker to a Hydra and we can see the Hydra gets 2 additional shots and a heavy bolter, but that HB is mostly useless and cant engage multiple air targets with its autocannons the way the Stalker can while the BS difference equalizes out the Hydra's 2 additional shots, but the Hydra is T6 vs the Stalker's T8 (why is a Rhino chassis AA tank almost identical in resiliency to a Leman Russ?) and the difference in cost is IIRC 6 points? The IG codex has its fair share of weirdness and dump units.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

This is also the "alpha strike" edition where you can deep strike without scatter on any turn, and assaulting a tank - even without causing any damage, will neutralize its shooting.

I hope you're not seriously implying that anyone will get a turn 1 charge off on a manticore... Like, one of the many reasons AM is as good as it is is that they have the best screening units in the game. You don't get a turn one charge on anything useful, period.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

This is also the "alpha strike" edition where you can deep strike without scatter on any turn, and assaulting a tank - even without causing any damage, will neutralize its shooting.

They don't physically allow you to reach their tanks with cheap screens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

This is also the "alpha strike" edition where you can deep strike without scatter on any turn, and assaulting a tank - even without causing any damage, will neutralize its shooting.

I hope you're not seriously implying that anyone will get a turn 1 charge off on a manticore... Like, one of the many reasons AM is as good as it is is that they have the best screening units in the game. You don't get a turn one charge on anything useful, period.

You don't get a turn 4 charge, and by then, you are out of BA. Because it takes that long to chop the screens.

That is false...a command russ with a battle cannon and a las cannon is a far better tank hunter than a quad las pred and I don't know why you wouldnt just thorw on 2 HB just because you can. It's also tougher and has more wounds. Cost only 9 more points without them though. And in this form not only is it better at killing tanks - it's better at killing everything by a much larger margin.

... Or you could go with 5 or 6 Tac squads with a Lascannon.

It'd be interesting to discuss why that works, as opposed to whether or not it works.

Bharring wrote:
... Or you could go with 5 or 6 Tac squads with a Lascannon.

It'd be interesting to discuss why that works, as opposed to whether or not it works.

It's actually super boring. The lascannon is a way to project force beyond screens of cheap chaff that marines don't have access to, nor viable solutions to directly engage. Even though marine fluff, for those that care, is full of marines laying waste to hordes of chaff. Yes, they made the aggressor, but that model is a complete failure.

The range of the lascannon means the tac squad can cower in cover the entire game getting a free bump from 3+ armor to 2+ armor, halving the casualties from two of the most offensive weapon systems, wyverns and mortars. This is far less effective vs basilisks and manticores, but you are counting on the 6 undercosted asscannon razors and the stormraven to suck up that fire. The bolters don't matter, nor does the assault ability. The other 4 marines in the squad could have no weapons at all and the list would play EXACTLY the same. That's why I say they aren't worth 13 ppm. They are a really expensive wound for a lascannon.

The 8th ed meta has reduced my armory to very few pieces of equipment that matter: lascannons, typhoon launchers, asscannons, and maybe a couple others. Melta is dead. Powerfists are dead. Thunderhammers are dead. Flamers are dead. Plasma with no rerolls is dead, so I can't use any characters that don't give those precious rerolls to shoot.

Cheap screens (that are always magically immune to psychology), like scatterbikes, have managed to make 85% of my codex mean nothing. Bravo GW.

Is there no more discussion to be had about the "First Warhammer40k GT results"?

Made new thread that's more relevant.

 Xenomancers wrote:
That is false...a command russ with a battle cannon and a las cannon is a far better tank hunter than a quad las pred

I'm not talking about an HQ command Russ versus a Heavy Support Predator, as there is no equivalent Space Marine HQ (unless you want to compare Chronus, but that's another matter altogether), I'm talking about a standard Heavy Support Russ versus a Heavy Support Predator.

However, lets look at this, discounting any Chapter Tactics, Doctrines, Orders, Psychic Powers, etc. We'll throw in the Command Tank as well. (Yes we can add multimeltas to the Russ, but they're short ranged and very expensive)

A Russ shooting a Battle Cannon twice and tossing a Lascannon in will inflict an average of 3.3 wounds against a T8 3+sv target (3.8 with HB's). A Quadlas Predator will do 5.185 on average. The Russ costs 162 points (178 with HB's), the Predator costs 190. The Russ is doing 1 wound per 49 points spent, if we add in Heavy Bolters, we're talking 1 wound per 47 points spent. The Predator is doing 1 wound for 37 points spent. If we want to compare a Command Tank Russ, then we're looking at 4.4 wounds inlicted (4.7 with HB's) for 209 (225 with HB's) so we're looking at 48pts per wound on average both with and without Heavy bolters, functionally the same damage output per point spent as the basis HS Russ.

Against a T6/7 3+sv target, they narrow to 1 Wound per 40 points spent for the Russ or 1 per 39pts spent with HB's, a Command Russ drops to 1 Wound per 38 Points or 37 with HB's, while the Predator remains unchanged (the Predator is still better than the HS Russ, but only slightly so, not enough to care about, and identical to the Command Russ),

but against a T8 2+sv target like a Land Raider or SM superheavy or the like, the HS Russ drops to 2.5 wounds inflicted on average (2.7 with HB), doing 1 wound per 74 points (1 per 65 with HB's), the Command Russ drops to 3.4 wounds inflicted (3.8 with HB's) for 1 wound per 67 Points and 1 wound per 60 points with HB's, while the Predator is doing 4.15 wounds on average doing 1 wound per 46 points.





So, against light armor, they're about the same. Against anything else, the Predator is the clearly and unequivocally superior tank hunter, both in absolute terms and on a per-points-spent basis.

and I don't know why you wouldnt just thorw on 2 HB just because you can. It's also tougher and has more wounds.

It has 1 more wound and 1 more T over the Predator (which may matter against something like Autocannons, but won't mean much of squat all against actual AT guns like Lascannons), while the Predator can move and shoot far more effectively (between higher BS and not losing shots moving over half speed). Overall, doesn't sound like the Quadlas Predator is at any meaningful disadvantage.

Martel732 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Look, AM have 3 undercosted units that ALL ignore LoS: wyverns, manticores, and mortar teams. That's easy mode right there. Obviously, easy mode CAN be overcome, but it takes something like Girlyman firebase to do it consistently.

This is also the "alpha strike" edition where you can deep strike without scatter on any turn, and assaulting a tank - even without causing any damage, will neutralize its shooting.

I hope you're not seriously implying that anyone will get a turn 1 charge off on a manticore... Like, one of the many reasons AM is as good as it is is that they have the best screening units in the game. You don't get a turn one charge on anything useful, period.

You don't get a turn 4 charge, and by then, you are out of BA. Because it takes that long to chop the screens.

You're out of BA because BA units are super expensive, I get that... but c'mon the Blood Angels are simply not good right now. You could make that argument against almost any other codex at this point. Further, even with re-rolls I firmly believe trying to assault out of deep strike on turn 1 is a trap that typically results in failure, this is from my own experience. However that said, it's certainly not as hyperbolically impossible as the Internets would have you believe to assault a Manticore even with conscript shields... you don't have to kill it or even hurt it - just assault it, and it has been neutralized, and you can repeat this every turn. Chaos can do this especially well.

Anyway I'm not even trying to argue that the Manticore is not still at an advantage - but tank durability / wounds is pretty irrelevant this edition when you can neutralize them so easily; it's the same reason I don't take a Land Raider anymore - I tried it at the beginning of the edition, and it never dies, but it also almost never gets to fire because everyone just get kept charging rhinos at it.

The point is - a hiding tank is still more vulnerable than it used to be, even if you can't assault it due to some really careful and dedicated screens you can shoot through them and tanks almost never get cover in this edition. The reality is Manticores are finally worth taking now - that doesn't make them broken.

Manticores are undercosted for their firepower and durability. And their ability to ignore LoS, which is super strong.

 Marmatag wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Bigger HQs? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Yeah you can pay 300 points for a Grand Master Nemesis Dreadknight, but he'll have less firepower than Pask, and he's getting 5 attacks in melee, and can be targeted since he has more than 9 wounds.

Don't forget Terminator armor for better saves. Yeah, the Dreadknight is bigger than Pask and being taller about one of the few things GK do better than IG.

Except he's T6, can't receive orders, and being bigger means he's more easy to see and shoot. Any gun, seriously, any gun you'd target at a 12 wound Warlord had better have some AP on it. I mean seriously. Wouldn't it be problematic if you could effectively down the warlord of an army with small arms fire? This guy gets blasted off the table in seconds against meta armies, because he's going to be screened by little die-fast GKs, not the invincible conscript wall.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
What about teleportation? If you are talking Deepstike, there are Scions who give better alpha strike per point still.

Far better actually, and also since AM have cheap effective units that don't need to deep strike, your alpha footprint is actually bigger with AM than it is with GK. And you don't depend on it first turn, you can beta strike if the situation calls for it. if GK don't arrive turn 1 you'll get tabled hardcore.

Fair enough. I'm still gonna try and find a way to make GKs scary.

I can short circuit that process if you like.

Draigo + Double Storm Raven. Deep strike Draigo between the ravens giving them full rerolls. You can run them with meltas and assault cannons, fly right up to your opponent, drop Draigo between them, and have wicked rerolls. They can also fly away because he can Gate of Infinity to keep up and provide rerolls as they terrorize the table. I've been at the final table in a few tournaments doing exactly this.

Of course you can do this cheaper with a chapter master jump pack and ravens, and have a better overall non-GK army, but you can't gate to keep up with the ravens, and draigo is gnarly in melee.

This is the way i've been successful.

But if you're looking at running a GK force that isn't mono-GK, there aren't many options. Your best bet is to have a patrol of GK with a grand master, some strikes, and the rest AM.

I'm actually thinking of using PAGKs. Call me crazy but I still remember when I was young and they were the coolest things ever. That and the Daemonhunter codex basically dared me to prove them wrong.

I mean, look, PAGK are the only option. Terminators are brutally overcosted and paladins gain really no survivability or improvement on the core use case of GK which is storm bolters and psychics. We rarely see melee outside of HQs which is why PAGK are the best option here.

On that note, you'll find that it gets depressing real quick. You're paying a boatload of point for units that die incredibly fast, and simply don't deal damage. Their saving grace is they can deep strike and spit out volumes of dice, that can be improved with stratagems. The problem is, that doesn't scale with the army as a whole. So you really only need 1 or maybe 2 squads of 10x PAGK in the entire list, and after that it becomes wholly redundant, because your stratagems and psychic powers don't scale. And as you start adding more and more PAGK, you'll realize you have no answer at all to T7+

Hence why Ravens in a GK list, because the actual GKs themselves simply do not scale.

I'd actually argue Paladins are in a pretty good spot. For 7 more points you get an extra wound and attack. Forgetting the attack for a moment, that extra wound means twice the amount of overcharged Plasma to kill them, twice the Autocannons and other niche 2 Damage weapons, and lastly makes it harder for Lascannons and Melta Guns to kill them, as you need to pass 2/3 Of them time rolling for damage instead of 5/6.
Add the fact they get more weapons for the points and you'd be hardpressed to ever find a reason to use the regular Terminators in that codex, who were BUMPED by two points.

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
1.
5 SM + PG/Combi cost the same as 7 DAs when that discussion happens. Points were considered. Hence the 5 vs 7. That they now cost as much as 5 DAs is funny, but about to be changed.

The PG/Combi 5man vs 7 DAs was the more common comparision. There was a lot of 10 naked CSM vs 10 naked DAs - that's where I didn't know CSM were required to pay 10 pts for the champion. In both cases, I payed attention to points. In the second, a mistake made it 140pts : 130pts. I didn't know CSM loadouts, true. Easily adjusted for, and didn't really change much.

Please get over the long-discarded arguments. If you want to continue to argue 7e Tacs vs DAs, sure, but stick to what I'm arguing, not one-offs that were corrected.

2.
Certainly, you need numbers for statistical evidence. But that point was to illustrate a logical fallacy - post hoc - is still valid as statistical evidence. This branch was about if Appeal to Authority was evidence, or should just be dismissed as a logical fallacy. Bigger, valid numbers are better (valid is important - the bulk of the data provided here was 7E numbers). But we don't have those. Hence why people point to the top players, not just the top lists.

3.
A. GKs are 21ppm per people up-thread. They have some nice upgrades, but die just as fast as 13ppm Tacs. I can see where they have their uses, but they lose many of the Tacs' strengths.
B. Saying Kalabites can only be considered in optimized Raider/Venom Spam lists is awfully similar to saying Tacs can only be considered in Robout G. lists. It's worth considering Raiders/Venoms, but it's not everything.
C. I confess, I'm not that familiar with Necrons right now
D. I wouldn't call Genestealers mediocre. I haven't seen reason to rank them above Tacs. Care to elaborate?
E. Should have called the Crusader Squad
E. pt 2 - I didnt feel like listing CSM and SW flavors of Tacs seperately. I think both would be just below vanilla Tacs. SW above CSM. But I could be convinced to shuffle those 3.
E. pt 3 - Cult troops (Plague, Noise, Berzerker, Rubric) I wasn't familiar enough to rank. I know there are some shenanigans you can pull with Berzerkers now, but I doubt all 4 rank above Tacs. So leaving them off didn't impact the "Are Tacs average?" question.

E. pt 4 - Infantry for Guard? There are several flavors. Conscripts and Guardsmen are listed. Vets I spaced. I also didn't break out Pulse rifle vs carbine vs breacher troops either.

1. The point was more that you can't exactly do those comparisons if you don't even know what the units can buy. So when you presented your math saying that Chaos Marines barely won the firefight, it doesn't matter because the loadout was illegal.
So it will continue to bother me as you WERE one of the people defending the Eldar codex in any way.

2. The edition hasn't been out for too long, true, but the records so far prove that the best bet is to use Stormravens, Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and Rowboat based off a good number of tournaments. The concept of the Tactical Marine improved this edition, but they benefited from the new rules as much as most troops did.
So because of how long the Tactical Marine has been bad and that the entry did not change besides a point decrease, it's pretty safe to say that it was an off list, and things will be back to normal in 1-2 tournaments. We've all seen it before, just for some reason people are clinging SUPER HARD to this result for their Tactical Marine fix for whatever reason compared to other ones where the fix was just for a day and then promptly forgotten.

3. A. The Tactical Marine doesn't have a strength besides getting different equipment, and that equipment is more easily obtained elsewhere. Like I said, Grey Knights are a Glass Cannon and Tactical Marines are just glass.
B. It does matter because literally no Dark Eldar infantry is good without it, whereas there are Marine units that function without Rowboat, and on top of that not all Chapters get access to him either. Were there Cabals that lost them for whatever reason you'd have a point, but you don't.
C. You're the one that needs to elaborate why they'd be below Tactical Marines. If anything they're one of the success stories of transitioning from 7th to 8th and now people are actually afraid of being charged by them. This is a first in MANY years.
D. If you aren't familiar with Necrons, don't place them on your list. This goes in point with Bullet Point #1. Familiarity is a good thing.
E. That means you don't know what you're doing. Allow me to explain. Both Space Wolves and Chaos Marines can actually double up on the second weapon you choose if you go to 10 dudes. Chaos Marines also can't be below because we got Legion Tactics as well, so they have an equivalent of extra rules, plus the fact they have the option to switch into CCW if you wanted it for whatever reason. Like, that's strictly better and I can't understand ranking them below Tactical Marines. Space Wolves are only almost a wash until they get a Special snowflake rule and then they'll strictly be better again, but I would take extra melee attacks over having special weapons
However for camping we got Long Fangs available who do the whole Devastators thing so yeah, why bother. Then we have Crusader Squads who do weapon saturation and therefore camping OR charging better, and then can take Neophytes are cheaper meat shields for those weapons.
I don't see any reasoning. If you say Rowboat, you completely miss the point. We can talk about synergy all you want, but everyone knows Rowboat is stupid undercosted.
THEN you say you're unfamiliar with even more troop choices, which means it's impossible for you to even have made that list in the first place. I could go on about Noise Marines and Berserker Marines, but I think I'm running out of space for this post. If you need me to, as a CSM player as well, I can totally elaborate.

Access to a Grav Cannon is way better than access to a second Plasma Gun.

I'm guessing a little, but a third of the lists in the top 15 will have AM units in. Possibly more.

Nobody else see this as an issue?

zerosignal wrote:
I'm guessing a little, but a third of the lists in the top 15 will have AM units in. Possibly more.

Nobody else see this as an issue?

Well observed. I think this is an issue. AM has strong and cheap units. They can be run in any Imperium army. Apart from Bobby G. I think that AM is the most competitive army to play atm.
Tomorrow, I'll face an AM army with my BA, 2000 pts.

zerosignal wrote:
I'm guessing a little, but a third of the lists in the top 15 will have AM units in. Possibly more.

Nobody else see this as an issue?

If you're talking about the GT, most of them are on the bottom, and the top one just narrowly missed out on top 5. I would chalk that up to a lot of people bandwagoning (in fact I would like to see a list of total attendance and their armies) due to their perceived "OPness" (and if the detractor's argument is to be believed, this perception apparently came along long before the codex update).

As the saying goes, throw enough darts at the wall and something's bound to stick. If there was a massive amount of IG players, then it would be no surprise if they ended up on the top 15. What would have been a surprise is if they were all on top, but that isn't the case.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
I'm guessing a little, but a third of the lists in the top 15 will have AM units in. Possibly more.

Nobody else see this as an issue?

If you're talking about the GT, most of them are on the bottom, and the top one just narrowly missed out on top 5. I would chalk that up to a lot of people bandwagoning (in fact I would like to see a list of total attendance and their armies) due to their perceived "OPness" (and if the detractor's argument is to be believed, this perception apparently came along long before the codex update).

As the saying goes, throw enough darts at the wall and something's bound to stick. If there was a massive amount of IG players, then it would be no surprise if they ended up on the top 15. What would have been a surprise is if they were all on top, but that isn't the case.

I'm going off of memory but I believe the most popular army was Space Marines at 31 and 2nd was Guard at 13.
Don't have a sub to their channel so cant go back to verify but they mentioned it a few times during the final day.

So we've moved the goalposts now from "winning" to "being in the top 15?"

I wonder, if AM were to drop out of the top 15, would we then move the goalposts to top 30? :p

Ordana wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
I'm guessing a little, but a third of the lists in the top 15 will have AM units in. Possibly more.

Nobody else see this as an issue?

If you're talking about the GT, most of them are on the bottom, and the top one just narrowly missed out on top 5. I would chalk that up to a lot of people bandwagoning (in fact I would like to see a list of total attendance and their armies) due to their perceived "OPness" (and if the detractor's argument is to be believed, this perception apparently came along long before the codex update).

As the saying goes, throw enough darts at the wall and something's bound to stick. If there was a massive amount of IG players, then it would be no surprise if they ended up on the top 15. What would have been a surprise is if they were all on top, but that isn't the case.

I'm going off of memory but I believe the most popular army was Space Marines at 31 and 2nd was Guard at 13.
Don't have a sub to their channel so cant go back to verify but they mentioned it a few times during the final day.

That does shed a new light on things. Did they split the marines between the different factions or were they all lumped into one?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
1.
5 SM + PG/Combi cost the same as 7 DAs when that discussion happens. Points were considered. Hence the 5 vs 7. That they now cost as much as 5 DAs is funny, but about to be changed.

The PG/Combi 5man vs 7 DAs was the more common comparision. There was a lot of 10 naked CSM vs 10 naked DAs - that's where I didn't know CSM were required to pay 10 pts for the champion. In both cases, I payed attention to points. In the second, a mistake made it 140pts : 130pts. I didn't know CSM loadouts, true. Easily adjusted for, and didn't really change much.

Please get over the long-discarded arguments. If you want to continue to argue 7e Tacs vs DAs, sure, but stick to what I'm arguing, not one-offs that were corrected.

2.
Certainly, you need numbers for statistical evidence. But that point was to illustrate a logical fallacy - post hoc - is still valid as statistical evidence. This branch was about if Appeal to Authority was evidence, or should just be dismissed as a logical fallacy. Bigger, valid numbers are better (valid is important - the bulk of the data provided here was 7E numbers). But we don't have those. Hence why people point to the top players, not just the top lists.

3.
A. GKs are 21ppm per people up-thread. They have some nice upgrades, but die just as fast as 13ppm Tacs. I can see where they have their uses, but they lose many of the Tacs' strengths.
B. Saying Kalabites can only be considered in optimized Raider/Venom Spam lists is awfully similar to saying Tacs can only be considered in Robout G. lists. It's worth considering Raiders/Venoms, but it's not everything.
C. I confess, I'm not that familiar with Necrons right now
D. I wouldn't call Genestealers mediocre. I haven't seen reason to rank them above Tacs. Care to elaborate?
E. Should have called the Crusader Squad
E. pt 2 - I didnt feel like listing CSM and SW flavors of Tacs seperately. I think both would be just below vanilla Tacs. SW above CSM. But I could be convinced to shuffle those 3.
E. pt 3 - Cult troops (Plague, Noise, Berzerker, Rubric) I wasn't familiar enough to rank. I know there are some shenanigans you can pull with Berzerkers now, but I doubt all 4 rank above Tacs. So leaving them off didn't impact the "Are Tacs average?" question.

E. pt 4 - Infantry for Guard? There are several flavors. Conscripts and Guardsmen are listed. Vets I spaced. I also didn't break out Pulse rifle vs carbine vs breacher troops either.

1. The point was more that you can't exactly do those comparisons if you don't even know what the units can buy. So when you presented your math saying that Chaos Marines barely won the firefight, it doesn't matter because the loadout was illegal.
So it will continue to bother me as you WERE one of the people defending the Eldar codex in any way.

2. The edition hasn't been out for too long, true, but the records so far prove that the best bet is to use Stormravens, Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and Rowboat based off a good number of tournaments. The concept of the Tactical Marine improved this edition, but they benefited from the new rules as much as most troops did.
So because of how long the Tactical Marine has been bad and that the entry did not change besides a point decrease, it's pretty safe to say that it was an off list, and things will be back to normal in 1-2 tournaments. We've all seen it before, just for some reason people are clinging SUPER HARD to this result for their Tactical Marine fix for whatever reason compared to other ones where the fix was just for a day and then promptly forgotten.

3. A. The Tactical Marine doesn't have a strength besides getting different equipment, and that equipment is more easily obtained elsewhere. Like I said, Grey Knights are a Glass Cannon and Tactical Marines are just glass.
B. It does matter because literally no Dark Eldar infantry is good without it, whereas there are Marine units that function without Rowboat, and on top of that not all Chapters get access to him either. Were there Cabals that lost them for whatever reason you'd have a point, but you don't.
C. You're the one that needs to elaborate why they'd be below Tactical Marines. If anything they're one of the success stories of transitioning from 7th to 8th and now people are actually afraid of being charged by them. This is a first in MANY years.
D. If you aren't familiar with Necrons, don't place them on your list. This goes in point with Bullet Point #1. Familiarity is a good thing.
E. That means you don't know what you're doing. Allow me to explain. Both Space Wolves and Chaos Marines can actually double up on the second weapon you choose if you go to 10 dudes. Chaos Marines also can't be below because we got Legion Tactics as well, so they have an equivalent of extra rules, plus the fact they have the option to switch into CCW if you wanted it for whatever reason. Like, that's strictly better and I can't understand ranking them below Tactical Marines. Space Wolves are only almost a wash until they get a Special snowflake rule and then they'll strictly be better again, but I would take extra melee attacks over having special weapons
However for camping we got Long Fangs available who do the whole Devastators thing so yeah, why bother. Then we have Crusader Squads who do weapon saturation and therefore camping OR charging better, and then can take Neophytes are cheaper meat shields for those weapons.
I don't see any reasoning. If you say Rowboat, you completely miss the point. We can talk about synergy all you want, but everyone knows Rowboat is stupid undercosted.
THEN you say you're unfamiliar with even more troop choices, which means it's impossible for you to even have made that list in the first place. I could go on about Noise Marines and Berserker Marines, but I think I'm running out of space for this post. If you need me to, as a CSM player as well, I can totally elaborate.

1. I know what vanilla SM can buy. I play them a lot. I didn't know the details on CSM configurations that weren't used often. CSMs were used when doing the naked vs naked comparisions because their PPM was exactly the same. Outside naked vs naked I used SM because I know all their rules. The CSM-with-options were counterpoints that were brought up. You keep hammering on one discussion about CSMs vs DAs, and on a stance I no longer hold. On a stance I was corrected on, and said as much, in the original thread itself. While dismissing anything further coming from me - even when showing the original premise with corrected numbers - as just being a CWE apologist. How would being a CWE apologist even matter for a 'Tacs are garbage' vs 'Not garbage' discussion? How would mistakes with the 6E or 7E CSM codex that were corrected with accurate values from the 6e/7e Tacs rules mean I am unqualified to have an opinion on 8e Tacs? Even if you put all CWE troops above Tacs on the good-to-bad listing, Tacs are still in the top half - so even if I were blind to them somehow being super awesome, it just doesn't factor in.

I've made mistakes, but I believe I've adjusted as they have been pointed out. Further, the bulk of my math/comments have been correct.

2. Agree with your first statement. Some of the disagreement is the meaning of 'garbage'. The non-Tacs in his list seem to be OP options. I don't consider anything not in the top 5% automatically garbage. Some people do. But the interesting questions about the winning list are 'Why Tacs?'. Stuff like most of us seem to have thought Devs would have been a better option. Obviously, the tourny winner thought otherwise.

Tacs definitely benefitted more than most troops in this edition:

Split fire free:
-Guardsmen can make some use out of it. Lasguns at smaller stuff, HW at bigger stuff.
-Kalabites can use it. Similar. Bigger buff vs vehicles, smaller change vs MCs due to what their small arms are.
-Marines can use it. Same way as Guardsmen.
-Nothing else gets notable buffs from this.

Small arms - Cover save changes mean GEQ just become Vet Squad-durability. Vets become Meq. Meq becomes Teqs:
-Guardsmen, Guardians, etc get a 33% increase in durability vs small arms
-Marines get a freaking 2+ in cover. A 50% increase in durability vs small arms
-Teqs get nothing vs small arms

AP'ing weapons
-What used to ignore SM armor but not GEQ cover now ignores GEQ cover and armor and drops Marines to GEQ

Rapid Fire weapons
-Marines can now shoot boltguns and PGs and assault
-Fire Warriors can, but would never
-Necron Warriors can, but would rarely do it
-Guardsmen can but lol
-Most everything else already can

Heavy Weapons
-Now only a -1 to hit
-This affects BS4 armies less than BS3/BS2
-This helps Kalabites about as much as Marines
-Techncially it helps Guardians too, but only because their grav platforms lost the stability of a grav platform
-And can charge after shooting heavies

Morale is worse for Tacs in 8th than it was in 6/7, but that's about it.

Considering the above, what other troops benefitted as much from the edition change? It's rather clear Tacs benefitted the most.

Nobody is arguing that Tacs are the best option in the game. But a lot of strong evidence has been shown that they aren't garbage.

3. Tactical Marines have plenty of strengths. This thread has listed several. I think what's missing is being comparative.

Most of the Tacs strength are being better than what they're up against at anything other than the other unit's main strength.

For instance, you start with GKs. GKs cost more than half again the points. They get twice the shooting per model, but same survivability. So per point, they get about 60% more firepower for about 60% of the survivability. With 60% of the (obsec) board coverage. Hit harder in melee. Die faster, even in melee. Further, GK have very limited options for ranged weaponry, whereas Tacs can tailor to what they want. Would you rather have 5x Storm Bolters, or PG/Combi/3xBoltguns? Because those run in the same range for points. And have the same number of models/survivability.

There are tarpit units in the game. Necron Warriors, Guardsmen, Conscripts, Gaunts, Ork Boyz. Compared to almost any other troop in the game, though, Tacs are more survavible per point. By a wide margin, compared to some.

There are shooty units in the game. Fire Warriors, for example. Tacs are more survaviable per point. Tacs are better in CC as well.

There are CC units in the game. Harlies, Genestealers, Storm Guardians,etc. Some of them are better (per point) at CC than Tacs. But then, they're less survivable and have less dakka too (typically).

Tacs can outshoot the choppy, outchop the shooty, outtank the glasscannon, and typically outdamage the tanky. Any one of those, there's something better. But they can do everything else better (usually).

To some more of your specific points:
-Of course Genestealers are scary if they get into CC in decent numbers. Shoot them. Even with their 5++/5+++ shenanigans, they aren't very durable. And they aren't *that* much cheaper than Tacs.
-Doubling up on specials at 10 sounds great, until you compare it to special/combi at 5.
-CSM have Legion tactics, SM have Chapter Tactics. CSM have Bolter/CCW, some SM have Bolter/CCW and Grav. I think putting them contiguous to Tacs is reasonable, and nothing you've shared makes me want to put them above.
-For the claim that Noise Marines and Berzerkers are better troops than Tacs (I see the reasoning, they are strong) to matter, you'd also need to show that Plague and/or Rubric marines are too - otherwise, adding those 4 sometimes-troops won't affect the claim that Tacs are somehow below average.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Ordana wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

zerosignal wrote:
I'm guessing a little, but a third of the lists in the top 15 will have AM units in. Possibly more.

Nobody else see this as an issue?

If you're talking about the GT, most of them are on the bottom, and the top one just narrowly missed out on top 5. I would chalk that up to a lot of people bandwagoning (in fact I would like to see a list of total attendance and their armies) due to their perceived "OPness" (and if the detractor's argument is to be believed, this perception apparently came along long before the codex update).

As the saying goes, throw enough darts at the wall and something's bound to stick. If there was a massive amount of IG players, then it would be no surprise if they ended up on the top 15. What would have been a surprise is if they were all on top, but that isn't the case.

I'm going off of memory but I believe the most popular army was Space Marines at 31 and 2nd was Guard at 13.
Don't have a sub to their channel so cant go back to verify but they mentioned it a few times during the final day.

That does shed a new light on things. Did they split the marines between the different factions or were they all lumped into one?

It included all armies using solely/mainly (donno how strict this was) the Space Marine codex, they mentioned a number for Imperial players aswell so I assume those were the true soup lists.

Would BA, DA and SW be lumped in there or was it just purely vanilla marines? By the sounds of it, it was pure marines.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Would BA, DA and SW be lumped in there or was it just purely vanilla marines? By the sounds of it, it was pure marines.

No idea. Don't know if any other chapters even showed up at all. I know I would have played SW as vanilla marines for access to a Trait + Stratagems.

Bharring wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Slayer,
1.
5 SM + PG/Combi cost the same as 7 DAs when that discussion happens. Points were considered. Hence the 5 vs 7. That they now cost as much as 5 DAs is funny, but about to be changed.

The PG/Combi 5man vs 7 DAs was the more common comparision. There was a lot of 10 naked CSM vs 10 naked DAs - that's where I didn't know CSM were required to pay 10 pts for the champion. In both cases, I payed attention to points. In the second, a mistake made it 140pts : 130pts. I didn't know CSM loadouts, true. Easily adjusted for, and didn't really change much.

Please get over the long-discarded arguments. If you want to continue to argue 7e Tacs vs DAs, sure, but stick to what I'm arguing, not one-offs that were corrected.

2.
Certainly, you need numbers for statistical evidence. But that point was to illustrate a logical fallacy - post hoc - is still valid as statistical evidence. This branch was about if Appeal to Authority was evidence, or should just be dismissed as a logical fallacy. Bigger, valid numbers are better (valid is important - the bulk of the data provided here was 7E numbers). But we don't have those. Hence why people point to the top players, not just the top lists.

3.
A. GKs are 21ppm per people up-thread. They have some nice upgrades, but die just as fast as 13ppm Tacs. I can see where they have their uses, but they lose many of the Tacs' strengths.
B. Saying Kalabites can only be considered in optimized Raider/Venom Spam lists is awfully similar to saying Tacs can only be considered in Robout G. lists. It's worth considering Raiders/Venoms, but it's not everything.
C. I confess, I'm not that familiar with Necrons right now
D. I wouldn't call Genestealers mediocre. I haven't seen reason to rank them above Tacs. Care to elaborate?
E. Should have called the Crusader Squad
E. pt 2 - I didnt feel like listing CSM and SW flavors of Tacs seperately. I think both would be just below vanilla Tacs. SW above CSM. But I could be convinced to shuffle those 3.
E. pt 3 - Cult troops (Plague, Noise, Berzerker, Rubric) I wasn't familiar enough to rank. I know there are some shenanigans you can pull with Berzerkers now, but I doubt all 4 rank above Tacs. So leaving them off didn't impact the "Are Tacs average?" question.

E. pt 4 - Infantry for Guard? There are several flavors. Conscripts and Guardsmen are listed. Vets I spaced. I also didn't break out Pulse rifle vs carbine vs breacher troops either.

1. The point was more that you can't exactly do those comparisons if you don't even know what the units can buy. So when you presented your math saying that Chaos Marines barely won the firefight, it doesn't matter because the loadout was illegal.
So it will continue to bother me as you WERE one of the people defending the Eldar codex in any way.

2. The edition hasn't been out for too long, true, but the records so far prove that the best bet is to use Stormravens, Assault Cannon Razorbacks, and Rowboat based off a good number of tournaments. The concept of the Tactical Marine improved this edition, but they benefited from the new rules as much as most troops did.
So because of how long the Tactical Marine has been bad and that the entry did not change besides a point decrease, it's pretty safe to say that it was an off list, and things will be back to normal in 1-2 tournaments. We've all seen it before, just for some reason people are clinging SUPER HARD to this result for their Tactical Marine fix for whatever reason compared to other ones where the fix was just for a day and then promptly forgotten.

3. A. The Tactical Marine doesn't have a strength besides getting different equipment, and that equipment is more easily obtained elsewhere. Like I said, Grey Knights are a Glass Cannon and Tactical Marines are just glass.
B. It does matter because literally no Dark Eldar infantry is good without it, whereas there are Marine units that function without Rowboat, and on top of that not all Chapters get access to him either. Were there Cabals that lost them for whatever reason you'd have a point, but you don't.
C. You're the one that needs to elaborate why they'd be below Tactical Marines. If anything they're one of the success stories of transitioning from 7th to 8th and now people are actually afraid of being charged by them. This is a first in MANY years.
D. If you aren't familiar with Necrons, don't place them on your list. This goes in point with Bullet Point #1. Familiarity is a good thing.
E. That means you don't know what you're doing. Allow me to explain. Both Space Wolves and Chaos Marines can actually double up on the second weapon you choose if you go to 10 dudes. Chaos Marines also can't be below because we got Legion Tactics as well, so they have an equivalent of extra rules, plus the fact they have the option to switch into CCW if you wanted it for whatever reason. Like, that's strictly better and I can't understand ranking them below Tactical Marines. Space Wolves are only almost a wash until they get a Special snowflake rule and then they'll strictly be better again, but I would take extra melee attacks over having special weapons
However for camping we got Long Fangs available who do the whole Devastators thing so yeah, why bother. Then we have Crusader Squads who do weapon saturation and therefore camping OR charging better, and then can take Neophytes are cheaper meat shields for those weapons.
I don't see any reasoning. If you say Rowboat, you completely miss the point. We can talk about synergy all you want, but everyone knows Rowboat is stupid undercosted.
THEN you say you're unfamiliar with even more troop choices, which means it's impossible for you to even have made that list in the first place. I could go on about Noise Marines and Berserker Marines, but I think I'm running out of space for this post. If you need me to, as a CSM player as well, I can totally elaborate.

1. I know what vanilla SM can buy. I play them a lot. I didn't know the details on CSM configurations that weren't used often. CSMs were used when doing the naked vs naked comparisions because their PPM was exactly the same. Outside naked vs naked I used SM because I know all their rules. The CSM-with-options were counterpoints that were brought up. You keep hammering on one discussion about CSMs vs DAs, and on a stance I no longer hold. On a stance I was corrected on, and said as much, in the original thread itself. While dismissing anything further coming from me - even when showing the original premise with corrected numbers - as just being a CWE apologist. How would being a CWE apologist even matter for a 'Tacs are garbage' vs 'Not garbage' discussion? How would mistakes with the 6E or 7E CSM codex that were corrected with accurate values from the 6e/7e Tacs rules mean I am unqualified to have an opinion on 8e Tacs? Even if you put all CWE troops above Tacs on the good-to-bad listing, Tacs are still in the top half - so even if I were blind to them somehow being super awesome, it just doesn't factor in.

I've made mistakes, but I believe I've adjusted as they have been pointed out. Further, the bulk of my math/comments have been correct.

2. Agree with your first statement. Some of the disagreement is the meaning of 'garbage'. The non-Tacs in his list seem to be OP options. I don't consider anything not in the top 5% automatically garbage. Some people do. But the interesting questions about the winning list are 'Why Tacs?'. Stuff like most of us seem to have thought Devs would have been a better option. Obviously, the tourny winner thought otherwise.

Tacs definitely benefitted more than most troops in this edition:

Split fire free:
-Guardsmen can make some use out of it. Lasguns at smaller stuff, HW at bigger stuff.
-Kalabites can use it. Similar. Bigger buff vs vehicles, smaller change vs MCs due to what their small arms are.
-Marines can use it. Same way as Guardsmen.
-Nothing else gets notable buffs from this.

Small arms - Cover save changes mean GEQ just become Vet Squad-durability. Vets become Meq. Meq becomes Teqs:
-Guardsmen, Guardians, etc get a 33% increase in durability vs small arms
-Marines get a freaking 2+ in cover. A 50% increase in durability vs small arms
-Teqs get nothing vs small arms

AP'ing weapons
-What used to ignore SM armor but not GEQ cover now ignores GEQ cover and armor and drops Marines to GEQ

Rapid Fire weapons
-Marines can now shoot boltguns and PGs and assault
-Fire Warriors can, but would never
-Necron Warriors can, but would rarely do it
-Guardsmen can but lol
-Most everything else already can

Heavy Weapons
-Now only a -1 to hit
-This affects BS4 armies less than BS3/BS2
-This helps Kalabites about as much as Marines
-Techncially it helps Guardians too, but only because their grav platforms lost the stability of a grav platform
-And can charge after shooting heavies

Morale is worse for Tacs in 8th than it was in 6/7, but that's about it.

Considering the above, what other troops benefitted as much from the edition change? It's rather clear Tacs benefitted the most.

Nobody is arguing that Tacs are the best option in the game. But a lot of strong evidence has been shown that they aren't garbage.

3. Tactical Marines have plenty of strengths. This thread has listed several. I think what's missing is being comparative.

Most of the Tacs strength are being better than what they're up against at anything other than the other unit's main strength.

For instance, you start with GKs. GKs cost more than half again the points. They get twice the shooting per model, but same survivability. So per point, they get about 60% more firepower for about 60% of the survivability. With 60% of the (obsec) board coverage. Hit harder in melee. Die faster, even in melee. Further, GK have very limited options for ranged weaponry, whereas Tacs can tailor to what they want. Would you rather have 5x Storm Bolters, or PG/Combi/3xBoltguns? Because those run in the same range for points. And have the same number of models/survivability.

There are tarpit units in the game. Necron Warriors, Guardsmen, Conscripts, Gaunts, Ork Boyz. Compared to almost any other troop in the game, though, Tacs are more survavible per point. By a wide margin, compared to some.

There are shooty units in the game. Fire Warriors, for example. Tacs are more survaviable per point. Tacs are better in CC as well.

There are CC units in the game. Harlies, Genestealers, Storm Guardians,etc. Some of them are better (per point) at CC than Tacs. But then, they're less survivable and have less dakka too (typically).

Tacs can outshoot the choppy, outchop the shooty, outtank the glasscannon, and typically outdamage the tanky. Any one of those, there's something better. But they can do everything else better (usually).

To some more of your specific points:
-Of course Genestealers are scary if they get into CC in decent numbers. Shoot them. Even with their 5++/5+++ shenanigans, they aren't very durable. And they aren't *that* much cheaper than Tacs.
-Doubling up on specials at 10 sounds great, until you compare it to special/combi at 5.
-CSM have Legion tactics, SM have Chapter Tactics. CSM have Bolter/CCW, some SM have Bolter/CCW and Grav. I think putting them contiguous to Tacs is reasonable, and nothing you've shared makes me want to put them above.
-For the claim that Noise Marines and Berzerkers are better troops than Tacs (I see the reasoning, they are strong) to matter, you'd also need to show that Plague and/or Rubric marines are too - otherwise, adding those 4 sometimes-troops won't affect the claim that Tacs are somehow below average.

I'm gonna take this one to Pm because we are clogging the thread. Expect a very long winded message at some point tonight or tomorrow morning.