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.
Primark G wrote: Black Templar can rock five-man squads with combi-plasma, plasmagun and lascannon for pretty darn cheap. Not Martel will say they die like dogs but when were Kabbalite Warriors made of sterner stuff?
I'm pretty sure skitarii are the only ones made of sterner stuff
When kill team drops Marines will probably be upper mid or high tier, only because "armies" like Tau can't take special weapons and are stuck with S5 ap-, and Eldar will basically be fishing for 6s.
Stormonu wrote: I agree with the OP, I think any SM army should be composed of Tac marines, with a sprinkling of special troops. Unfortunately, GW didn’t build the game to foster that sort of build, and most tournament folks have taken to mind that Tacs suck (I don’t agree, I think they’re the second strongest troop choice, with Necron warrior just slgihtly better, due to RP) in favor of snowflake elite units such as Vangaurd/Sterngaurd Vets, Bikes or Cents.
Unfortunatlely, I don’t think the issue can be fixed without a huge pushback from at least the tournament community.
Uhh... Necron Warriors aren't even the best Necron troop choice, let alone the best in the game. Immortals are way better. Though I guess someone who puts value in Reanimation Protocols wouldn't understand that.
They're cheaper so it doesn't matter if they die. Plus they are shooting while still embarked. Their defensive stat line is irrelevant for half the game. Why is it so hard to understand that putting overcosted equipment on overcosted marines doesn't really help? Options don't matter if they are miscosted.
Martel732 wrote: Make tac marines and intercessors viable and then we'll talk. If i could never use a marine troop again i wouldn't. The fluff means nothing on the tabletop.
I mean there is no reason you need to do so now...that said you are right about the answer to this issue. It is make tacticals more competitive with scouts. They should probably have the same cost as you essentially trade durability for deployment options. OR keep tacticals at 13-14 points and give them the primaris statline. I think at 14 points 2 wounds and 2 attacks each with a 3+ save would make them a very solid option.
Lord Clinto wrote: Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum.
I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often.
Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic.
Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads.
Thoughts / comments?
This has been an issue in some form or fashion stretching all the way back to the beginning of 3E.
Some editions have tried to fix this by making only infantry Troops scoring, others have tried to get tournements to enforce 40% troop rules and other such comp restrictions, 7E tried to fix this for SM's by giving them hundreds of points of free vehicles, etc.
There are a myriad array of reasons why this issue exists, there's no one perfect solution. Ultimately tac squads need assistance actually being generalists, the game needs to control its scale more to some degree, infantry need to be able to do things non-infantry cannot, etc ad nauseum.
SM's also arent the only army this occurs with, Tyranids are another common example.
You serious? Tyranids are probably the codex with the best troops in the game!
Troop tax does not exist for nids, because you actually want to take troops IN DROVES, since they are easily the best part of you army! Hormagants, termagants, warriors, rippers and genestealers are the basis of every nid list, bar some nidzilla builds. You easily see nids lists with more than 600 points in troops in a single detachment.
In an ideal game, that should be true for every codex. Troops should not be tax, a list without an healthy amount of troops should be worse than one which has it.
IG an nids work really well with troops, because both those codici have a clear style of play, and the troops are designed to allow it (screening/swarming).
SM troops will never be good or desiderable, because the SM codex lacks a defined style. They could easily become the elite army with powerful HQ buffs, but it will not happen until basic intercessors and tactical marines receive increased bonuses from HQs.
ummm...except for most top Nid builds? Warriors seem to be the only thing on that list that sees much play, otherwise they are a tax to bring hive guard, flyrants, biovores etc.
Can't really take you seriously man, warriors are the only ones in that list that are considered not top choices.
Don't know they made top 16 at Adepticon...so there is that No other nid lists at the event had anything but min rippers and min gants. Most lists I see for the london GT are maybe spamming stealers and are other wise doing things like Minimum Ripper squads, maybe 1 large termagant squad other wise min squads, I see no hormagants at all. So my point still basically holds that most people are taking them to unlock detachments and then spending points on better stuff in the army.
I think that you read those GT list wrongly. But don't worry i will fix that for you. Out of the 21 nids lists, the points spent on troops where:
HARDLY the minimum tax necessary. Please note that those 2 lists that spent only 66 points on troops, spent them on detachments that didn't require troops. Yes, you heard it right, troops taken because they were the best investment for those points.
Also, regarding hormagaunts there are 7 lists that took them. 33% of the total lists that featured at least one tyranid detachment, and many of those were big sized units. So, out of the 5 troops choices of tyranids, there were none left unused in those lists EXCEPT warriors, of which you can find only 2 min units.
So, i can understand if your local meta is heavy on warriors and nidzilla lists, that is fine, but don't try to make statements about how nids lists are played in the general meta, because you have clearly no clue.
Looks like you can’t read lists either one of those 66 point lists is a patrol so 33 is required. Other than stealer spam lists (the highest troop points). Most of throes troops were min squads filling out detachments for CP. so maybe points spent don’t tell the whole story. Lots of Nid brigades. The troops aren’t horrible but in most lists they aren’t the hitting power, or a larger portion than in most other lists filling out detachments. It also remains to be seen if any of those lists actually do well. Pre-faq people were running min troops for Nid lists, of spamming troops, suggesting better options available for winning games.
Martel732 wrote: Make tac marines and intercessors viable and then we'll talk. If i could never use a marine troop again i wouldn't. The fluff means nothing on the tabletop.
I mean there is no reason you need to do so now...that said you are right about the answer to this issue. It is make tacticals more competitive with scouts. They should probably have the same cost as you essentially trade durability for deployment options. OR keep tacticals at 13-14 points and give them the primaris statline. I think at 14 points 2 wounds and 2 attacks each with a 3+ save would make them a very solid option.
Lord Clinto wrote: Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum.
I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often.
Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic.
Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads.
Thoughts / comments?
This has been an issue in some form or fashion stretching all the way back to the beginning of 3E.
Some editions have tried to fix this by making only infantry Troops scoring, others have tried to get tournements to enforce 40% troop rules and other such comp restrictions, 7E tried to fix this for SM's by giving them hundreds of points of free vehicles, etc.
There are a myriad array of reasons why this issue exists, there's no one perfect solution. Ultimately tac squads need assistance actually being generalists, the game needs to control its scale more to some degree, infantry need to be able to do things non-infantry cannot, etc ad nauseum.
SM's also arent the only army this occurs with, Tyranids are another common example.
You serious? Tyranids are probably the codex with the best troops in the game!
Troop tax does not exist for nids, because you actually want to take troops IN DROVES, since they are easily the best part of you army! Hormagants, termagants, warriors, rippers and genestealers are the basis of every nid list, bar some nidzilla builds. You easily see nids lists with more than 600 points in troops in a single detachment.
In an ideal game, that should be true for every codex. Troops should not be tax, a list without an healthy amount of troops should be worse than one which has it.
IG an nids work really well with troops, because both those codici have a clear style of play, and the troops are designed to allow it (screening/swarming).
SM troops will never be good or desiderable, because the SM codex lacks a defined style. They could easily become the elite army with powerful HQ buffs, but it will not happen until basic intercessors and tactical marines receive increased bonuses from HQs.
ummm...except for most top Nid builds? Warriors seem to be the only thing on that list that sees much play, otherwise they are a tax to bring hive guard, flyrants, biovores etc.
Can't really take you seriously man, warriors are the only ones in that list that are considered not top choices.
Don't know they made top 16 at Adepticon...so there is that No other nid lists at the event had anything but min rippers and min gants. Most lists I see for the london GT are maybe spamming stealers and are other wise doing things like Minimum Ripper squads, maybe 1 large termagant squad other wise min squads, I see no hormagants at all. So my point still basically holds that most people are taking them to unlock detachments and then spending points on better stuff in the army.
I think that you read those GT list wrongly. But don't worry i will fix that for you. Out of the 21 nids lists, the points spent on troops where:
HARDLY the minimum tax necessary. Please note that those 2 lists that spent only 66 points on troops, spent them on detachments that didn't require troops. Yes, you heard it right, troops taken because they were the best investment for those points.
Also, regarding hormagaunts there are 7 lists that took them. 33% of the total lists that featured at least one tyranid detachment, and many of those were big sized units. So, out of the 5 troops choices of tyranids, there were none left unused in those lists EXCEPT warriors, of which you can find only 2 min units.
So, i can understand if your local meta is heavy on warriors and nidzilla lists, that is fine, but don't try to make statements about how nids lists are played in the general meta, because you have clearly no clue.
Looks like you can’t read lists either one of those 66 point lists is a patrol so 33 is required. Other than stealer spam lists (the highest troop points). Most of throes troops were min squads filling out detachments for CP. so maybe points spent don’t tell the whole story. Lots of Nid brigades. The troops aren’t horrible but in most lists they aren’t the hitting power, or a larger portion than in most other lists filling out detachments. It also remains to be seen if any of those lists actually do well. Pre-faq people were running min troops for Nid lists, of spamming troops, suggesting better options available for winning games.
If you like your troops and HQ units but aren't sold on many of your Heavy Support AND Fast Attack AND Elites, of course you're going to want to fill out multiple Battalions. This lets you get more troops without paying a "Tax" in having terms to fill out Elites/Heavy/Fast Attack. Sure you could fill out a single Battlions more but once that detachment would be +3 troops over what you need to fill it, it only make sense to start using those troops to fill out another detachment.
I'm not hardcore tourney player, but with my Tau I often find myself making 2 Battalions instead of Brigades or a more fully fleshed out brigade. Why?
I like my Fire Warriors and generally like to bring about ~40 of them in the 1200-1500 point games my group tends to play. That's enough to make 6 units at just a bit over minimum size. I don't really have enough points to run 3 Elites & 3 Heavy Support & 3 Fast Attack I'd like. If I just push them into a single detachment I'm leaving CPs on the table. This means you're going to see my lists have 2 Battlions with a lot of small-ish Fire Warrior squads in them. Does this mean I'm only bringing them to pad out CP? No. It does mean that is the most efficient way to organize the Troops I do want to bring. If there was a rule saying you couldn't score CPs off 2 detachments of the same type you wouldn't see me bringing less troops, I'd probably just have less CP is all.
EDIT: Got my terminology flipped for a second there.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/11 01:24:38
I think you have those backwards, brigade is the one requiring 6 troops, 3 HQ and 3 in fast/elite/heavy. Which is what I see Nid players running not multiple battalions with no other slots. Running brigades usually means you have either super cheap options in some slots, and/or effective options in all slots.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Typically you run multiple battalions when you don’t want to take options in one or more of your FOC slots.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/11 01:28:30
Martel732 wrote: Make tac marines and intercessors viable and then we'll talk. If i could never use a marine troop again i wouldn't. The fluff means nothing on the tabletop.
I mean there is no reason you need to do so now...that said you are right about the answer to this issue. It is make tacticals more competitive with scouts. They should probably have the same cost as you essentially trade durability for deployment options. OR keep tacticals at 13-14 points and give them the primaris statline. I think at 14 points 2 wounds and 2 attacks each with a 3+ save would make them a very solid option.
Lord Clinto wrote: Self-proclaimed fluff-bunny here; specifically talking about SM list composition. Not sure if I'm in the correct forum.
I'm a little disgusted. I see a lot of army lists where the only troops a SM player has are 3 min-model Scout Squads, while the rest of the points are spent on uber stuff, allies or what-not. I understand if someone was running a 10th company list and had a bunch of Scout Squads, Scout Bikers and Storm Speeders with some other chapter elements used too but I'm not seeing that very often.
Is there any merit or thoughts on curtailing lists like this? It just seems like a gross, waac list building tactic.
Personally I'd like either some kind of 10th company detachment rules or maybe make Scout Squads 1 per Tactical Squad or maybe even 1 per 2 Tactical Squads.
Thoughts / comments?
This has been an issue in some form or fashion stretching all the way back to the beginning of 3E.
Some editions have tried to fix this by making only infantry Troops scoring, others have tried to get tournements to enforce 40% troop rules and other such comp restrictions, 7E tried to fix this for SM's by giving them hundreds of points of free vehicles, etc.
There are a myriad array of reasons why this issue exists, there's no one perfect solution. Ultimately tac squads need assistance actually being generalists, the game needs to control its scale more to some degree, infantry need to be able to do things non-infantry cannot, etc ad nauseum.
SM's also arent the only army this occurs with, Tyranids are another common example.
You serious? Tyranids are probably the codex with the best troops in the game!
Troop tax does not exist for nids, because you actually want to take troops IN DROVES, since they are easily the best part of you army! Hormagants, termagants, warriors, rippers and genestealers are the basis of every nid list, bar some nidzilla builds. You easily see nids lists with more than 600 points in troops in a single detachment.
In an ideal game, that should be true for every codex. Troops should not be tax, a list without an healthy amount of troops should be worse than one which has it.
IG an nids work really well with troops, because both those codici have a clear style of play, and the troops are designed to allow it (screening/swarming).
SM troops will never be good or desiderable, because the SM codex lacks a defined style. They could easily become the elite army with powerful HQ buffs, but it will not happen until basic intercessors and tactical marines receive increased bonuses from HQs.
ummm...except for most top Nid builds? Warriors seem to be the only thing on that list that sees much play, otherwise they are a tax to bring hive guard, flyrants, biovores etc.
Can't really take you seriously man, warriors are the only ones in that list that are considered not top choices.
Don't know they made top 16 at Adepticon...so there is that No other nid lists at the event had anything but min rippers and min gants. Most lists I see for the london GT are maybe spamming stealers and are other wise doing things like Minimum Ripper squads, maybe 1 large termagant squad other wise min squads, I see no hormagants at all. So my point still basically holds that most people are taking them to unlock detachments and then spending points on better stuff in the army.
I think that you read those GT list wrongly. But don't worry i will fix that for you. Out of the 21 nids lists, the points spent on troops where:
HARDLY the minimum tax necessary. Please note that those 2 lists that spent only 66 points on troops, spent them on detachments that didn't require troops. Yes, you heard it right, troops taken because they were the best investment for those points.
Also, regarding hormagaunts there are 7 lists that took them. 33% of the total lists that featured at least one tyranid detachment, and many of those were big sized units. So, out of the 5 troops choices of tyranids, there were none left unused in those lists EXCEPT warriors, of which you can find only 2 min units.
So, i can understand if your local meta is heavy on warriors and nidzilla lists, that is fine, but don't try to make statements about how nids lists are played in the general meta, because you have clearly no clue.
Looks like you can’t read lists either one of those 66 point lists is a patrol so 33 is required. Other than stealer spam lists (the highest troop points). Most of throes troops were min squads filling out detachments for CP. so maybe points spent don’t tell the whole story. Lots of Nid brigades. The troops aren’t horrible but in most lists they aren’t the hitting power, or a larger portion than in most other lists filling out detachments. It also remains to be seen if any of those lists actually do well. Pre-faq people were running min troops for Nid lists, of spamming troops, suggesting better options available for winning games.
So many things just ouright false in what you said...
Ok, one by one:
Most of throes troops were min squads filling out detachments for CP
The minimum point requirement to fill a nid battalion is 99, now the average point spent by a nid list in troops in a single battalion detachment is 417,5 more than four times the minimum requirement . But that doesn't count right? Because you said:
Lots of Nid brigades
Out of 21 lists, there are 4 brigades. All the othen lists were based around a single battalion, which spent the aforementioned points on troops. Also, the minimum troops requirement for a nid brigade is 198 points, and the average on the brigades was 387,25.
The troops aren’t horrible but in most lists they aren’t the hitting power, or a larger portion than in most other lists filling out detachments
Are you seriously going to tell me that marines (to which you compared nids) spend an average of 648 points of troops on in a single battalion (4 times the minimum required)? Are we playing the same game?
Pre-faq people were running min troops for Nid lists, of spamming troops, suggesting better options available for winning games.
Pre-FAQ people were running min everything so that i can play more flyrants. Does it mean that the whole nid codex was underpowered except flyrants? No, it simply meant that there was one model clearly overshadowing every other choice. Only mawlocks were taken since they could clear the way for flyrants. Your conclusion that flyrant spam meant that nids troops were bad, is completely misleading.
In conclusion, your statement that nid troops are taken only as a tax to fill detachment, except warriors ( ), has been proven totally false. Nids troops are taken because they are well worth theyr points.
SM's also arent the only army this occurs with, Tyranids are another common example.
I have to object to this. Tyranid troops are currently excellent, were decent in 5th, ok in 6th, and occasionally first turn charged/comsolidated/ate entire armies in 3rd. Even 7th eds Codex:Flyrant had good troops, in that somebody decided that a 1-3 model unit that cost the same as most weapons upgrades needed to be a troops choice.
Don't let GW never figuring out how to make warriors work trick you into lumping the joy that is Genestealers, Hormagants, devilgants, and Rippers in with the hot trash that is the tac marine.
Edit
Read the rest of the thread. Thank you Spoletta.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/11 07:03:51
Remember when, in older codices, there'd be a 1+ or 2+ next to some core unit that absolutely HAD to be in your army? There's your answer, bring back that, and 0-X to limit the more offensive units/whatever.
Just Tony wrote: Remember when, in older codices, there'd be a 1+ or 2+ next to some core unit that absolutely HAD to be in your army? There's your answer, bring back that, and 0-X to limit the more offensive units/whatever.
This isn't what I'm pushing for at all. I think there should be times where there aren't any tac marines involved in an operation. I meant it more like how Death Company Dreadnoughts were 0-1 per Death Company Squad (not sure if that's how they are now, not up to snuff on current BA codex).
"The only problem with your genepool is that there wasn't a lifeguard on duty to prevent you from swimming."
"You either die a Morty, or you live long enough to see yourself become a Rick."
There's no reason to ever bring one, so they might as well be 0-0. This is a moot discussion while 90% of the marine codex is unplayable garbage. And BA lack half of that. My play group jizzes off to ven dreads, which I lack.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/11 12:26:01
Back in 5th, troops were the only unit that could score - so the number of objectives you could hold was directly tied to the number of troop squads in your army. It also gave them a vital strategic ability that wasn't tied to their combat ability (as in, even if they were mathematically worse than other, non-troop units, there was still a good reason to include more than the minimum number of them).
I think allowing every unit to score and just giving Troops the often-useless Objective Secured was a big mistake.
Martel732 wrote: It's 15 pts, 36" range, 3 shots, Str 5, 2 damage, -3 AP. And the boats get no movement penalty because it's assault them.
Just a point, but it seems a little disingenuous to compare Heavy weapons on troops to a Heavy weapon that is only available on vehicles.
It seems akin to complaining because a 21pt Plasma Cannon on a Tactical Marine squad is inferior to the Executioner Plasma Cannon on a Leman Russ, which is only listed as costing 20pts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/11 13:20:22
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Martel732 wrote: A heavy weapon is a heavy weapon to me. Vehicles are a BETTER platform than infantry anyway, so how's it disingenous?
Because if you're talking about troop choices, it's disingenuous to say 'look, DE have much better weapons than our troop choices' and then point to a weapon that isn't available on DE troop choices (or any DE infantry, for that matter).
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Martel732 wrote: Well, their troops also get better guns: blasters and shredders.
Blasters are good, but I'm not sure I'd rate them more highly than Plasmaguns (Not as good against vehicles and such, but far more versatile and an extra shot at 12" is very useful). I definitely prefer them to Meltaguns, though (for the first time in many editions).
Shredders are decent, but suffer from being more anti-infantry. Given that most of our shooting is poison which can barely hurt vehicles, you're probably better off with the Blaster to give the squad some versatility.
Martel732 wrote: Disintegrators are better than my vehicle weapons, and the vehicles they are on are better, too.
I'd argue that DE are also more reliant on their vehicles, since we're supposed to be a fast army but the vehicles are the only thing that live up to that ( fast HQs, 0 fast Elites, 0 Fast troops, 1 fast Heavy Support . . . and it's a vehicle).
Personally, I'd far rather have some fun options like wings/jetbikes on HQs, but regrettably GW designers seemingly can't be bothered to do anything besides lowering points on existing units.
In any case, I'd be surprised if the Disintegrator retained it's current cost. I don't understand why it costs less than a Dark Lance.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Rather than forcing people to play Troops choices, they should have made Troops choices good enough that you want to take them. Right now it seems they are mostly a tax in many armies, that you have to take if you want the nice CP count, and as a way to pack in some elite/heavy/fast units to do the actual work.