Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Space Marines(8E)

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

FW Dreadnought Drop Pod[edit]

The Imperial Armor index says that it can carry any <CHAPTER> VEHICLE with the DREADNOUGHT keyword. Does anyone know if this also includes the new Redemptors/has this been errata or FAQ'd? Darthmustang (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


Power weapons section[edit]

So Quindraco, you said "be constructive instead of destructive", while you have destroyed all the section, without going to the talk page. Not nice.

First of all, I am not the only contributor to this section. Other have changed it, even modified the original table and it was very welcomed. Targets were modified, again, not by me, to illustrate the most common target. Again, a welcomed change. All that to say that it is not an "ego undo".

  • The new table you made is unreadable, with useless entries (T8 with a 7+ save ? Seriously). The entries in the previous sections were not choosen at random.
  • It does not shows the percentages. Winner by 59% or by 12% ? It is important for the reader, especially when weapon do not win by a large margin.
  • You have decided in your previous edit to rename all, removing the Power. Why ?
  • You added sections about lightning claws. This is not the point. Other power weapons are either 4 or 5 points AND ARE MOSTLY INTERCHANGEABLE thus the comparison. The extra point is not worth talking about. Plus LC you lose your other weapon. Not straight comparable. So, they do not belong to this table.
  • You wrote something about taking into account the price of the wielder, which does not make any sense in this comparison. Whatever weapon you take, the outcome in chanceq to wound is the same, and the price is, +/- 1 point, the same.
  • You said weapons were wielded by a SM sergeant. Why ? Does not work for Captains ? Or Librarians ? What you wrote is irrelevant, all you need is what was written : a strength 4 mini.

So, long story short, most changes you brought to this page are good, some very good, but in my opinion, your take in this section is not. :-)

Dariokan (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

FW stuff[edit]

Shouldn't we have the vanilla forgeworld stuff in each SM tactica?, ie, analysing how each them work with Space Wolves, etc.

Yes, we should. Though for the time being I see that as just copypasting things over since there's no rules in the Indexes that directly change how they act. --Newerfag (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
fuck it, I'll just do it myself--Arenuphis (talk) 09:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
neat, someone had gone halfway on a few of them and forgot to make new sections for them--Arenuphis (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

FW named characters[edit]

Someone removed the entry of Malakim Phoros as he belongs to a BA successor chapter. At first I dismissed it, but after thought I wondered. For non-vanilla chapter's named character, since nothing specific has been released for them, ok, they share the word "Imperium", so you can build a battleforged list whichever list (ie : Vanilla or BA, for instance) you use, but purist will want to share all keyword (ie Imperium - Adeptus Astartes - Chapter). So what list are you supposed to use, for the moment, for FW's chapters ? Yeah I know, a list with Death Company, Wolf Guard, Raven Wing and Tyranic War Veteran is still legit, but for the purpose of this wiki?

Phoros is an unusual case, since despite being a BA successor the Lamenters don't seem to inherit any of the Blood Angels' rules. Right now he could easily go in either list until we get some clarification from FW. For the other chapters, GW's line is to use their primogenitor's Chapter Tactics, etc. If they have no known primogenitor, you just pick your own. --Newerfag (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
FW have finally cleared this up. Forgeworld QandA1.png
So unless anyone objects, I'm just going to remove the Lamenters section then.

Using Devastators as Tactical Marines, Bad Idea or Terrible Idea?[edit]

So this guy keeps deleting stuff that Newerfag and I wrote (which is perfectly fine, but at least he should have the courtesy to explain why), and keeps adding stupid devastator count as tactical nonsense whereas everyone tells him it's retarded. So basically he messes up the page without taking into account what other people are telling him or having the courtesy of explaining his edits, and this is turning into an edit war.

  • I keep deleting your stuff because it doesn't make sense. I am guessing you are the guys that posted about a more than 12" charge range (impossible) or the ones that talked about a "wide range of threats" (which doesn't actually mean anything). Your posts are actually just wrong - you might disagree with my tactics, but they aren't wrong.
    • So while your other point is somehow valid is some extreme circumstance, here you are just idiot, sorry bud. It was not "wide range of threats" we were talking about the "threat range", i.e. movement + charge distance in case of a CC unit, a basic concept of any wargame btw. If you plan to charge with a unit of zerker, you need to get close and get into/come close of rapid fire range. With a jump pack or even better, a bike, you can stay at 20", let the the enemy advance 6, leaving 14" (thus no rapid fire for most weapons, and you still get your RG defensive bonus), or if the enemy doesn't close in, move 14 and secure a pretty safe 6" charge. This is what "threat range" means. So it synergize very well with the Ravens Guard's signature jump packs. Beside, you might want to think twice when SEVERAL persons are writing on the topic and agree on it. So sorry, you understood that wrong and I'd suggest you never try to edit that part again. Dariokan (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we do something ?

Call wikifag obviously. If he keeps this up, I'll send a message to the admins to get him to cool down. It genuinely is a bad edit, and should never be put in a serious page such as this. I cannot for the life of me believe that someone is actually braindead enough to put something like that on the page. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I wrung this bit of stupidity out of him: "Warhammer 40k Devastators - To the buffoon that doesn't understand what free items are. A Tactical squad with a single lascannon that hits on a 3+ costs 90 points. The EXACT SAME squad of 5 marines with a Devastator sergeant and 1 lascannon also costs 90 points, except that lascannon hits on a 2+. Explain why this is terrible." Because that 2+ apparently invalidates the fact that it's still just one lascannon which will be worthless on its own, especially against hordes.--Newerfag (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Apparently he's using multiple different devices(or an IP scrambler) to post as several different accounts. A third IP just joined in on our favorite vandal. Which I'm pretty sure I've seen people get perma-blocked for on occasion. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I never said this was "BETTER" than other options - I simply said this is an option. If you are taking a TACTICAL squad for just the heavy weapon, taking a Devastator squad with a single lascannon is just strictly better. If I told you that you could pay 90 points and get a lascannon that hits on a 3+ or pay 90 points and get a lascannon that hits on a 2+, which would you take?
Do you even understand the concept of 'Limited slots' and 'Competing Options'? In a standard list, you have a limit of 6 Troop Slots, and 3 Heavy Support slots, which means you can only take a maximum of 3 heavy support units. In that same slot, INSTEAD OF TAKING A 'NOT-TACTICAL', I could take any of the following
  • Thunderfire Cannon(way better anti-infantry)
  • Hellblasters
  • Predator Tank
  • Rapier Carriers
  • Vindicators
  • Any Land Raider
  • A goddamn LEVIATHAN DREADNOUGHT
  • A Contemptor-mortis
  • Or even a squadron of Laser Destroyer vindicators
Every single one of these is a better option than throwing away one of your heavy support slots in exchange for a 7th tactical squad. Which need I remind you, are a bad unit in the first place, and you should already never take more tactical squads than is strictly necessary.Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't understand how detachments work. In the current 8th edition environment you can take detachments of purely heavy support choices (and an HQ) - so your post about limited slots and competing options, again, just doesn't make sense.

Where is this even coming from? What rule? "In a standard list, you have a limit of 6 Troop Slots, and 3 Heavy Support slots"???

Even worse. You're now suggesting to take a Specialty detachment(losing out on more command points) in order to swap the mandatory troops for mandatory heavy support, so that you can use devastator squads instead of tactical squads for the same purpose. But in exchange, I would now have only 1 command point instead of 3. Nobody in their right mind would take one of those specialty detachments if they weren't fully intending on replacing their mandatory tactical marines with MANDATORY LEVIATHAN DREADNOUGHTS. Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

So... ok, you don't understand detachments and you don't understand points limits - and you still haven't explained this "standard list" nonsense. Its fine if you disagree, but how do you not recognize that a signum is a free piece of wargear that is not granted to any other sergeant other than a Devastator sergeant - and that there are other ways to abuse that free piece of wargear that doesn't also include adding more heavy weapons to the squad? Idiot marines with bolters are ablative wounds, they are grenade throwers, they are additional models that count towards most model near an objective.

I don't need to prove anything that should already be common knowledge. You haven't scraped together enough brain cells to even read what we have to say about your vandalizing edits. It's not 'abuse' if it's genuinely a bad idea. Why would I take a devastator squad(with no heavy weapons), if for the very same slot I can plop down a Contemptor Dreadnought that has BS2+ by default, 3"+ of movement, +5 extra wounds with +2 extra toughness, packing a 3+/5++, and quad-lascannons? The whole purpose of devastator squads is to hold down an objective in the backfield and provide long-range fire support to your units that move up the board.Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

LOL what Contemptor Dreadnought are you looking at that can pack quad lascannons?? - they can take Kheres assault cannons and/or multi-meltas. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the game, of the units involved, their wargear options, and their battlefield options. If GW is going to give a model a free piece of wargear, you should try and see what the possibilities are beyond just what you think they should be based on their battlefield designation.

  • Mortis Dreadnought: Your go-to dakka dread. It costs 5 points more than a standard dreadnought, with the exact same profile, but it brings the option to double down on weapons the regular dread cant. You can take a pair of twin bolters, autocannons, or lascannons, or a pair of regular missile launchers, assault cannons, multi-meltas, or heavy plasma cannons. All good choices for laying down firepower, with the best guns depending on what you plan to shoot and how many points you can spare. For good measure, you can also bring along a Cyclone Missile Launcher.

For the classic twin autocannon rifleman setup, you're usually better off with a regular dread. They have the same stats for a few points less, and it's the only gun the normal dread can double up on. Only take an autocannon Mortis if you really need a heavy support instead of an elite.

  • Contemptor Mortis Dreadnought: Better than the standard Mortis in every way, from the BS 2+ to the Atomantic Shielding. Apart from that, it can do everything the regular Mortis can, only better.

This is from the very page you're trying to vandalize. The dreadnought you're looking for is a Contemptor Mortis. Which is the long-range shooting-only variant for the Contemptor chasis. Alternatively the Heavy Support slot can also be filled with a DEREDEO Dreadnought, which is the same thing as the contemptor mortis, only more points but with vastly more powerful weapons,

or a Leviathan Dreadnought.. Just fucking read the page.Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

These are some forge world units - which is fine, but they are not in the current index for space marines, so they are not familiar to me. However, they are probably expensive as hell and they will draw a ton of fire, and a few lucky hits from big guns will destroy them. They are limited to one small area of the battlefield, cannot hold objectives well, and not everyone has easy access to these models. You said that I should come here to talk things out - you still have yet to show me that a signum is not a free piece of wargear. You have not shown me that having more marines to get through is a bad thing. You have not shown me that having 4 extra bolters is a bad thing. In fact, all you really seem to be able to do is say "LEVIATHAN DREADNOUGHT" in all caps multiple times. I'm sure this is a great unit, but there are other units in the game, with other options, at cheaper points, that fill other roles. If you disagree with my strategies, that is fine, but your misunderstanding or lack of an open mind does not make me a vandal.

  • It is an objectively bad use of a slot, and an objecively bad use of Devastators at that matter. Why would ONE WHOLE SHOT justify taking a gimped version of the unit when that shot isn't even enough to take down a Rhino reliably? We don't need to disprove your "argument" about the Signum being free because it's completely irrelevant to our point-that it is a nice buff, but not nearly enough to justify what you're doing except in games that are less than 500 points, and at that point you should just play Shadow War Armageddon. Even using Devastators normally (I.E. with a full complement of heavy weapons) is way more likely to win back its points than your asinine idea.--Newerfag (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I disagree, when your opponent sees you do it they may think you're special and go easy on you. Spider (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, there's more than just a single lascannon use. You can give him a combi-plasma, and for 80 points (again, no heavy weapons, just stop saying that it is so inherently bad for a minute and listen) you have a sergeant with a plasma gun that can ALWAYS fire overcharge without ever worrying about blowing up, with 4 other marines to protect him (ablative wounds, good at taking pot shots at other infantry, throwing grenades, holding objectives, denying space to the enemy, etc.) and that plasma gun is mobile, can come from a drop pod and fire 2 shots on the turn you disembark (or 4 with a cherub, 85 points) - and for 85 points you can paste the other guys Centurions/Terminators/other multiple wound models in an alpha strike with the other 4 marines double tapping their squads with their bolters. If you lose the unit, who cares, its only 85 points, and they have to kill all 5 marines or the sergeant just keeps pumping out overcharge plasma shots every turn without fear. Again, you don't have to "like" this strategy, but its there and it has its uses.

  • Sternguard do the same thing, have better stats overall, and have better bolters to boot. Your whole argument relies around one guy who could be taken in a tactical squad for only a minor decrease in effectiveness that will become an obvious fire magnet if the opponent is even vaguely conscious. On its own it may not be inherently bad, but it takes more than one 2+ shot in a slot which could be used far better (e.g. if you were too lazy to read it, a Leviathan can kill virtually everything short of a Titan while soaking up far more fire than an infantry squad) in a wide variety of ways. Point cost isn't everything, so stop acting as if it is. --Newerfag (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sternguard are more expensive. If they roll a 1 when supercharging, they die. Points cost surely isn't everything, but its the most important thing - games are played based upon an agreed-upon point value. If points don't matter, then sure, a Leviathan is better than a marine, but that's not what we're talking about here. I am talking about a way to take a piece of free wargear, that is better than "just" BS2+ (even guys with BS2+ die when overheating plasma). Its different, and yes, its clear you don't like it, but its not wrong, and its only your opinion that this is such a horrible idea. I think there are lots of horrible ideas on the Space Marine tactics page, but its if its doable, leave it alone. The only time something should be completely deleted is when it is actually not-feasible (like when someone posted something about charging from more than 12" away to save them from overwatch using the Raven Guard tactic).

  • You keep avoiding the basic point that a 2+ is not that big of an improvement over a 3+ in almost any situation. It is theoretically doable, but it's a waste of what you could do with them and is forcing them into a role better suited to Tactical Marines by far. Devastators are most effective with multiple heavy weapons for them to select a buff from (e.g. that combi-plasma will be worthless if you're up against an Ork list emphasizing large mobs of Boyz) and are best used to support objective campers or even as a suicide melta if you take a minimum sized squad with multi-meltas and a drop pod, not camp on the objectives themselves. --Newerfag (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking, yes, a 2+ over a 3+ is only a ~16.7% improvement, but that doesn't take into account plasma and 1s, where a +1 to hit is just better than the ~16.7% we are discussing. And no, its not "better suited to Tactical Marines" because for the exact same 80 points, and the exact same sergeant with a combi-plasma, he will die 1/6 of the times he shoots his combi-plasma overcharged, not to mention missing ~16.7% more often. With the way detachments work now you can take zero troops and still field a good force. I think one of the "no-troops" issues though, is total models on the board, so cheap and effective squads with a decent number of models with a special dude in them is a good way to balance the high points costs of the other options you will be taking. Am I saying spam dev squads with a sergeant with combi-plasma? No? Am I saying that this is alternative way to look at a dev squad in the current organization of battlefield roles and detachments? Yes.
      • And that's only useful for the combi-plasma alone, which will still only amount to a maximum of 2 shots per turn for a total of 4 damage if they all wound; that's not even enough to reliably kill a Dread in 2 turns. If you're so afraid of dying from plasma, it's exponentially simpler to either use the re-rolling stratagem or have a Captain nearby. Given that the current meta focuses primarily on large hordes (which won't be killed fast enough by a single MEQ-equivalent even with 2+ plasma and can easily lock down said MEQ-equivalent by forcing it to either keep falling back or get itself tarpitted), it's an alternative that harms you far more than it helps. The very fact that nobody at all has spoken in favor of this "strategy" since it was posted should have been a sign of its lack of worth; even in a Spearhead detachment where for some inexplicable reason you aren't taking any tanks, it would be far more effective to have devastators with a full set of heavy weapons. Get it through your head that the +1 to hit doesn't justify losing out on all the firepower the unit could bring to the table. Hell, even with your idea there's no good reason not to just take three or four heavy bolters on the other marines since those are the cheapest heavy weapons and that their users will still be hitting on a 4+ if you move. So not only can you use them as you're supposed to, it'll give the sarge who you're pinning all your hopes onto a marginally better chance against the aforementioned hordes. --Newerfag (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

For example - look at this ridiculous comment about Salamanders "For those who think that this tactic is only good for special/heavy weapons, you couldn't be further from the truth (for all those Space Marine squads without a single special or heavy weapon?). Just regular bolter marines are 76% more effective than normal in rapid fire range, (against T4) and against raven guard outside of 12" it's 224% as effective. This tactic is so bullshit; the fact is that it acts like a mini Guilliman, that doesn't care about being within a certain area AND IT'S FREE despite almost everyone bitching about how OP he is." - What the hell are they talking about? What squad takes no heavy weapons/special weapons/melee weapons (outside of Primaris Incessors) - this is an absolute rubbish comment, but he's right - a bolter by itself wielded by a Salamander is just better. Is it a horrible and stupid comment? Yes. Is it flat-out wrong? No.

  • Have you suddenly forgotten that just about every squad will have at least a few bolter marines even if they took heavy/special/melee weapons? Or that you were arguing in favor of the very thing you're calling horrible just one paragraph above this one? If you're going to make ridiculous arguments, at least be consistent about which side you're arguing for. --Newerfag (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The Salamanders buff only works for one weapon. So... I am having a hard time imagining a squad with NOTHING other than bolters, to which the Salamander player would buff a single bolter. I'm sure those squads exist, but that's REALLY REALLY horrible strategy.
    • Though if the Special/Heavy weapon hits then you don't need to re-roll it so can re-roll a bolter shot instead Spider (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Ok, I'll be the devil's advocate for a second. IF you are in a small game, and IF you are playing with points and not power level, and IF you haven't maxed your Heavy Support slot and IF for some reason you need additional bodies (Securing objectives is on a model count basis, for instance) and all you have left is 5 marines with a single combi-weapon, and IF doing so it doesn't gimp your Command Point pool, then our friend Spider's strategy is viable. But that is a lot of ifs. Spider, I am sure you mean good are not vandalizing, but given that your approach is extremely situational AND that it is a community work and the community globaly rejects your approach, I think you'd better let it go. That's how a wiki works. Dariokan (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
        • Why do people keep thinking we are the same person, we aren't, I have proposed no strategy, this is fully on the other guy who isn't signing his name.Spider (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
          • New to the forums - just tell me how to sign my name and I will (I'm logged in as "Darthmustang"). And I am fine to "let it go" but just see the comment below.
          • Just use four tildes
            ~~~~

Guys, Guys. Please. This is getting silly. The guy just said that a squad of devastators is stronger as a tactical squad with the same/similar loadout. His argument is valid in that regard. But it is also true that there are much more effective uses of an heavy support slot. In case of you just needing 5 Power Armoured Guys sitting on an objective and having a free support slot, why not instead of combatsquating your tactical squad just bring 5 tacticals and 5 devastators for the same price but getting the free buff.

  • ^^^ Thank you.
    • He was not supporting your argument, in that taking a naked dev squad is a minimal improvement over the tacticals. For fuck's sake, have you forgotten that the whole purpose of using Devastators in the first place is to take MORE heavy weapons? --Newerfag (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • He was neither supporting or dismissing. He was just saying that he sees what I am saying and recognized that in some circumstances, this is a useful thing. Darthmustang (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Darthmustang

I also think there is a larger argument here over the correct size and loadout for Devastators. In 7th Edition there were TONS of lists that did very well with Devastator squads that had less than 4 heavy weapons per squad (most ran 2) (http://bloodofkittens.com/7th-edition-army-list-compendium/). I think that in some circumstances, 5 Devs with 4 heavy weapons is right, in some circumstances 5 Devs with less than 4 heavy weapons is right, and I think we shouldn't just ignore a free character buff. No one is telling you that you HAVE to take Devs this way, but just keep it in mind for if you want to do something different. Darthmustang (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

EvilExecutive- grow up. Newerfag- calm down. Is this tactic competitive? No. But unless you'te taking enough troops for a bigger detachment or you're out of Heavy Support slots, a Dev squad with no heavy weapons is strictly better than a Tac squad. Is this the only way to take them? Definitely not. But it bears mentioning that it's strictly superior to a Tac squad in this case. EatTheRich (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

It simply does not belong on the page. These pages are meant to assist people in building a better army by giving a solid rundown of what units are, and what their purposes are on the tabletop. We aren't here to give complete bullshit "advice" to people by telling them that they should run their devastator squads as simply an extra tactical squad. It's bullshit and retardation of the highest possible degree, and it especially violates the core principle of Marines Lists where your job is to minimize your taxes. We want LESS TACTICAL SQUADS, NOT MORE. That's before we get into the problem of vanguard detachments using naked-devastators as it's mandatory tax, because you literally then get exactly the same thing as a standard detachment, but with 2 less command points.Evil Executive, CEO of Evil Incorporated (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • DUDE This is YOUR OPINION - your opinion is not a fact, your opinion is not the be-all, end-all of all opinions. Some people play the game differently. Just because you and some other folks don't like the fact that Devastator squads can be taken differently doesn't give you any right to continually delete a weird (if not the best) benefit that GW gave to Devastator sergeants. Darthmustang (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
    • And his opinion just so happens to be the consensus held by everyone else. At best, your idea is a passable one for gimmick lists but in anything beyond a beer and pretzels game it'll be laughed off the table. That is why it's being deleted, because 95% of the time it's useless and wasteful.--Newerfag (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think Evil Executive and Newerfag are just mad they didn't think of it first. Darthmustang (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Not only is that incredibly immature, it's flat-out wrong. What are you, a butthurt fanfic writer attempting to respond to critique? --Newerfag (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
LOL - you're the one that is so butthurt you went crying to the Wikiassistant who basically told you to STFU. I think your butt hurts from taking it there from Evil Executive on a regular basis. Darthmustang (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
You're being incredibly childish about this at this point, and it is not doing you any favors. At the very least, it is clear that we have reached an impasse and that nobody is convincing anyone of anything. For now, I propose we simply drop the matter and wait for the new codex, especially because there is a rumor that a form of ObSec for Space Marine troops is returning. If this is indeed the case, the argument for using Devastators as quasi-tacticals falls apart. For the moment, I've added a highly modified version of your idea in that makes it very clear that it should not be used outside of games with unusually strict point limits. Anything higher than 500 points, and it's no longer efficient. --Newerfag (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the current way it's worded is fine and conveyes the tactic for one and your dislike for it the other. Well done. But may I suggest adding the same paragraph to the tactical squad, too? Or someone with actual knowledge of the wiki links it? Because that bit of tactics has relevance to both entrys and I do not want to edit myself due to fear of kickstarting edit war 2 electric boogaloo
No. Leave it alone. It only needs to be said once. --Newerfag (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Terminus Ultra point cost[edit]

Quick question regarding the Terminus Ultra: Has anyone seen an official response from GW regarding the points cost? The points listed in the index is ambiguous as to whether you add the cost of the lascannons. Now that we have the Spartan and know it cheaper for the same number of lascannon shots, both the power level and points seem wrong. If the point include the lascannons, it seems about right. Otherwise, it's more expensive than the Spartan and can't do as much. The power level appears to be just wrong regardless. Just wanted to ask before I updated the page.

Haven't seen anything official. But given every other LoW from other Index's I checked does not include wargear, and its not a special character, RAI it probably doesn't. Acherousia (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm 99% sure at 400 points it comes with its weapons included.
  • OP: FAQ added a line that makes it clear. It's 400 points.

Page 203 – Space Marine Points Values, Lords of War Add the following text beneath ‘Points Per Model’: ‘(Including Wargear)’ Mindwarp (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

These TL/DR sections[edit]

Are they really necessary? We've been over this before on other pages where simple statements of good/bad/ugly don't really add anything useful to readers unless they literally cannot be bothered to read for themselves and intend to build armies based solely on what is in the section, which can be entirely subjective in many cases. Personally, I feel these sections just look poor and out of place... I'd suggest removing them, or putting them much further down the page. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

They are useful for people who don't play the army. It lets them see what units they are more likely to run into and what is more likely to be a threat, without necessarily understanding all of the synergies within an army. If nothing else, it says "You should go read these units entries if, no others." Acherousia (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Then I would suggest moving them to the end of the unit analysis section, rather than the start. 1d4chan has (if nothing else) been renowned for having very high quality tactics articles. Putting a list of units with single word statements such as "viable" or "trash" is hardly objective or representative of any sort of quality "analysis" and should not be what the reader has to look at first, particularly on the largest section of the page. When you put it at the end it becomes a conclusion that aught to summarize what the reader has had to skip over to get there. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Plus, right now it's mangled the section formatting: knocking the HQ section to one side. ---Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
It's an outline to the status of each unit, not a conclusion. The whole point is to be able to at a glance see which entries they should read, not to summarize everything they just read. Acherousia (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As someone that doesn't want or have the time to read every entry, I do find them useful personally. That's especially true if I'm there more to see the strength of an army I don't own or I am looking at it for a new army I'm building. I don't own Eldar so I don't want to know the ins and outs of EVERY unit but I am interested in what their strongest and weakest stuff is most likely to be. I don't see them so much as a TL:DR but more as a pointer as to what entries I'd likely want to read if I'm just looking for an overview. I do agree the naming could do with a overhaul. Viable and mediocre are ok, OP and Trash, not so much. OP tend to be the stronger units rather than actual OP and trash makes it seem like the unit has no use which is often untrue.

Renaming might be a lot better, again because the current terms used are just too subjective. It might be better to condense it to "units of note:" such as things to either look out for, or are overly flawed. Just leave middle-ground units out of it, if it isn't actually of any worthy notability, why draw attention to it? otherwise you're just pretty much only saying that the unit exists. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Lets them know that it has been accounted for. Instead of possibly just not yet ranked. Acherousia (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I personally view them as matters of opinion, and one person's ideas of what is and is not viable os an insult to detailed tactics pages. If someone wants the TL;DR version, they can ask DakkaDakka, Bolter and Chainswords, or any of the other more casual sites. --Newerfag (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd have been fine keeping them if work had been done to improve them, they were just completely simplistic, subjective and out of tone with what our "tactics" articles have always been. We're better than merely listing units and giving them star ratings. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 05:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
To make it even clearer for Acherousia and others who seem enamored with the idea of a TL;DR segment, I give the following reasons for why it doesn't work.

"It gives no reason as to why a given unit is in its category, let alone by who's standards it's "viable" for-profit matched play? Narrative play? No detail, no reasoning, no worth.

  • It keeps the meta stagnant by said lack of reasoning; many otherwise unremarkable units only become worth using when the right synergy is achieved, and nobody will find those of they're too scared to take a unit that's been labeled "trash" for no clear reason.
  • Quite frankly, it's insulting to the people who made the tactics page in the first place- your laziness does not constitute an excuse for dumbing anything down. Don't have the time to read it? Make the time, then. Though this may sound harsh, it is how these pages are kept to their high standard.
Unless those sections are overhauled to address these issues, I will hold to my stance that they have no place on this wiki. --Newerfag (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Then either add that information yourself, or give people time to add it. Immediately nuking a section you personally have issues with or find lacking does nothing to help to help the page, and is simple vandalization.
  • The TL;DR section should be a cooperative effort of anyone working on that pages army, making it no less subjective than any other information on the page.
  • No information on any page has been labelled as being for a specific play mode. Army building tactics vary wildly depending on your army, between matched play and narrative, and between points and power. Why is this suddenly an issue with the TL;DR sections? Shouldn't you be culling the entire page due to this?
  • The tactics pages exist to present information to the users. Not so you can stroke your ego via people reading what you have written.
  • The meta is what is affecting the list, not the list affecting the meta. Anyone who is going to look at that list to build their army, is going to follow what is currently popular in tournaments anyway. The list simply tells people what they can expect to run into against that army, without having to personally track down tournament winner army lists. Anyone who is "too scared" to try a unit because it is listed as unviable, isn't going to be finding some unique combo anyway.
Your stance on not liking them has been noted, however as we do not have a majority opinion in either direction, I think it is a little early to be simply nuking them. Acherousia (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
In these situations, we simply remove the offending section until a consensus is reached.
  • The fact that you are the only person objecting to their removal in the first place is to me a clear sign of things as they are now; had people cared, more would have been added to those sections long before I began culling them.
  • The section couldn't even perform it's ostensible purpose properly. I could have mixed up the names listed there are random and nobody would be able to argue against it without actually reading the entries, simply because it has no objective criteria as to what constitutes "Trash", "OP", and so on. At that matter, it also conflates "most often used" with "tournament viable" when those things need not be identical.
  • My ego has nothing to do with this, it's simply a fact that people who read these pages have no desire for a "TL;DR" section. They want all the detail and depth they can get, and certainly would know enough about the lists they are likely to see to not need to be told what the most popular units are.
Deleting a section because of unacceptably low quality is not vandalism, and I will not delete it if it can somehow be brought up to the standards of the rest of the tactics page. However, I do not expect this to be likely, and it certainly will not happen if you concern yourself more with calling me a vandal than you do about actually doing anything about the aforementioned issues. --Newerfag (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
There is one other person on this page specifically who wanted them to remain, there are the people that created those sections originally. It is not just me. This is also a single armies page having this discussion, less than a full day after you have started deleting the content.
This discussion has also only been going on for 3 days, on the 4th of July weekend. Maybe we can wait until people are actually around / have had time to chime in before making snap judgements that everyone agrees with us?
You are the not the sole judge of quality and don't get to decide who gets to read the pages. If you think it is too low, mention it, and give people more than a few seconds to make any suggested improvements before you start nuking it from orbit. These sections existing does not prevent any "detail and depth" from existing on the page, nor do you know what everyone wants to see on these pages. As evidenced by the fact they existed in the first place. Acherousia (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I find more often they exist because too few people care enough to have an opinion about them at all; half the page could be replaced with gibberish and they would hardly notice, which is why there's so little work done on the 8e tactics pages so far to begin with. It is also why I removed them as I did, as if more than one person wanted them to stay then they should have spoken up about it. But as I mentioned earlier, post what you want to do with it on this talk page and then we can decide what to do to bring them up to the standards of the rest of the page. Remember that listing is worthless, it needs to say why it is there, what its role is, and what it works well with. Newerfag (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Frag. I go away for a few days and every unit analysis has been gutted. This isn't a page for single sentence unit summaries it's the damn tactics page. In addition what the hell happened to those Forge World entries I filled out Friday? (M.King)

  • I tried something different today and had a go at making the TL;DR "better". So I figured that unqualified one word statements weren't enough, so I went for qualified two word statements, indicating which role a unit best suited for. It is still somewhat subjective, but it leaves less room for dispute, since if you consider a unit to fill two roles, then they fill two roles, it's that easy. This way it imparts considerably more information to someone who doesn't know what the units are, since it explains both what the unit does or how it should be used on the tabletop, as well as acting as a true summary for the unit analysis which will follow in the section beneath it. (eg: Fire Dragons = Kill Tanks) Much better than a simple list of "goodness" that people might never agree on, or get right, but it's still hard and fast, it's understandable at a glance, and it uses about the same amount of space in the long run. Thoughts? --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 15:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
That's the best idea; additionally, I'd make it a sentence or two long-range that's enough to explain their general strengths and weaknesses on top of their role. Here's a couple of examples I cooked up:
  • Tactical Marine Squad: General purpose heavy infantry capable of filling multiple roles, but not necessarily excelling in any of them. Ideal for plugging gaps in almost any list.
  • Intercessor Squad: Smaller squad size and higher cost compared Tactical Marines and cannot take special/heavy weapons, but compensates with more wounds and attacks. Bolt rifles have better range and AP than badic bolters, making them more effective against light vehicles and infantry, but require support from other units to deal with tougher targets.
What do you think?--Newerfag (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
If you see what I put on the page already (in the collapsible section) you'll see what I mean. I see what you are doing, but I personally feel that anything more than a couple of words defeats the whole spirit of a TL;DR section and you'd end up just repeating information rather than swiftly summarising it. At least with something like "Tank Slayers: Fire Dragons, Fire Prism, Wraithknight" you are just a succinct as the previous way, but impart much more tangible information. I'm only trying to offer an efficient compromise between the two extremes. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but it still feels like it's oversimplified and fails to actually compare them to each other. It's still far shorter than the main entries even while relaying the most important information about them. And everything I said about the arbitrary categories at the end still applies: no reasoning for the categorization beyond "just trust us". I'd go into more detail but honestly you already gave a pretty good argument for why that part had to go in the Necron tactics talk page. --Newerfag (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed it. It doesn't serve it's purpose as a TL:DR of the page. The roles it defines for the units do not match the descriptions of the units below it.

It has Dreadnoughts as tarpits. The tactics page entries for the Dreadnought, Chaplain Dreadnought, Contemptor and Leviathan describe their ability to inflict damage first and foremost they come across as tough units that kill, not tarpits. The Dreadnought is described as “possibly the best non HQ unit” a distinction it shares with the Chaplain Dreadnought, that's the marines tarpit? Their best unit. The entries don't match the TL:DR.

Vanilla Terminators cost 240 points, deepstrike, have 2 wounds and attacks while wielding storm bolters and power fists, they put out a large amount of shooting and damage. Using them as a tarpit is a huge waste, how often are people going to be using their termies in that role? It's going to very situational rather than been a strategy to be relied upon or a role that defines them. Every entry for termies points out how they can do damage not one entry says use them as expendables to tie down a unit. Once again the TL:DR doesn't represent what the page actually says about them.

It completely leaves vanguard out of the horde killing and high value slayers. Something the tactis page describes them as excelling at. It points out they can wipe Magnus in one turn. It once again doesn't match what the page says it leaves one of the marines best units out.

It lists army support. Every HQ is now a form of army support. Guiliman is army support in model form yet completely missing from the TL;DR.

When it was attempting to say what units were good or bad in the meta that could've been workable. Units can be good or bad in the meta and it can be explained why, Pyrovores for ages as an example. The TL:DR as it was attempted to get across a units role but in it's current state the roles it was stating weren't aligned with the actual unit entries so it isn't actually serving it's purpose as a TL:DR of the actual page. It's disconnected from it, the info it provides is different from the entries. Worse it doesn't give any hint why they're actually good in that role. Basically it's a bit weird to have a TL:DR section that describes Dreads as tarpits, only for someone to then go and actually read the dreadnought entries and they do not tell you to use them that way.--Fourthy (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

That was my bad, I just put things in their places as an attempt to try out a different format for a TL;DR section rather than assign all of the designations myself. Whereas a statement of role and/or function worked more appropriately than simply saying whether a unit was good/viable/trash. You've actually made my point for me by pointing out that the designation doesn't match the description, which simply could not have been possible using the older structure. as in: how can a unit be "trash" when the entry actually offers a balanced viewpoint on a unit's good and bad points with the intention of getting the most out of the unit itself. I see the section was deleted anyway, I'm not particularly fussed, good riddance. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
TL:DR is just horrific. If newcomers you're so fond about don't have 15 minutes to read the whole article, are they really suited to even play this game? Sorry if it sounds harsh, but the last thing this wiki needs is oversimplification. --Flutist (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Forge World chapters & special characters[edit]

Can we perhaps move these entries to AFTER the Lords of War section in their own section. Now the HQ section becomes very long with a lot of characters that very few people are interested in (IMHO). Perhaps anything not in the INDEX can go in the FORGE WORLD section. Then we can have a clear summary of HQ, TROOPS, ELITES, FA, HS and LoW units without all these specials making it unreadable.

While I wouldn't see it as the worse thing as it just means scrolling to the bottom, is it really necessary?

I am not seeing how it makes it any more unreadable than the Ultramarine, Raven Guard or White Scar etc sections. If GW had released them through GW instead of GW releasing them through FW you'd have the same page as now but without the forgeworld section. Would you want special characters broken of in that scenario?

As for people not caring. That's going to be pretty subjective. A Crimson Fist player isn't going to care much about the Ultramarines or Raven Guard characters. I play Carcharodons and have a small amount of Minotaurs painted so I do care about Tyberos. He's basically the only way GW left me to give them any flavour in 8th. Where do you draw the line on what units people care about? Forgeworld stuff is used by people in normal 40k, Forgeworld is GW and GW/FW clarified forgeworld stuff can be used, the new FW indexes are aimed at 8th. I also don't feel the section is unreadable. On the whole I I don't feel it should be moved at least imo.--Fourthy (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Then let us put all the specific chapters aside. Every one of these specific chapter unit/character is not intended to be used with any other specific chapter unit/character (I know it's possible, but then you could just as well put the grey knights and Dark Angel units in here). They are SPECIFIC, instead of generic space marines. This is the Space Marines tactics page, not the Carcharodons tactics page, and while I think they belong on this page instead of their own chapter tactics page, I don't think they belong in the middle of the summing up of generic space marine units. A 'specific chapter' section is welcome in my opinion. I care about all these characters, I want to read about what they do, but they are not relevant to any other chapter but their own. --Caladai (Caladai) 16:36, 4 July 2017 (GMT)

What we have is fine. If you want specifics, use Ctrl+F. --Newerfag (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Every HQ is specific now. If you choose a Captain you give him a chapter keyword and he'll only buff that chapter. The only difference with specials is the keyword is pre-determined. Carcharadons are generic just as the Ultramarines, Raven Guard etc are, they have no special units outside of their character like every non BA, DA, GK, DW, SW chapter. They use the generic marine units on the tactics page.

There is nothing stopping you bringing two special characters and chapters. The special characters actually make using multiple chapter MORE viable than the generic HQs due to the specialized nature and increased power of their buffs, actually that's probably the only time it's remotely a good idea. If you wanted to boost a Vanguard or Termie Assault squad you could make them Carcharodons or Crimson fists and bring Tyberos or Kantor. If you also wanted your Meltas to be more effective you can make them Salamanders and bring Vulkan. Where as if you made a Terminator Chaplain a Carcharodon and a Captain a Salamander you now have a HQ that only buffs part of your army for no advantage in return. Where as Kantor's +1 A or Tyberos's +1 S is not going to matter too much for Devastators but is nice on an assault unit and re-rolls to melta hits and wounds is useless for hammernators but goes nicely on a Melta squad. They buff specific and very different parts of the army.

The characters are also already under their own faction names. Moving them means you have HQs in separate part of the page, having one set of HQs at the top and then another bunch in the middle or bottom would break the flow a lot more than the current set up. Surely it'd be better to keep them in the same place. --Fourthy (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

And this is far from the only version of the page with FW characters mixed in with normal ones, and I didn't see anyone complaining then. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. Like I said, just Ctrl+F "Elites" if holding the scroll button is too much effort for you. --Newerfag (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We could do a list with links to each character in their relevant slot (Captains, chaplains ect) and then just do the unit summaries at the end.

A bad solution to a nonexistent problem. It would likely be even more disruptive to the formatting.--Newerfag (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Defenders of Humanity[edit]

Not really sure what the policy is so I thought I'd ask. Marines are getting a special rule called defenders of humanity in the new codex. Should I wait for the codex to be released before adding it to the page?--Elan (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Add it, the chapter tactics have already been posted along with the relics, so it should be fine Spider (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dreadnought wargear[edit]

Just checking that since Heavy Flamer is not included in the Dreadnought Heavy Weapons list in the latest codex, basic Dreadnoughts shouldn't be able to carry 3 flamers?

You can still use the Index options, so a twin heavy flamer and regular heavy flamer are still valid.

Does this also count for the biker models not in the new space marine codex (e.g., chaplain, librarian, company champion, etc)? Darthmustang (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Same for the limited edition models like the Imperial Space Marine and the Command Tank duo.--Newerfag (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)


Biker Techmarine[edit]

A techmarine is 58, a bike techmarine is 70 + twin bolter(2) They both have the same base wargear requirements and options. Making the bike a 14 pt upgrade. Where did you get 27?


Land Speeder Storms Weapon Loadout[edit]

I've been scanning this page for a while now, and I've seen that both on here, as on Battlescribe, the Land Speeder Storms still have their old weapon loadout options listed (Heavy Bolter, Assault Cannon, Heavy Flamer and Multi-Melta) but in the Codex I have seen that this option has dissappeared... The FAQ doesn't mention this either, am I missing something?

  • Index. They have their full options in Index: Imperium 1.

Strength Modifier Sequence[edit]

I noticed that a number of entries talk about units with Thunderhammers and +1 S achieving S10. Stat modifiers are multiplication/division first, then addition/subtraction (same as last edition) so a marine with a Thunderhammer and +1 S is ((4 * 2) + 1) = 9. Is there another rule that I'm missing? -- VioletDiamond (talk) 10:05, 10-24-2017 (UTC)

Update: Raw, a +1 S aura buff modifies the stat itself, while a weapon's x2 is a calculation based off the current stat, and is not actually a modifier. S10 marines work.
Considering each and every addition to strenght comes from special rules while duplications only come from the weapons, when would S10 marines would NOT work? -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 01:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Painting Guides[edit]

Would it be alright if I began to post painting guides onto the tactics pages of each army?

Well, first, it's a nice initiative, so thanks :) However, Tactics pages have a tendancy to become monstruosities size-wise, so I am not sure it would be that great an addition. HOWEVER, what would be awesome, like we have /tactics/armyname sections, would be to create a whole bunch of /painting/armyname section. In other word, instead of adding to already "heavy" pages, creating dedicated pages. What do you think? Dariokan (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a much better way of going about it. I'll probably get started on them soon, beginning with the Space Marines, doing a generic guide for all First Founding chapters and stuff like the Deathwatch and the Deathwing too. I'll be using the guides from the Citadel Paint app, plus resources I find online. Goofus19 (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2017 (CST)

Collapsible sections within vignettes[edit]

Basically how do I do it. I'd like to add a list of synergy models to the Warlord Trait list...but making it collapsible so it doesn't bloat everything to hell or disrupts the list. So far no success, found no relevant info in the help section. Any ideas? -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Space Marine Armoury[edit]

Listing stuff makes no sense if we're focusing on rewriting the codex instead of writing actual tactica about the codex. Especially for niche weapons that only one or two units get. Especially if we explain what the weapon is, as if those 4-channers didn't have the codex themselves. Listing what a Bolt carbine is? THEY KNOW. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Unless the reader doesn't play marines, but want to know what they might face, but yes, I'm inclined to agree.--Arenuphis (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
altho reading just this, and not having to look back and forth between this and a codex is nice.--Arenuphis (talk) 12:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Flakk Missiles and Extra Damage[edit]

In response to, "The strategem doesn't say that it replaces the normal shot, it just causes Mortal Wounds on a hit - You still get the regular Krak Missile hit as well", someone put, "Official rulings in tournaments disagree. As does common sense." What tournaments are these? Because there's nothing in the ITC rules. GW certainly hasn't FAQed anything, either. Local tournaments from your hometown don't count.

Captain Lysander vs Captain In Terminator Armour with Thunder Hammer and Storm Shield[edit]

Is there something wrong with this part in Captain Lysander's entry: "He got way cheaper with the new edition. A similarly equipped Captain comes in at 12 pts pricier..."? Lysander is 150 pts, while a Captain in Terminator Armour is 105 pts + Thunder Hammer (Character) is 21 pts + Storm Shield (Character) is 15 pts. So "a similarly equipped Captain" is still only 141 pts, 9 pts cheaper than Lysander and 21 pts cheaper than the supposed "similarly equipped Captain". Am I missing something?

Ancients and other Chapters[edit]

I appreciate the that the rules say <CHAPTER> ANCIENT, and in the old index Dark Angels and Blood Angels replaced the <Chapter> word with their own respectively. But nowadays they have their own specific DARK ANGELS or BLOOD ANGELS key words. Furthermore, the Company and Primaris Ancients in those codexes have had the wording fixed and say "within 6" of any DARK ANGELS ANCIENTS with this ability" therefore preventing the rule from applying to DEATHWING ANCIENTS. Those codexes make absolutely no mention of a <Chapter> keyword; in situations where it needs replaced such as by playing a successor, then you replace DARK ANGELS or BLOOD ANGELS respectively.

  • If you are suggesting that Dark Angels and Blood Angels armies take units from the Space Marine codex and change the <Chapter> key word to Dark Angels/Blood Angels to suit the rules, then that's just plain wrong... even the designers commentary states: "The intent of naming Regiments, Chapters [...] etc is not to enable players to circumvent the restrictions on what abilities affect what units. It is also not intended to circumvent the restrictions on which units are able to be included in the same Detachment." Otherwise Dark Angels/Blood Angels players could simply take whatever units their codex doesn't give them such as Centurions.
    • As a yet further extension of this, the Space Marine codex itself states that "Note that there are several Space Marine Chapters – such as the Blood Angels, Space Wolves and Grey Knights – that deviate significantly from the Codex in terms of organisation and fighting style. The rules and abilities for these Chapters (and any successors they may have) will be detailed in their own codexes." So they aren't supposed to be taking units/rules from the Space Marine codex and take their own versions thereof. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Damn, you're right, I totally missed the new wording even when double-checking. My bad, shamefur dispray. (worked per Index though) --Flutist (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Allies with "armory" stratagems[edit]

The way the Relics of the Chapter and similar stratagems are worded, is it possible to spend CP to get relics from an allied army, even if your warlord is from another army? For example, if I'm playing SM with Imperial Guard, could I make my warlord a Marine, and then use Imperial Commander's Armoury to get one "extra" AM relic, going from 0 to 1?

"extra", it can't be in addition to nothing, that's what the definition of the word says anyway --Arenuphis (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
yeah, you can do this.

Primaris Captain[edit]

The information on the basic Primaris Captain is outdated. According to the latest FAQ, the Primaris captain can switch his bolter/bolt pistol for a Powerfist/Plasma Pistol. This makes him pretty good in the fight phase and invalidates a lot of his section on this page claiming he "can't do melee". The section needs to be updated with the additional wargear. Update: I updated his page to reflect the new load out.

Excellent, that's how updates should be done to the main page, not by arguing with information that's already on there or by striking out old info, but by replacing the old and outdated info with new info. I undid the original edit because if people keep arguing and striking out info instead of replacing it, then the page becomes a massive bloated mess that's a pain in the ass to read and even harder to get any sort of useful tactics out of it. -- Triacom (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Armouries on the various army pages.[edit]

This is mostly a repost of a question I had on the main tactics page, but I'll be posting it on all the most frequently updated tacticas because it applies to all of them and I'd like to hear any arguments against it.

I've been wondering this for a while now, but what do the armoury sections add that cannot be covered by unit entries? Everything in them is either stating info that is obvious and redundant to anyone holding the relevant book (which are the people using the tactica in the first place), or it's insight that is restated in the unit entry itself, where it's actually relevant. I get why we list relics since those are usually unique to the army and can be applies to a ton of different characters for different builds, same with Warlord Traits, and both of those are usually not covered in the various unit entries, instead that advice is usually covered in the relic and traits sections which makes sense. But for the regular armouries I'm not really seeing why we keep them around at all to be honest, since they take up so much space and it's annoying to scroll past that kind of bloat. How should we improve them, if possible (so that they're not just restating profiles) or should we just remove them? Personally I'm leaning more towards getting rid of them entirely. -- Triacom (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Personally I don't read my codex as a I read tactics pages but anyway. I would suggest a simpler organization, with listing and then a good, bad, or ugly rating. Example given: High ROF weapons: heavy bolter (good) flamer (bad) grav-cannon (ugly.) With a caveat that all weapons can be used to good effect if planned for. Just an idea.
You still need to read Codices for stats and points costs though, and the Codices already feature the weapon stats right under the unit stats, so why list them individually and in entirely separate sections? Furthermore some weapons are really good or really bad depending on who to given to, which is already covered by the unit entries, making the tiers section either redundant or massive, or falling into the issue of listing wargear like that when only a few units can take them, giving a false impression of how good other units can do comparatively unless we state in each entry that they can't take certain wargear in certain tiers, which would only cause more bloat. -- Triacom (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
When doing new pages, I've largely tried to avoid simply repeating stats in wargear sections for the reasons you mention, as a naked statline is useless on a tactics page. However I do think wargear sections are relevant when weapons are actually discussed in comparison to each other. Otherwise you could get hypothetical bloat when arguing something like a Captain needs a fist instead of an axe, then repeating a similar argument later for squad sergeants or lieutenants. Yes some units do better with some items of wargear than others, but that can easily be mentioned in its own entry. To give a better illustration of what I'm talking about, check out the Imperial Militia and Cults Tactica that I worked on. Where only a few items of wargear actually get their stats copied, but most are discussed in comparison to one another. Also on the same page is the Ogryn Brute Squad a bit further down, that has its own weapon options discussed, as several are unique to Ogryns so were worthy of putting in its own entry. I'm not saying either route (single sections or dispersed entries) is bad, seeing as how I wrote both in this instance, but if we didn't have a wargear discussion at the start of the page, I imagine each unit entry would look a bit more like Ogryns and discussing which weapon options are best for each unit. In many cases you'd only be removing one section to end up padding out multiple unit entries. Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I also hate Good/Bad/Ugly ratings for anything... they've been attempted before, discussed to death, and they never add to the understanding of the reader. Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
But when do weapons get compared to each other without being pertinent to specific units? The way I see it we could easily have it like the 30k pages (or the Ogryn entry you mention), specifically the Marine support squads to discuss various weapon options and roles. Excluding relics (which I already covered already) there isn't a single armoury section in this entire wiki that doesn't copy-paste the stats from the weapons and leave it up for no reason, because if the weapon needs to be covered it's always going to get covered in the unit entry. Expanding on a unit entry also isn't that bad so long as you keep on topic with what roles the weapons allow you to perform or just write them off if they're not worth it, and even then that's only if the weapon options need to be covered (plenty of them don't need individual sections). Take the CSM page for example, if its armoury was deleted right here and now you wouldn't need to change a single word in any of its unit entries. -- Triacom (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not really saying either way is bad. Sometimes its simpler to have a single wargear entry; like on the Imperial Knights page when unit entries are often single sentences, sometimes its better to talk about wargear in unit entries; it's hard to tell without going and looking at the state of each page right now. I'm guessing with armies like Space Marines or Imperial Knights who have mostly the same stats across the board, its probably easier to have wargear bundled into the same place, since a Fist/Axe or a Meltagun/Plasmagun applies mostly the same way regardless of model holding it. For armies that have varied statlines like Tyranids (eg Termagants vs Warriors), more unique units like Orks (eg Burnas vs Lootas), or even units with limited loadouts that cannot be given to other units such as Primaris Hellblasters and Aggressors, then its probably better to discuss wargear in the context of the unit and exclude them from a common wargear list. I'm not proposing that we go either route or even make any changes at all, since a lot of consideration will be needed to each page to make sure pertinent information isn't lost somewhere, maybe necessitating large rewrites. The tactics pages have grown organically over the years from many different authors and the end result is that some pages simply have it better than others. Its probably better to look at what works rather than trying to create a standardised format for everything. --Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
But how is it beneficial to make the user scroll up and down the page by spreading the relevant info out? In the examples you list like the Tyranids or Orks there's no reason to not just talk about the weapons in their entries, and can you find me a single tactics page where there it's a good idea to list the wargear separately because there's something mentioned there that cannot be mentioned in the unit entries? I've been through all of them and I cannot find any. Personally I think people started including the armouries just because they thought they should, in the same way that nearly every page has unit entries that are just copy-pasted info from the book itself that offers no tactical advice or insight in any way. I'm not trying to create a standardized format for everything, I'm trying to remove bloat as the armouries easily take up a third to half of the articles and I cannot see any reason for keeping them. As I mentioned the CSM could lose it entirely and nothing would be lost, same with the Tau tactica and that's because when I redid them to remove all the arguments, strikethoughs, and copy-pasted unit entries it became pretty easy to cover their gear without making their entries take four paragraphs. -- Triacom (talk) 08:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, I think you may have misread me, I already said that Orks and Tyranids (and Primaris) wargear should be excluded from a common wargear list and discussed in the context of their entries, therefore paring any existing Wargear list down to a minimum, if one remains at all, in those situations I'm all for cutting down the wargear lists. Secondly, you ask me to find a single tactics page that could not mention something in a unit entry something that found in a wargear entry, but that's a rather unfair ask, since of course they could, BUT you'd need to write it. If the objective is reducing bloat: then you'd need to make sure the unit entry covers it succinctly, otherwise you just repeat yourself over and over when different units have the same gear (like saying give a sergeant a combi-plasma, or similar, for each squad that contains a sergeant) rather than stating it just once, then it becomes an issue of quality control, which is all dependent on the particular author, you might do it well, but others might do it badly. Scrolling up and down a page is largely a non-issue, since we're all big enough to remember what we read the moment it falls out of sight, and the 8E Codexes do it themselves when non-standard gear like special/heavy weapons are listed outside of a units entry, we move back and through the books all the time and we manage. Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we're both getting a little confused on what the other's talking about so I'll try to bring it back: Why isn't it a good idea to just always exclude the regular wargear from a list and talk about it in the unit entries? This is the main question behind the topic and it's one I don't have an answer for, and I'd like to address this in relation to it: "Secondly, you ask me to find a single tactics page that could not mention something in a unit entry something that found in a wargear entry, but that's a rather unfair ask, since of course they could, BUT you'd need to write it." True, however that has never happened, ever, in the years people have been adding them to the tactics pages across the different editions and through the various armies. Even if it did happen it would result in a terrible layout where you'd need to scroll down to the unit entry, then be redirected up to the armoury. It's a bit more of an issue than you think if you want to look at more than one unit entry, let's say first you want to look at Havocs and then you want to look at Chosen, two units that cover entirely different roles and have different gear. You scroll down, past the wargear to the Havocs, scroll up to the wargear, then decide you want to see the Chosen, scroll down to them, then scroll back up. What if you want to put a character in the unit or maybe you want to see how Raptors compare to them because you want more mobility? Scroll down to Raptors, scroll up to wargear. That's not very user friendly especially if they're on a mobile device, and just because GW does it doesn't mean we should, as it's not a good idea and they've done way worse things in the past, to the point where it makes newer players take much longer than normal to play a game just because they spend most of their time flipping between pages trying to find the relevant info (the CSM last edition were the worst for that in my opinion). As for covering gear, making sure each unit gets their wargear covered succinctly isn't hard, it's just time-consuming which is why I've only managed to redo the CSM and the Tau pages (this one is next on my list though) and all you need for other people to learn how to do it well is just set a good example. Hell, the only reason we've kept armouries for so long is because somebody set a bad example in including them in the first place and everyone just kept adding them, same with the reason the unit entries would just be copy-pasted descriptions, somebody did it, then other people thought that's what they should do. -- Triacom (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If want to take on that job, I'd have no objections to that. I understand that it would be a huge job, which is why I objected to the simple removal of wargear sections without accounting for them. But how about this for a start?: we cut down the wargear sections to specifically exclude items that are standard issue, and are inherent on the unit such as boltguns, bolt pistols, combat knives, chainswords in the case of Space Marines, since they are so generic that they hardly need discussed at all. Additionally also cut out any piece of wargear that is exclusive to specific units, such as Force Weapons, Sniper Rifles and nearly all of the Primaris stuff since those are more sensibly discussed in that unit's section. Doing this would cause no immediate loss to any page whatsoever, since they're all given as a part of a unit. That leaves a considerably smaller wargear list of broadly generic optional items that multiple units can take, once this is done we can gradually take a look at those unit entries with those options and make certain they are either covered, or leave it in a generic "see above" state. If you look at the Eldar tactica this was done last September, leaving only five generic weapons that can be taken by a handful of units and vehicles. This will be harder with some pages than others, Necrons and Daemons this should will be easy as hell with Dark Eldar following closely after. MEQ armies mostly follow the Space Marine format anyway, though Tyranids would probably need an absolute overhaul, Imperial Knights page probably shouldn't be touched, since it would likely add more than removing. Dark Angel 2020 (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't have a problem doing that as a start, though personally when I do it I usually start at the unit entries and then work upwards from there. Most of the pages need an overhaul anyway. -- Triacom (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I also do want to add that so long as even those generic multi-purpose items get mentioned in the units where they're relevant (ie when they're a good idea) then I also don't see a problem in removing them from the armoury too. Pretty much the only thing I don't see as a bad idea in keeping are the army/faction specific relics, partially because those can be used in different roles, partially because only having one means careful consideration is warranted, and partially because it helps players decide which sub-faction they'd like to use without bloating up the various unit entries and making it hard to find everything. -- Triacom (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Remaking this page[edit]

Before I dive into trying to fix all this mess and clutter, does anyone object if I was to redo it in a similar manner to the 30k page and the CSM tactica? -- Triacom (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Come to think of it, you should do the same for the other armies too. --Newerfag (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The 30k page's Psyarkana list reads like a rewrite instead of tactica, and technically relic lists are wargear lists. Will you delete those as well? Zerghalo2 (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't delete relics which is why the CSM page still has theirs. If you're wondering why, in my opinion the rarity of the relics (since you can only have one) and the limited amount of characters they can be put on make it so that they require a lot more consideration than regular wargear. They might also be the main reason you are playing a certain Legion since some Legions have a bad trait, but a great relic. As for doing the same thing to other armies, I'd love to, the only issue is finding the time to do it as it takes roughly half a week to go over everything like that. -- Triacom (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The Psyarkana list was mine, I was just aiming to have it up on the page and wasn't sure if they were technically relics or not. --Newerfag (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Psyarkanas are and aren't relics. Anyone who meets their prerequisites can take them, and unless they're limited to only one model like Divining Blades, you can have duplicates. You also don't need your opponent's permission like Legion relics. -- Triacom (talk) 23:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Space Marine Eliminators Aren't Very Good[edit]

(Alternative opinion: cheap doesn't equal effective. The actual damage output per point of Eliminators is abysmal against most of the things they are meant to fire at. They will struggle to make back their cost in most games.) -- Some anon.

In this case cheap does equal effective, as there's a tournament winning list that used them pretty heavily and went undefeated. I'm not quite sure what you have them shooting at, but I'm not convinced it was the right target(s). -- Triacom (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Making a Chapter Specific entry[edit]

With all the new stuff being added to each Chapter in the upcoming supplements, I think we should do what they did in the CSM page and put each chapter in their own expandable page.

I don't see why not. --Newerfag (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
And looking at the newest previews it seems that we'll need to do so because even their tactical objectives will be different. --Newerfag (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. BTW, this is the same motion as the Remaking This Page above. Unsure if the threads should be merged. Zerghalo2 (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Seeing that the old thread was abandoned we can just continue to use this one. On that note, perhaps the unique characters and units should be moved to their corresponding segments as well, at least when we have their supplement rules confirmed for them.--Newerfag (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Chapter specific tactics[edit]

What happened to the ultramarines tactic and the others? Did the codex remove them or did someone remove them for no reason?

They're in the Chapters section. -- Triacom (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Auto vs. Normal Bolt rifle?[edit]

I am not a very good player, nor with math. But I find very little situation where the bolt rifle (without stratagem) is actually better than the auto bolt rifle. And I compare them in rapid fire range. Is there somebody who could enlighten me? I am sure it would be useful for a lot of us. --Gilten (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

My math (unsaved wound on T4 model):

Armor Auto Stalker Rifle Winner
2+ 0,167 0,167 0,222 Rifle
3+ 0,333 0,222 0,333 Draw
4+ 0,5 0,278 0,444 Auto
5+ 0,667 0,333 0,556 Auto
6+ 0,833 0,333 0,667 Auto
1 shot beyond 24"+M > 0 shots beyond 24"+M. Plus like your own math reveals, the rifle is better-or-equal than the autobolt when attacking armoured targets such as marines (2+ in cover), and marines are a common target. Plus they get a RF range of full 30" if your marines remain stationary, such as when defending an objective, and two Bolt rifle shots are better than a single Stalker shot / 1 Bolt rifle shot = 1 Stalker shot that moved. Conversely, if you're threatened by unarmoured hordes, or storming an objective, then that's where the autobolt undoubtedly wins. Zerghalo2 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Move legion of the Dammed[edit]

With the legions not getting the Combat doctrines, I think they should be moved to the Imperium page as their only one unit and no longer fit with codex marines.

Why wouldn't we keep them with the generic Marines then? After all, we still have Servitors on here. -- Triacom (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Servitors are still in the codex and don't disrupt Combat doctrines
And? Marines are still Marines, just mention they disrupt the doctrines. I'm also pretty sure they were in the last codex. Also new topics go to the bottom, moving it up from the bottom just helps people miss your topic. -- Triacom (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
have to move it because it gets consumed by the Auto vs. Normal Bolt rifle? class, hiding it. have to move it or else people will never find it.
I fixed it for you, the center tag was never closed so it fucked up the other tags. -- Triacom (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking that it might be a good idea to identify the index only units for ease of reference. That way new players and returning players reading the tactics page for the first time know where to get the dataslates from, and we can save space with a blanket statement like "all these units do not benefit from Combat Doctrines." -- Ordogrammarus 02:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
That would also work in my opinion. -- Triacom (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Salamanders additions[edit]

How could we possibly have any info for them if they were just announced today? I have a feeling that what we've got is a hoax.--Newerfag (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • A number of leaks showed up on war of sigmar and valraks YouTube channel since Sunday. They predicted today's release but it remains far too early to add anything.