Gary from the Sons of Sanguinius blog, busted out a TAC Marine list that was inspired by the list I have been playing and really enjoying.
This is a nice bat rep to read and gives you an idea of the strengths of a TAC list. Now, this isn’t a definitive statement of course, but it is more evidence on the side of the balanced list.
Here is the report.
What do you guys think? Our team is split in opinion on the strengths of the extreme list vs. the TAC style lists. What do you guys prefer? Do you think the meta is too varied and too complex for any balanced list to really face them all? Or can you take multi-purpose units that give up some pure power but retain enough punch and flexibility to stand tall in a truly competitive setting?
awesome report Gary! 😀
I have to say, at first, I wasn’t convinced by the TAC army, and as a friend of Gary’s I was pleasantly surprised when he busted out this list he’d been spamming me with via text for the weeks upcoming to the blog wars and actually did pretty damn well podiuming!
good job buddy! ^^
Yeah, it is awesome to see other people having success with it! That makes me happy. I mean, his list is his own, but it’s cool to know our experiments helped!
Yeah I read that article this weekend. That blog in general is a gem that I just found via google and promptly added to my feed. Love 40kUK podcast and this has more of what that cast has to offer.
As far as the article I have been enjoying playing my balanced TAC marine list but its tough (for me) to play it well when under the gun at an event — still way more enjoyable to have a variety of units and tactical options. I feel like it is more prone to mistakes, where as an extreme list is more prone to matchup issues. The other thing to consider is the format. Extreme lists excell at battle points (just look at how FoB shook out) and can still do their thing in a W/L/D or NoVa format. Balanced lists have to get lucky to do well in battle points but can be quite effective in W/L/D.
I agree with you 100% on the extreme lists and Battle Points. That is one of the main reasons I do not care for BP. It reduces the amount of armies that can win as you have to be able to crush your opponent as opposed to just winning the mission.
Yeah, their blog is quite good, I like it a lot as well.
Nice job! Gooooooo Marines!
A lot of people are under-estimating the humble marines, but people like Ben Mohlie have been showing that Marines can compete all throughout 5th. Well, in 6th they’ve actually gotten better.
The only thing about TAC marines is their lack of redundancy. For example, a necron army takes out the stormtalon and now they can rule the air. Or a TWC SW army takes out the Vindicator and now they can charge with impunity. I’m a fan of TAC lists, but I also try to always build my lists with some redundancy.
You make an excellent point about the lack redundancy, but that is the price you pay for flexibility. And yes, Ben has been kicking ass with Space marines for a long time, and doing it in style. He does play Crons now, but he was the master of Marines for a long time.
Thanks for the props there guys. The one thing i have found is that while there is a lack of redundancy, that in itself can in a wierd way can help. If the wolf army (for eg) is going to be gunning for the vindicator you can engineer bad deployment or in game deployment as you use it as bait. Also with alot of units being able to “kind of” do the same job, then alot of people dont see where the real punch is coming from. The vindi for example could be used as bait, draw the thunder cav out keep them backed off and then you hit them with 10 2+ poison bolters. Its not quiet as good but it still will make a mark.
The thing im enjoying is that as my tactics can change from game to game and I dont even know what im going to do for any given game – then my opponent sure as hell will. A spam list will almost have its tactics written all over it and the opponent will play accordingly – reducing the change he will make the wrong call and it therefore just coming down to the luck of the dice.
You make some excellent points. My missile wolves were so obvious in there function (although they performed it extremely well) that it got boring to play. Armies like these TAC lists are so fluid and flexible that they provide a unique play experience every time.
Ha- glad you knew what i meant. Typed that way too fast and massive grammatical errors ensued :/
All competitive considerations aside – it is fun to play at least – which should lead to me playing it for longer – which would mean that i can get very well versed with it rather than flitting from book to book and list to list. Going to stick with the TACs for a while i feel.
I agree. I just find them more enjoyable to play while still remaining very strong in their flexibility.
Unless I find them just not able to win games, I won’t be switching anytime soon. So far, I have yet to come up against a match-up that leaves me feeling helpless.
You need to play against my necrons. 😉
You know I am always game for a challenge!
I think it’s a good list and you did very well… Kudos to you sir. My beef with tactical Marines in general is they are bland and also pricy for the points… Typically they end up being place holders. If take three full squads that is a fair chunk of points. I suppose GW tried to make them better with combat tactics and re-introducing combat squads but I don’t see either of those as all that great. Ben Mohile did superb with Salamanders which have their own special rules via Vulkan – this gave them more value in 5th edition since melta weapons were very strong. I’d like to see tactical Marines rules redesigned in such a way that makes them better.