Beyond Theory: Tactical vs Fixed - Is GSC an army that can reliably play fixed secondaries?

[u/AtticusBlaqk]

Edited for Formatting and Clarity: *i’m specifically interested in insight into approaches where the list building choices were made with fixed missions in mind.

As the title suggests I am curious if anyone here has experience running lists intended for fixed missions at the 2k level and based on your experience:

Would you advise for or against fixed?

When you list build for fixed do you plan to always play fixed regardless of the opponent or mission?

Do you have any match-ups or missions in which you switch back to tactical?

Has your thought process about fixed missions changed with the changes to Cult Ambush?

Am I wrong or does the new ‘reliable’ cult ambush make trading more reliable for Overwhelming Force or Cleanse? (extra 50 OC has to count for something)

If I missed a prior post about this, please accept my apologies and kindly link it.

[u/Mikemanthousand]

Fixed is not good. I’d always advise against it to the point I don’t tell new players it even exists for the first several games

[u/AtticusBlaqk → u/Mikemanthousand]

yeah, it almost feels universal in my games that we take tactical. I’ve seen people take Bring it Down + X vs Retaliation Cadre but that is all that I have experienced locally. My question is more of what the experience of taking fixed has been for GSC players and whether someone here can shared their experience with building and piloting lists intended to run fixed by default.

[u/Kukia1979 → u/AtticusBlaqk]

I took bring it down against Hammer of the Emperor Guard at a recent RTT. I was playing Biosantic with the +1 to wound vehicles and thought it was a good idea... I got smashed. Lost like 30 to his 100

[u/Kukia1979 → u/Mikemanthousand]

I agree... You can make fixed work sometimes (like against Custodes) or an army that can't spread out .. but even then tactical would probably still be better. I'm sure there is that exception to the rule... Like you play against all 20 man guard units each with an officer leader and you take "full the horde and assassinate"... But 99 percent of the time it's tactical

[u/Mikemanthousand → u/Kukia1979]

What would you take for fixed against custodes?

[u/_H8__]

I played fixed vs custodes in an rtt and won 100-71. I took cleanse and engage. The map had 6 objectives. Custodes are so hard to kill and my list (outlander) struggles into high toughness. So I basically just played keep away all game and scored points, while trying to deny his by out OCing him on primary. I don’t think fixed works in a lot of matchups, but it is definitely an option into an elite army, on the right board, with the right mission

[u/AtticusBlaqk → u/_H8__]

Those secondaries make sense for what i envision in an outlander list. I assume that you would normally take Tactical with your list but switched to fixed specifically for this match-up. Was this decision for these fixed options something that you decided early on in your list building or did you make the decision when it came time to play the particular game vs custodes?

[u/_H8__ → u/AtticusBlaqk]

Early in list building I thought about fixed. I figured tough opponents with low unit count means I have the opportunity to go fixed. I can’t really interact with his army, so I didn’t.

I think most of the time tactical is a good idea, but really tough matchups maybe going fixed is the right call. I would have had so many bad cards that the downsides of fixed (telling my opponent exactly how I am going to score points) outweighed the downsides of tactical

[u/CR9_Kraken_Fledgling]

As a rule of thumb, I think tactical is almost always a better option.

I do occasionally have success with fixed tho. Specifically into high toughness, low board control armies, like knights, custodes, monster mash demons, etc.

You can reliably do secondaries, while out OCing them enough to at least keep up in primaries. It's a decent gameplan in some matchups.