I think its because they're pretty easily killed for their toughness. Also, I don't think it would be as bad if AP2/3 weren't so prevalent. Overall, I like em, and bolters aren't terrible for killing most things
Coming from an Ork player, I've always been a little jealous of Tac Marines. They are pretty durable, can bring an assortment of weaponry to allow them to at least threaten most things on the board, and can be darn near impossible to shake off an objective.
Now, a lot of complaints are basically what jreilly said. With Ap3/Ap2 being thrown around like it's Halloween, they become less durable and feel like a tax on an army that tends to have high point costs.
Compare them to an Ork Boy, the Marine is far superior model to model and point cost to point cost. But unlike a Marine, Ork Boyz can be taken in large 30 strong blobs if so desired, and despite not having access to a lot of weapon options, they can hack their way through a 10 man Tac Squad with relative ease, despite Marines being neigh unstoppable.
A pal of mine's words were: They never feel like they will pull their weight when I need them to. I always find myself bringing just the bare minimum, sitting them on objectives, and never really using them like I want too. Like the Fluff even wants me too.
And So because they cost a lot compared to other troops, you can't or don't want to bring a lot of them to make up for their small numbers when other stuff in the army can do what Tacticals are supposed to do...but better.
A pal of mine's words were: They never feel like they will pull their weight when I need them to. I always find myself bringing just the bare minimum, sitting them on objectives, and never really using them like I want too.
And that's the exact wrong way to use them.
Put 60 Tactical Marines on the table, or better yet, drop them on. Then see how they do. It's marvelous.
They are just fine. How many other armies can boast Obsec troops that, without outside input, can never be swept in CC and automatically regroup every turn? Or that can split at deployment, giving you double the number of ObSec units?That's before you get into the fact you can tailor them for any role from long-range Tank hunting to Close Assault and fire support.
The problem is that the Internet Wisdom is that your opponent will have an army econsisting of 5 Serpents, 3 Riptides and a Knight. OK, I exaggerated slightly, but the argument goes they're no good against netlists therefore can't be any good period. Well find me a Troops unit that isn't crap against the mindless duplication of the most imbalamed units available.
A pal of mine's words were: They never feel like they will pull their weight when I need them to. I always find myself bringing just the bare minimum, sitting them on objectives, and never really using them like I want too.
And that's the exact wrong way to use them.
Put 60 Tactical Marines on the table, or better yet, drop them on. Then see how they do. It's marvelous.
I have never played a Marine player who would bother with 60 Tacticals. Drop podding them is always a good way to stir things up of course. But the cost in just troops seems to be a horrid idea for anything other than a Hoard player.
A pal of mine's words were: They never feel like they will pull their weight when I need them to. I always find myself bringing just the bare minimum, sitting them on objectives, and never really using them like I want too.
And that's the exact wrong way to use them.
Put 60 Tactical Marines on the table, or better yet, drop them on. Then see how they do. It's marvelous.
So, you post a thread asking what's wrong with them, then flat out refuse the answers. Classy.
Escalation. Tac Marines are cool by comparison to other Troops, but GW is pushing the bigger-and-bigger-stuff approach to 40k, and Tac Marines aren't cool by comparison to Knights and airplanes.
A marine costs less than 3x a guardsman, but is 8x more likely to kill a guardsman in a firefight.
Costs less than 2x a firewarrior, but is 2x as likely to kill the firewarrior.
Add in ATSKNF and marines are clearly an extraordinary troops choice.
Firewarriors have longer range, better gun Strength, can give other units better BS. Guardsmen have numbers and being able to be given orders such as Bring It Down.
ATSKNF is a start. Marines aren't completey underpowered, but they aren't OP
TAC marines have to be played tactically...this means for many players they are impossible to use. They really are a unit that you have to use in the movement, shooting, and assault phase to get the most out of. You should also always take a transport as it magnifies the tactical flexibility that makes TAC marines good.
ansacs wrote: TAC marines have to be played tactically...this means for many players they are impossible to use. They really are a unit that you have to use in the movement, shooting, and assault phase to get the most out of. You should also always take a transport as it magnifies the tactical flexibility that makes TAC marines good.
That last bit is important. A unit of Tacticals in a Rhino have a much greater combat effectiveness at a very low price.
Because everyone and their mother has AP2-3 flying out their asses. Compared to something like Bikers, you're paying WAY too much.
There's also the problem of not being able to bring two Special Weapons in the squad, which would make them immediately more attractive if they had the option. Bikers get around this while being better anyway.
Lastly, outside of Drop Pods, none of the transport options are very appealing. You can argue that they're pretty cheap on the Rhino end, but they die to a breeze. Then we have Razorbacks which are way too expensive for the firepower they put out.
I also laugh at the notion that DarknessEternal put forth. Any Tacticals used were used for their pods, and the Bikers did all the heavy lifting.
A pal of mine's words were: They never feel like they will pull their weight when I need them to. I always find myself bringing just the bare minimum, sitting them on objectives, and never really using them like I want too.
And that's the exact wrong way to use them.
Put 60 Tactical Marines on the table, or better yet, drop them on. Then see how they do. It's marvelous.
Fantastic? Fantastic.
Pffft hahahahaha....(∞)
I looked at Nova Open and BAO's top 16 and top 10 respectively. In Nova Open, there was one list with Marines, and that was a barebones Tigirius key with one squad of 5.
For BAO, there's evidence that supports what you say in the form of 2 Drop Pod Tactical Squad spam lists, but both are carbon copies of each other with Marneus Calgar, Ultramarines, Sternguard combi-weapon spam, and a couple 10 man Tactical Squads.
Oh, and the winner of that Tournament? He played a mostly White Khan Scars Bike Squad spam list. As did the player in 10th position.
For 90% of people, including those who don't play Ultramarines, Bikes/minimalist Scout spams are still king outside of this new emergent gimmick list that the meta will chew up and spit out into the gutter in a few months time, if it hasn't already. I've never lost to a Drop Pod list, and the last time I played someone that spammed Tacticals in pods, I tabled him and lost less than 50-60% of my force. Between just splitting the force across the deployment zone to force the podders to spread out, reserving stuff and positioning sensibly, you can play havoc with the playstyle.
Tacticals are often just so much worse than Bikes on paper and in practice, its not even funny. With Calgar in your list and UM doctrine spam I can barely see how they'd look less terrible compared to the alternatives, but otherwise they're still, yes, terrible. They have less specialist firepower, bolter spam isn't a reliable tactic, their only truly approaching competitive and reliable delivery method is the drop pod, and they often barely scratch the big threats you generally expect to see in competitive/tournament lists. They're just mediocre. As Melovence said, they don't pull their weight when they need to.
For new players, I'd just advise them to completely skip Tacticals like I'd advise them to skip Dark Angels, Deathwing and Ravenwing.
A marine costs less than 3x a guardsman, but is 8x more likely to kill a guardsman in a firefight.
Costs less than 2x a firewarrior, but is 2x as likely to kill the firewarrior.
Add in ATSKNF and marines are clearly an extraordinary troops choice.
Firewarriors have longer range, better gun Strength, can give other units better BS. Guardsmen have numbers and being able to be given orders such as Bring It Down.
ATSKNF is a start. Marines aren't completey underpowered, but they aren't OP
I accounted for the pulse rifle's strength in the calculation.
2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 2/9 dead firewarriors per bolter shot
1/2 * 2/3 * 1/3 = 1/9 dead marines per pulse rifle shot
Marines are also deadly with special/heavy weapons. Of course one needs a holistic perspective, but I disagree with all the people who suggest that marines are UP. I play against a guy who rolls tons of tac squads all the time and it's a pretty strong build.
I looked at Nova Open and BAO's top 16 and top 10 respectively. In Nova Open, there was one list with Marines, and that was a barebones Tigirius key with one squad of 5.
For BAO, there's evidence that supports what you say in the form of 2 Drop Pod Tactical Squad spam lists, but both are carbon copies of each other with Marneus Calgar, Ultramarines, Sternguard combi-weapon spam, and a couple 10 man Tactical Squads.
Oh, and the winner of that Tournament? He played a White Scars Bike Squad spam list.
There is one issue with using tournaments as a measuring stick for units, and that is year tourney lists are generally built around units that are, at a basic level, above that average power level; that's no secret, and why you so often see duplicated lists as the formulae are figured out and copied. But what this means is that in this setting, any unit that is 'average' (read: perfectly playable on their own merits) are going to lose out to the exploitation of the best units at any given role.
The fact that Bikers are better than Tacticals does not make Tacticals bad, and neither does the fact that can't stand up to recognisably OP units and lists.
It comes down to, why should you spend points on this average unit that might make a difference, when you can just grab scouts and park them in cover for the same exact save? Better in most cases.
I looked at Nova Open and BAO's top 16 and top 10 respectively. In Nova Open, there was one list with Marines, and that was a barebones Tigirius key with one squad of 5.
For BAO, there's evidence that supports what you say in the form of 2 Drop Pod Tactical Squad spam lists, but both are carbon copies of each other with Marneus Calgar, Ultramarines, Sternguard combi-weapon spam, and a couple 10 man Tactical Squads.
Oh, and the winner of that Tournament? He played a White Scars Bike Squad spam list.
The fact that Bikers are better than Tacticals does not make Tacticals bad, and neither does the fact that can't stand up to recognisably OP units and lists.
Maybe this would be true if Bikes were ridiculously overpowered and the Space Marine Codex was like Tau where we're you're just choosing from the best of a selection of excellent units, but the fact is that Bikes are the better option and make the better list, and Tacticals generally aren't good enough to deal with a wide range of lists. They're not a great unit. They're mediocre, expensive and the fact that they're pretty useless against OP/powerful threats as opposed to other choices that aren't (see how a Grav Bike Squad is the bane of the Riptide, not the other way around) just puts another nail in the coffin.
*Insert hesistant disclaimer about the UM-Calgar-Sternguard-Tac gimmick list being an exception.
You can contend and squabble over whether or not Tacticals are ever usable in any sort of game if Bikes are accepted as better, but its pretty pointless. You can do something with them, they're just neither an advisable option nor the best.
At 1850 I run 3 combat squaded units in drop pods. While they may not be incredibly tough or lethal, they do their job. They grab objectives, they score points, provide lots of targets and tar pit annoying units.
DarknessEternal wrote: Look at many big tournaments and you'll find lists that include Tactical Marine focused lists ranking highly.
Empirically false, as Mr. Omega points out.
- - - -
Tactical marines are ass because their fire power and their durability are both middling for what they cost, compared to many other troops in the game. Most dedicated assault units will beat them in assault and most dedicated ranged units will outshoot them, despite likely costing less. They pay a premium to be "okay" at everything in a game that rewards specialization, redundancy and spamming of key units (hence why drop-podding them en masse is the only truly competitive way to run them).
Power creep is what killed them ultimately. Never before in the game have we been at a point where there is just so much firepower being thrown around on the field at one time. Even if you ignore the massive fusillade of AP3 and better shooting that's exploded onto the scene since the start of 6th edition, sheer volume of fire has made the T4 3+ armor save a shadow of what it used to be.
- - - - - -
It's also worth noting that words like "bad" or "worse" or "wrong" are comparison words, meaning they don't exist in a vacuum. Something can not be "bad" or underpowered in of itself, it can only be bad or underpowered when compared to something else. So statements like "just because ____ is excellent doesn't mean ______ are bad" is nonsensical. If bikes are good and are better than tactical marines, then that means that tactical marines are not good.
A marine costs less than 3x a guardsman, but is 8x more likely to kill a guardsman in a firefight.
Costs less than 2x a firewarrior, but is 2x as likely to kill the firewarrior.
Add in ATSKNF and marines are clearly an extraordinary troops choice.
Firewarriors have longer range, better gun Strength, can give other units better BS. Guardsmen have numbers and being able to be given orders such as Bring It Down.
ATSKNF is a start. Marines aren't completey underpowered, but they aren't OP
I accounted for the pulse rifle's strength in the calculation.
2/3 * 2/3 * 1/2 = 2/9 dead firewarriors per bolter shot
1/2 * 2/3 * 1/3 = 1/9 dead marines per pulse rifle shot
Marines are also deadly with special/heavy weapons. Of course one needs a holistic perspective, but I disagree with all the people who suggest that marines are UP. I play against a guy who rolls tons of tac squads all the time and it's a pretty strong build.
Did you account for range and the bonus shots from the leader? I' not saying marines are UP. AP2/3 is the only thing that renders them bad. Just don't say marines are OP
Marines are great for regular infantry, the problem is that they exist in an environment with cheap/easy access to weapons that treat all regular infantry identically.
A pal of mine's words were: They never feel like they will pull their weight when I need them to. I always find myself bringing just the bare minimum, sitting them on objectives, and never really using them like I want too.
And that's the exact wrong way to use them.
Put 60 Tactical Marines on the table, or better yet, drop them on. Then see how they do. It's marvelous.
Oh so bring that. That's 60 models that really can't hurt me. I will completely wipe that up with the new BA codex. They won't even know what the hell hit them. People made this same argument back in 5th, and guess what? I wiped up those tac marines, too.
On a different level than anyone else has talked about so far, the following is wrong with Tactical Marines:
They're the most generic unit in the game. Go down to any store, and a solid half or more of the players will be marines or marine variants. A decent majority of those players will field two tactical squads.
Tactical Marines are the most monotonous thing to play against. As such, whilst I've looked into marines a few times I've never once been tempted to run tacticals.
I don't even care that they're good or bad, I just would want nothing to do with running the most generic army with the most generic unit front and center. Even running Chaos Marine troops would feel a little too close.
DarknessEternal wrote: Look at many big tournaments and you'll find lists that include Tactical Marine focused lists ranking highly.
Empirically false, as Mr. Omega points out.
- - - -
Tactical marines are ass because their fire power and their durability are both middling for what they cost, compared to many other troops in the game. Most dedicated assault units will beat them in assault and most dedicated ranged units will outshoot them, despite likely costing less. They pay a premium to be "okay" at everything in a game that rewards specialization, redundancy and spamming of key units (hence why drop-podding them en masse is the only truly competitive way to run them).
Power creep is what killed them ultimately. Never before in the game have we been at a point where there is just so much firepower being thrown around on the field at one time. Even if you ignore the massive fusillade of AP3 and better shooting that's exploded onto the scene since the start of 6th edition, sheer volume of fire has made the T4 3+ armor save a shadow of what it used to be.
- - - - - -
It's also worth noting that words like "bad" or "worse" or "wrong" are comparison words, meaning they don't exist in a vacuum. Something can not be "bad" or underpowered in of itself, it can only be bad or underpowered when compared to something else. So statements like "just because ____ is excellent doesn't mean ______ are bad" is nonsensical. If bikes are good and are better than tactical marines, then that means that tactical marines are not good.
This. Too much AP3 or better is a factor (and T4 isn't a big enough boost to offset that, especially for their cost). However, I think the main problem is that Tactical Marines are unspecialized. Most Tactical Squads have all their killing potential in 1 special or heavy weapon, every other model is basically dead weight. Compare this to Grey Hunters, which are considered very good, and whose only real differences are counter-attack, access to CCWs and 2 special weapons. This makes them able to be better at assault and/or shooting depending on their equipment, without there being nearly as much dead weight in the squad. Also compare with Fire Warriors (good massed ranged shooting), Battle Sisters (2x special weapons and cheaper) and even Imperial Guard troops (cheap as chips or 3x special weapons in a unit).
I used to be happy with my tactical marines. They would walk through guardsmen, termagants, etc. etc.
Then i got shot at with a battle cannon and lost half a squad. If ranged ap 2/3 were rare, i would LOVE tactical marines. As it is, they always end up getting shot at range by something that takes down like half a squad. And for their points, their damage output isn't amazing either. s4 ap 5 is good, don't get me wrong. Just against anything not a GEQ, it's not very threatening. If you're ignoring something's 5/6+ save, it's PROBABLY in cover getting a 5+ or better cover save anyways. You can take a special at 5 which helps, and a heavy at ten, but nobody takes them because they don't want to snap shot. if you combat squad them and park one in cover, the heavy becomes somewhat useful, but you're still paying a ton of points for one devestator and 4 meat shields essentially.
Martel732 wrote: Tac marines suck because boltguns don't anything that other players actually use and power armor is almost as useless as it was in 2nd edition.
And because they don't even have a damn knife, except the special snowflake Space Puppies.
Which we have to buy that knife.
It also has to do with the local META.
In my Local META we tend not to bring the "Broken" Units and when we do we don't SPAM them. The last time we saw and Eldar Player he had 2 Wave Serpents and the Tau Player has 1 Riptide.
Now I do run a Plasma-SPAM List [33+ Plasma Weapons] and I don't bring it out much because when I do not many local Armies can stand up to it and I don't have a single 2+ Save. The whole army is T4, 3+ Save and one 4++ Save.
Tacs are great, they just have to be used right. They're flexible, decently durable obsec that can pack a quick melta punch or anything else you'd like to deliver, really. They can be delivered via transport in a lot of ways, more so than most other troop choices, and hurt most other light to medium infantry and assault a few MCs and vehicles to boot.
They just aren't bikes. When you don't have much imagination, mass bikes are more appealing.
As a Tau player, I have to say I'm am pretty envious of a troop choice that is T4, 3+, can take multiple forms of dedicated transport, automatically rallies without being forced to fire snap shots, can take a variety of weapons and doesn't automatically lose every assault it finds itself in.
Martel732 wrote: Tac marines suck because boltguns don't anything that other players actually use and power armor is almost as useless as it was in 2nd edition.
And because they don't even have a damn knife, except the special snowflake Space Puppies.
Which we have to buy that knife.
It also has to do with the local META.
In my Local META we tend not to bring the "Broken" Units and when we do we don't SPAM them. The last time we saw and Eldar Player he had 2 Wave Serpents and the Tau Player has 1 Riptide.
Now I do run a Plasma-SPAM List [33+ Plasma Weapons] and I don't bring it out much because when I do not many local Armies can stand up to it and I don't have a single 2+ Save. The whole army is T4, 3+ Save and one 4++ Save.
Lucky, lucky you. At least GW killed Vendetta spam dead.
Space Puppies are still the only ones privileged enough to buy a knife. If not for smashbane and grav stars, Space Wolves would totally dominate all loyalist marines once again. I know the new BA codex is relatively helpless against them.
Martel732 wrote: Tac marines suck because boltguns don't anything that other players actually use and power armor is almost as useless as it was in 2nd edition.
And because they don't even have a damn knife, except the special snowflake Space Puppies.
Which we have to buy that knife.
It also has to do with the local META.
In my Local META we tend not to bring the "Broken" Units and when we do we don't SPAM them. The last time we saw and Eldar Player he had 2 Wave Serpents and the Tau Player has 1 Riptide.
Now I do run a Plasma-SPAM List [33+ Plasma Weapons] and I don't bring it out much because when I do not many local Armies can stand up to it and I don't have a single 2+ Save. The whole army is T4, 3+ Save and one 4++ Save.
Lucky, lucky you. At least GW killed Vendetta spam dead.
Space Puppies are still the only ones privileged enough to buy a knife. If not for smashbane and grav stars, Space Wolves would totally dominate all loyalist marines once again. I know the new BA codex is relatively helpless against them.
Blood Angels Tactical Marines are probably the Best Assault Based Tactical Marines in the game now. They can now easily pull off S5+, I5+ and FNP easily.
They're still going to be obliterated on the Space Puppy counter attack. Nothing has changed from 5th in that Space Wolves basically negate close combat units with their schlubs. I still don't understand why GW thinks that's fair, but I just pretend I'm the IG against them, and it sometimes works out.
Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with Tac's, in fact, they have more capabilities and have more effective weaponry and special rules than they've ever had before. Rapid Fire weapons have received a significant boost, combat squads allow a degree of split-fire capability and to allow a single squad to engage two different objectives or capitalize on different transport options (e.g. buying a razorback and sticking the flamer and pfist in there while the missile launcher and comrades hang back). They're only 14pts each now, cheaper than ever. ATSKNF is still a hugely powerful ability. They can typically vastly outshoot dedicated assault specialists (and still at least usually inflict some harm back in CC even against many CC specialists) and can drastically outfight shooting specialists (while still being able to hit back reliably even if stuck at shooting ranges). Tac's are also typically notably cheaper than many specialists and especially most other units that can both outshoot and outfight them. They're wonderfully capable units.
I think there are some metagame issues in regards to escalating firepower (but these do not affect Tac's alone) and unit stats, along with alternative units that are simply clearly superior investments (Bikes), but that's not necessarily reflective of the Tac's in and of themselves.
Too many people I think were too used to the 3+ save being inviolable, and they could park marines in the middle of the board, in the open, and expect them to largely survive a round of shooting. Particularly in older editions this was very much the case, and that was silly. There was a time when T4 and 3+sv was pretty much auto-pilot, and that's a good thing that that's gone.
Other infantry options also are much more capable in relation to a Tac squad now, the game no longer has basic IG squads that cost 115pts after kit for example, Tac's were once simply clearly superior to most other units even in cost effectiveness in other units specialties, and this is no longer the case, and some perceive that as Tac's no longer being good, which is just not true.
The one real issue I think Tac's have, which isn't specifically unique to them but rather affects many units, is that transports are often vital (not only for their protection, but to get to where they need to be), and the current transport rules allow no assaulting out of them even if the transport did not move. For a unit like Tac's, which need to outfight things they cannot outshoot, this is a big capability loss.
Some things that may make Tac's appear less useful I think are alternatives. Bikes, particularly for C:SM where they can be made Troops, are just too overcapable. The bikes get a lot for the extra points, you get T5, Relentless, twin linked guns, at-will 4+ cover saves, incredible mobility, a Hammer of Wrath attack, more flexibility in unit size without sacrificing special weapons loadout and more total weapons upgrades (can take 2 specials + a heavy), no slowing down through terrain, and a fully kitted bike squad only coming out to ~30pts more than a typical Tac squad with a transport. Why on earth *wouldn't* you run the bikes instead? Why would you ever bother with either Assault Marines or Tac's next to the bikes?
They're still going to be obliterated on the Space Puppy counter attack. Nothing has changed from 5th in that Space Wolves basically negate close combat units with their schlubs. I still don't understand why GW thinks that's fair, but I just pretend I'm the IG against them, and it sometimes works out.
You still can buy a HQ and Poof you have FNP, 3-4 Flamer Attacks and then get to complete your Assault before I can attack.
As for the others:
>Iron hands can get an Army wide FNP 6+
>Crimson fist get to Re-Roll ones with their Bolters/Heavy Bolters [This can go along way to mitigating the "Bolter Issue"]
>The Ultra-Smurffs have a really nasty One use power for Re-rolls iirc, two with the right reroll.
>Dark Angels can pull off a huge RoF and possible 4++ if set up correctly.
Each Armies Tactical Squad has its own Strength and weaknesses, it is just a matter of exploiting the Strength and working out how to mitigate the Weakness.
Nothing has changed from 5th or 6th. ATSKNF doesn't help you when you're dead. Just because I have cheaper BA now, is not going to prevent them from being mowed down wholesale.
The problems you state ARE reflective of tacs because in a war game, everything is relative.
They're still going to be obliterated on the Space Puppy counter attack. Nothing has changed from 5th in that Space Wolves basically negate close combat units with their schlubs. I still don't understand why GW thinks that's fair, but I just pretend I'm the IG against them, and it sometimes works out.
You still can buy a HQ and Poof you have FNP, 3-4 Flamer Attacks and then get to complete your Assault before I can attack.
As for the others:
>Iron hands can get an Army wide FNP 6+
>Crimson fist get to Re-Roll ones with their Bolters/Heavy Bolters [This can go along way to mitigating the "Bolter Issue"]
>The Ultra-Smurffs have a really nasty One use power for Re-rolls iirc, two with the right reroll.
>Dark Angels can pull off a huge RoF and possible 4++ if set up correctly.
Each Armies Tactical Squad has its own Strength and weaknesses, it is just a matter of exploiting the Strength and working out how to mitigate the Weakness.
We've had this discussion before. The only thing that keeps grey hunters from being abusive is that power armor has been turned into tissue paper. Extra CC weapon and counter attack on a troop is not fair at all.
Martel732 wrote: Nothing has changed from 5th or 6th. ATSKNF doesn't help you when you're dead. Just because I have cheaper BA now, is not going to prevent them from being mowed down wholesale.
The problems you state ARE reflective of tacs because in a war game, everything is relative.
You also forgot
>Command Squads
>Sternguard
>Vanguard Vets
>Assault Marines
>Devastators
>Characters in Power Armor
On to the 2+ Saves, witch I wont bother listing because this is an AP2/AP3 Weapon issue that invalidates 90% of the Marines save unless they are loaded up with Storm Shields.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: We've had this discussion before. The only thing that keeps grey hunters from being abusive is that power armor has been turned into tissue paper. Extra CC weapon and counter attack on a troop is not fair at all.
Yes and you have become a broken record about.
Every Reason you Quote as Tactical Squads "Suck" are the same problems that affect Grey Hunters.
>No "Real" Effective Ranged Firepower.
>The abundance of AP3 Weapons
My Counter-Attack has actually killed off more of my Grey Hunter Squads than anything Else. People don't Assault Me, they throw buckers of High Strength AP3 weapons. I have only gotten my Counter Attack off once since the now book dropped and that was to Genestealers who had no choice. And I did not get to use Counter Attack because I received 12 Rending hits before I could swing back.
So can we stop the "Grey Hunters are the most broken unit out there" chant and move onto the discussion at hand.
Suffer from being generalists in a game where specialists rock.
They also suffer from being defensive in a game where offense rocks.
Anything you tank shots from on turn 1 still has 4-6 more attempts to try and kill you, not including assault.
Anything you kill on turn 1 STOPS TRYING TO KILL YOU. This is why alpha strike lists like drop pods and GK shunts and the like do well. Decent target priority can give the non-alpha striking player a huge disadvantage right from the word go.
The BA heavy flamer option is very helpful, but piling out of a rhino 1" away from an enemy and not being able to punch them means they're just a kinda-tough shooting unit. And with 1 attack each, they have hilariously little killing power in melee, and are prone to getting stuck in deadlocked combats, where the opposing squad is undoubtedly less expensive. If they were more expensive, they would have killed the marines already.
If assault from rhino/razorbacks ever got fixed, I'd view tacticals a bit more favorably, since they could actually CHARGE someone, instead of getting out and getting shot or preemptive charged instead.
Also I take issue with how easy it is to wipe entire marine squads with decent strength good ap decent range guns that cost less than the marine squad itself.
niv-mizzet wrote: Suffer from being generalists in a game where specialists rock.
They also suffer from being defensive in a game where offense rocks.
Anything you tank shots from on turn 1 still has 4-6 more attempts to try and kill you, not including assault.
Anything you kill on turn 1 STOPS TRYING TO KILL YOU. This is why alpha strike lists like drop pods and GK shunts and the like do well. Decent target priority can give the non-alpha striking player a huge disadvantage right from the word go.
The BA heavy flamer option is very helpful, but piling out of a rhino 1" away from an enemy and not being able to punch them means they're just a kinda-tough shooting unit. And with 1 attack each, they have hilariously little killing power in melee, and are prone to getting stuck in deadlocked combats, where the opposing squad is undoubtedly less expensive. If they were more expensive, they would have killed the marines already.
If assault from rhino/razorbacks ever got fixed, I'd view tacticals a bit more favorably, since they could actually CHARGE someone, instead of getting out and getting shot or preemptive charged instead.
Also I take issue with how easy it is to wipe entire marine squads with decent strength good ap decent range guns that cost less than the marine squad itself.
"People don't Assault Me, they throw buckers of High Strength AP3 weapons"
I don't think anything else needs to be said.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
niv-mizzet wrote: Suffer from being generalists in a game where specialists rock.
They also suffer from being defensive in a game where offense rocks.
Anything you tank shots from on turn 1 still has 4-6 more attempts to try and kill you, not including assault.
Anything you kill on turn 1 STOPS TRYING TO KILL YOU. This is why alpha strike lists like drop pods and GK shunts and the like do well. Decent target priority can give the non-alpha striking player a huge disadvantage right from the word go.
The BA heavy flamer option is very helpful, but piling out of a rhino 1" away from an enemy and not being able to punch them means they're just a kinda-tough shooting unit. And with 1 attack each, they have hilariously little killing power in melee, and are prone to getting stuck in deadlocked combats, where the opposing squad is undoubtedly less expensive. If they were more expensive, they would have killed the marines already.
If assault from rhino/razorbacks ever got fixed, I'd view tacticals a bit more favorably, since they could actually CHARGE someone, instead of getting out and getting shot or preemptive charged instead.
Also I take issue with how easy it is to wipe entire marine squads with decent strength good ap decent range guns that cost less than the marine squad itself.
This is the nice way to put it. But it's 100% accurate.
niv-mizzet wrote: Suffer from being generalists in a game where specialists rock.
They also suffer from being defensive in a game where offense rocks.
Anything you tank shots from on turn 1 still has 4-6 more attempts to try and kill you, not including assault.
Anything you kill on turn 1 STOPS TRYING TO KILL YOU. This is why alpha strike lists like drop pods and GK shunts and the like do well. Decent target priority can give the non-alpha striking player a huge disadvantage right from the word go.
The BA heavy flamer option is very helpful, but piling out of a rhino 1" away from an enemy and not being able to punch them means they're just a kinda-tough shooting unit. And with 1 attack each, they have hilariously little killing power in melee, and are prone to getting stuck in deadlocked combats, where the opposing squad is undoubtedly less expensive. If they were more expensive, they would have killed the marines already.
If assault from rhino/razorbacks ever got fixed, I'd view tacticals a bit more favorably, since they could actually CHARGE someone, instead of getting out and getting shot or preemptive charged instead.
Also I take issue with how easy it is to wipe entire marine squads with decent strength good ap decent range guns that cost less than the marine squad itself.
Most troops in the game are generalists, that's kind of their thing. Except that marines are stupid easy to turn into specialists. They all have krak grenades which means that literally any marine unit can kill most tanks. You can combat squad them so that you've got a five man hunter killer unit with plasma/melta and a five man fire support unit with a heavy bolter/missile launcher.
FTR, razorbacks cost about as much as chimeras, but they have freaking twin-linked BS4 heavy weapons. They're pretty darn good.
Also, folks seem to think that tac marines are underpowered because they're not invincible. Target saturation people. Unless the enemy kills your combat squad to a man, that marine is still objective secured next turn, even by his lonesome.
"Also, folks seem to think that tac marines are underpowered because they're not invincible. "
Have you read the thread? It's about their terrible offense/pt, not their defense. Dire Avengers, for example, can shred 2+ armor with no upgrades and no chance of killing themselves.
Martel732 wrote: "Also, folks seem to think that tac marines are underpowered because they're not invincible. "
Have you read the thread? It's about their terrible offense/pt, not their defense. Dire Avengers, for example, can shred 2+ armor with no upgrades and no chance of killing themselves.
I've been reading and all I've seen is "3+ armor is worthless, there's so much Ap2/3 weaponry out there."
Martel732 wrote: "Also, folks seem to think that tac marines are underpowered because they're not invincible. "
Have you read the thread? It's about their terrible offense/pt, not their defense. Dire Avengers, for example, can shred 2+ armor with no upgrades and no chance of killing themselves.
I've been reading and all I've seen is "3+ armor is worthless, there's so much Ap2/3 weaponry out there."
Yes, that's a complaint, but the cheapness of tacticals mitigates the problem to a degree. The real problem is that they have to weather that firepower turn after turn because they can't kill back.
Martel732 wrote: "Also, folks seem to think that tac marines are underpowered because they're not invincible. "
Have you read the thread? It's about their terrible offense/pt, not their defense. Dire Avengers, for example, can shred 2+ armor with no upgrades and no chance of killing themselves.
On a somewhat random basis, with no capability of harming anything in CC or taking equipment to deal with tanks or heavy T-based units.
A tac squad can pack up to three upgrade weapons (special, heavy, combi) to enhance their anti-infantry capability or to deal with heavy infantry or tanks, on top of a hidden powerfist.
The tac squad offers a greater threat, and to a far greater variety of units than the Dire Avengers could ever hope to. Yeah, the DA's don't need any upgrades, but they're far easier to destroy and are only good at one thing, which the Tac's aren't exactly terrible at either.
Don't use Eldar and Tau as examples. That's the problem. Tacs aren't Dires or Fires so all the internet boohoo gets dialed up to 11.
They're good enough. T4, 3+, ignore an entire base mechanic of the game, cheap transports, and tons of options.
My knock against them, weak offense. But it's still good. I rarely run a squad of marines at an RTT or GT that doesn't take their own cost of enemy models off the field. As long as they can do that and fill the CAD troop requirement, they're good.
Martel732 wrote: "Also, folks seem to think that tac marines are underpowered because they're not invincible. "
Have you read the thread? It's about their terrible offense/pt, not their defense. Dire Avengers, for example, can shred 2+ armor with no upgrades and no chance of killing themselves.
I've been reading and all I've seen is "3+ armor is worthless, there's so much Ap2/3 weaponry out there."
Yes, that's a complaint, but the cheapness of tacticals mitigates the problem to a degree. The real problem is that they have to weather that firepower turn after turn because they can't kill back.
Depends on your List and how you use them.
If I can pull off my first turn my Plasma-SPAM List can tear apart most armies on turn one. The only thing I have issue with is AV14.
Martel732 wrote: "Also, folks seem to think that tac marines are underpowered because they're not invincible. "
Have you read the thread? It's about their terrible offense/pt, not their defense. Dire Avengers, for example, can shred 2+ armor with no upgrades and no chance of killing themselves.
On a somewhat random basis, with no capability of harming anything in CC or taking equipment to deal with tanks or heavy T-based units.
A tac squad can pack up to three upgrade weapons (special, heavy, combi) to enhance their anti-infantry capability or to deal with heavy infantry or tanks, on top of a hidden powerfist.
The tac squad offers a greater threat, and to a far greater variety of units than the Dire Avengers could ever hope to. Yeah, the DA's don't need any upgrades, but they're far easier to destroy and are only good at one thing, which the Tac's aren't exactly terrible at either.
Yes, but doing what you describe just trashed their durability/pt. There is too much AP 2/3 in the game for me to consider that a great option.
Martel732 wrote: "Also, folks seem to think that tac marines are underpowered because they're not invincible. "
Have you read the thread? It's about their terrible offense/pt, not their defense. Dire Avengers, for example, can shred 2+ armor with no upgrades and no chance of killing themselves.
I've been reading and all I've seen is "3+ armor is worthless, there's so much Ap2/3 weaponry out there."
Yes, that's a complaint, but the cheapness of tacticals mitigates the problem to a degree. The real problem is that they have to weather that firepower turn after turn because they can't kill back.
Depends on your List and how you use them.
If I can pull off my first turn my Plasma-SPAM List can tear apart most armies on turn one. The only thing I have issue with is AV14.
Probably not, whenever you use plasma spam as a T1 alpha-strike it is almost always more efficient on combi-sternguard, who also are treated as suicide units due to their 3+ save not being able to handle a turn of shooting most often..
Quickjager wrote: Probably not, whenever you use plasma spam as a T1 alpha-strike it is almost always more efficient on combi-sternguard, who also are treated as suicide units due to their 3+ save not being able to handle a turn of shooting most often..
I usually use Multiple Tactical Squads [Combi-Plasma, Plasma-Gun, Plasma-Cannon], Devastator Squads [4x Plasma-Cannons] and a Sternguard loaded with Plasma in a Stormraven.
My Plasma Cannons usually do not get to fire till turn 2 if I go first due to movement, If I go second most everything I want to kill has moved into my Weapon Ranges.
Now I will admit I have incredible luck with Plasma.
There's nothing wrong with them inherently, they are solidly comparable to pretty much any other unit in the game that occupies a similar slot in the army list.
The issue inherent to Tacs and pretty much all other troops choices aside from maybe Dire Avengers and Fire Warriors (and they're only really as good as they are because of the units and options that they come with) is that troops have been pretty much an irrelevance that you've been forced to take at least some of all the way back to 2nd Ed.
There is such a wide gamut of damage output and durability that I'm afraid grunts often don't offer enough to significantly impact a game with the limited tactical depth of 40K.
I like Tac Marines and they should be the mainstay of an SM army since a Battle Company has 60 total. By the same token you shouldn't have more than two full squads of Assault Marines (or Bikes) or more than two full Dev squads.
ansacs wrote:TAC marines have to be played tactically...this means for many players they are impossible to use.
Exactly. The only problem with tac marines is that they're not point and click units. This part of the internet quickly comes to the conclusion that if you need skill to play a strategy game, then it's the game that's broken, not the player when something goes wrong.
Tac marines, like many other units that are dismissed as terrible out of hand (like 1ksons and possessed), come with a high price tag and a bunch of mandatory upgrades. If you can't get any use out of the upgrades, then you're just overpaying for underused units. If you can get use of them when appropriate then you get a unit which, despite its price tag, is actually points efficient for how much stuff you get.
In the end, they are a versatility unit. Comparing them face to face against things that do a single thing well is always pointless. As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against unless the marine player is doing something very wrong.
The only reason I have slowed down in using Tacticals/Grey Hunters actually is the new Detachments and Data-Slates.
I has nothing to do with Tacticals being good or bad.
There are just so many ways to build armies.
Tac marines, like many other units that are dismissed as terrible out of hand (like 1ksons and possessed), come with a high price tag
Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
14 points is not expensive for a Tactical Marine. It's a steal.
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
DarknessEternal wrote:Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
I'm not saying it's inefficient. Indeed, I was completely agreeing with you.
But 14 points a model is a high by-model price for a troops choice. Most armies come in at less than 10, and at least three have something that comes at 5 points a model or fewer.
I agree that, if you use them as they're designed to be used, you get more than 14 points per model worth of stuff, but most people look at the 14 points and then forget what you get for it (or can't see it because they can't make use of it).
I think how good or bad Tactical Marines are depends on your gaming group (or meta). People that play in a solely fluffy group that do not abuse the easy win armies will have decidedly different experience with them than the people playing in groups with all the spammed min/maxxed armies. So in summary, Tactical Marines are fine unless they are not.
DarknessEternal wrote:Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
I'm not saying it's inefficient. Indeed, I was completely agreeing with you.
But 14 points a model is a high by-model price for a troops choice. Most armies come in at less than 10, and at least three have something that comes at 5 points a model or fewer.
I agree that, if you use them as they're designed to be used, you get more than 14 points per model worth of stuff, but most people look at the 14 points and then forget what you get for it (or can't see it because they can't make use of it).
You can bring most of that into play in most games. That's the problem.
I have the following opponents for my most common games.
Flyrants + bug swarm with venomthropes and synapse well dispersed.
Tau with 1 IA riptide, but has FE suits with all plasma/fusion and farsight.
Chaos with 2 helldrakes, plasma cannon hellbrute, nurgle oblits.
Dark Eldar beta strike from reserve.
Dem orks'es with varying loadouts.
Salamander CT marines of varying loadouts.
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down, the tacs have been murdered by aerial tyrant firepower and psychic power. So all they do in this matchup is buy some time for me and maybe stick a lucky wound on something.
FE tau: No. Taxicals literally combust at random in this fight.
Chaos: They almost combust as fast as the tau matchup.
Dark Eldar: Also here pretty much to die. No sane DE raider pilot actually lands near enough for them to charge it, unless they plan on murdering the unit with splinters.
Orks: They fall back while shooting and knock out maybe half their value in orks before getting run over. Less if there's cover.
Sallies: The only time I feel like the taxicals are actually part of my army, mainly because he also runs them, and the match is all the more even because of it.
Now bear in mind I win a lot, but against anyone but the orks and sallies, the taxicals do literally 0%-1ish% of the damage.
DarknessEternal wrote:Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
I'm not saying it's inefficient. Indeed, I was completely agreeing with you.
But 14 points a model is a high by-model price for a troops choice. Most armies come in at less than 10, and at least three have something that comes at 5 points a model or fewer.
I agree that, if you use them as they're designed to be used, you get more than 14 points per model worth of stuff, but most people look at the 14 points and then forget what you get for it (or can't see it because they can't make use of it).
You have made a false assumption.
You assume people want to take troops at all. They do not. That is why tactical marines suck. It's why FoC swaps are being removed.
I wouldn't say they are tactical. Blood runners are tactical. 40k in general is not. They are just bad, as most troops are in the game.
Tac marines, like many other units that are dismissed as terrible out of hand (like 1ksons and possessed), come with a high price tag
Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
14 points is not expensive for a Tactical Marine. It's a steal.
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
Isn't that avoiding the point? If it weren't for X they'd be the best troops in the game, isn't a valid argument, as when you take anything but X you already know exactly what you're going to do with them. They pay to be average in everything, everything else pays to be good in one field bad in another, and because of that you can play those units to their strengths. Tacticals don't have a strength except as objective holder, which is ironically where they really shine, I imagine if you told people that if they had to the option to take a Tac marine with no gear at all just their stats for 7 ppm they would jump at it and they'd be a nightmare to clear off a objective.
niv-mizzet wrote: I have the following opponents for my most common games.
Flyrants + bug swarm with venomthropes and synapse well dispersed.
Tau with 1 IA riptide, but has FE suits with all plasma/fusion and farsight.
Chaos with 2 helldrakes, plasma cannon hellbrute, nurgle oblits.
Dark Eldar beta strike from reserve.
Dem orks'es with varying loadouts.
Salamander CT marines of varying loadouts.
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down, the tacs have been murdered by aerial tyrant firepower and psychic power. So all they do in this matchup is buy some time for me and maybe stick a lucky wound on something.
FE tau: No. Taxicals literally combust at random in this fight.
Chaos: They almost combust as fast as the tau matchup.
Dark Eldar: Also here pretty much to die. No sane DE raider pilot actually lands near enough for them to charge it, unless they plan on murdering the unit with splinters.
Orks: They fall back while shooting and knock out maybe half their value in orks before getting run over. Less if there's cover.
Sallies: The only time I feel like the taxicals are actually part of my army, mainly because he also runs them, and the match is all the more even because of it.
Now bear in mind I win a lot, but against anyone but the orks and sallies, the taxicals do literally 0%-1ish% of the damage.
Going through that list of armies, some thoughts.
A couple of those pose problems for everyone, not just Marines and Tactical squads. Certain Tau builds are very difficult for many armies to deal with (hence why they're so complained about, much like Eldar).
Flyrants are difficult for every army to deal with, the flyer rules are just kind of silly right now, and some of the formations allowing units to recycle just make some of those things flat out absurd.
Dark Eldar have long been a relatively reliable hard-counter to elite-ish armies, in fact every game I've ever had against DE with MEQ armies has been hard fought and usually ends with the DE winning.
Heldrakes meanwhile have caused issues for lots of armies, tactical marines aren't uniquely affected by them to any special degree more than many other (often more expensive) units, while the large numbers of Oblits is absolutely nothing new that's been something you can expect to see since 3E.
Against Orks, your tactical marines aren't generally intended to be the primary killer of the Orks, at least not big mobs of them (just as with any horde unit), they're there to mop up after they Orks have been depleted by heavy weapons or provide fire support to soften them up so you can toss your own assault units into 'em. With the 7E Ork morale rules and their low leadership, this is easier than ever.
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down,
You know what I've seen kill dozens of Venomthropes? Tactical Marines dropping right behind them.
*Snort*Snort*Derision*Disbelief*
Yeah, they have 2 wounds, the Marines have 20 shots.
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
Isn't that avoiding the point?
No, just because something is better than another thing, doesn't make the lesser thing worth nothing. It makes it worth less than the superior thing. This is a mindbogglingly simple thing the Internet CANNOT LEARN. "Worth less" and "worthless" are different things.
I imagine if you told people that if they had to the option to take a Tac marine with no gear at all just their stats for 7 ppm they would jump at it and they'd be a nightmare to clear off a objective.
Why would you waste any points on anything that can only sit on objectives? You only get so many of those points.
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
I consider ork boys to be the best troop in the game, when you consider goodness-point cost ratio. The current guns, point costs, and cover save system seem to favor having more cheap bodies over a few elite ones. In fact, an elite hidden in a mob of ablative wounds is QUITE sturdy. Having cover saves as a BS modifier so high armor can benefit from being 99.999999% obscured from vision would be another change that would make me like having standard power armor mooks again.
Very few armies actually have a problem with morale until the unit has been decimated to the point of uselessness anyway, so ATSKNF is not the big advantage a lot of people make it out to be. Maybe once every 5 games it'll stop some unimportant unit from getting swept, and then half the time that's NOT what I want, because I want to shoot at the choppy unit that's tearing those guys up, and would prefer they just lay down and die so I can. So one out of 10 games it helps me, and one out of 10 hurts.
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down,
You know what I've seen kill dozens of Venomthropes? Tactical Marines dropping right behind them.
*Snort*Snort*Derision*Disbelief*
Yeah, they have 2 wounds, the Marines have 20 shots.
13.3 hits, 6.7 wounds, 1.1 failed save. No halfway decent nid player doesn't get their thropes in some ruins for 2+ cover with some surrounding chaff units, especially when they see a pod over on your reserves table.
Also drop pods are good. I even outlined that in this very thread. Showing up where you want on the table virtually risk-free and able to immediately shoot is amazing, and ANYONE getting to use this, even the less-than-stellar taxicals, can shine. That's more about the drop pod being awesome than the squad though.
Somehow marines being lame always brings out the guy who's like "but they're awesome in drop pods!"
Literally everything you can put in a drop pod is awesome in a drop pod. Alpha strikes from the direction and location that you want are GOOOOOD. (Me I'd rather have my fragiosos take the pods.)
They're still going to be obliterated on the Space Puppy counter attack. Nothing has changed from 5th in that Space Wolves basically negate close combat units with their schlubs. I still don't understand why GW thinks that's fair, but I just pretend I'm the IG against them, and it sometimes works out.
You still can buy a HQ and Poof you have FNP, 3-4 Flamer Attacks and then get to complete your Assault before I can attack.
As for the others:
>Iron hands can get an Army wide FNP 6+
>Crimson fist get to Re-Roll ones with their Bolters/Heavy Bolters [This can go along way to mitigating the "Bolter Issue"]
>The Ultra-Smurffs have a really nasty One use power for Re-rolls iirc, two with the right reroll.
>Dark Angels can pull off a huge RoF and possible 4++ if set up correctly.
Each Armies Tactical Squad has its own Strength and weaknesses, it is just a matter of exploiting the Strength and working out how to mitigate the Weakness.
Have to stop you there. DA's huge RoF comes from not moving, severely limiting their potential, or from throwing the Dakka Banner on LRCs or on Bikes, both of which are not tac marines. Second, the 4++ is only a 3" bubble on each HQ/Techmarine and applies to enemies. Yeah, you can "set it up correctly", but at that point, just stop and go play Tau. They are better at gunlining.
My experience with tacticals is that they are mediocre with a glimmer of potential.
They really only tip over the edge when going drop pod and having the ability to litter the field with 12-18 obsec units. Rhinos can get close, but their fragility and the ability to shoot them before they get across the field limits the damage they can do.
I will state as a Salamanders player that I am somewhat jealous of the BA Tacticals, since it looks like they can get HFs?
I´m guessing the people saying Tactical Marines suck haven´t had 3-4 squads drop podded on them all blistering with Meltas and Combimeltas ( or even Flamers, if the opponent happens to be the horde type ) backed up by the rest of the armys firepower ofcourse.
And bolters are far from useless. God knows how many times squads much more expensive have been mowed down by rapidfiring bolters. Like mentioned before, playing them in 5 man minimum squads to sit on objectives is the worst way to play them. Just use Sniper Scouts for that if that´s what you´re into, or even Land Speeder Storm ones.
RunicFIN wrote: I´m guessing the people saying Tactical Marines suck haven´t had 3-4 squads drop podded on them all blistering with Meltas and Combimeltas ( or even Flamers, if the opponent happens to be the horde type ) backed up by the rest of the armys firepower ofcourse.
And bolters are far from useless. God knows how many times squads much more expensive have been mowed down by rapidfiring bolters. Like mentioned before, playing them in 5 man minimum squads to sit on objectives is the worst way to play them. Just use Sniper Scouts for that if that´s what you´re into, or even Land Speeder Storm ones.
Yeah, I have. It's weak sauce compared to what Xenos and SW can do.
Tac marines, like many other units that are dismissed as terrible out of hand (like 1ksons and possessed), come with a high price tag
Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
14 points is not expensive for a Tactical Marine. It's a steal.
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
200-ish points for a battle-ready Tactical Squad doesn't seem cheap when you add them up, it certainly weakens investment into your support elements.
And no, they are definitely not the 2nd best Troops in the game, nor the third best, they're not even in the top 5. Though the actual layout of the top 5 is disputable, I'd have these lower down that Marines: Dire Avengers, Kabalites, Plague Marines, Ork Boys, Firewarriors, FA Crisis Suits, Necron Immortals and IG Vets; are all considerably better Troops choices.
Even if you're just talking about raw strength and nothing else, Deathwing Terminators, aforementioned Plague Marines, etc all are way nastier than Tacs.
The whole versatility argument is a bit pointless because its just a back and forth game of "they're versatile because of this, so they're good <---> they're not specialised enough because of this, so they're bad". Put it this way; at least its far easier and far more common to see evidence in practice for the latter.
I find their rules (especially CSM but also loyalist tacticals) very unexciting. Sure, you have some things working against morale (in the case of the loyalists, at least...) and some other benefits (also mostly loyalists) but they are generally pretty dull. If I played loyalist SM I'd probably run Bikes or BA (Do they still have ASM troops? Assault Marines are badass, even though they are so hilariously weak).
Yeah, I have. It's weak sauce compared to what Xenos and SW can do.
I´d say that´s an overstatement, it´s not like SW troops are 5 times better, just slightly. And if you consider blowing up most of enemy armour or 1-2 Imperial Knights weak with mere Troops then I don´t know, you must be playing an army list that´s in the top 5% when it comes to destructive power.
Now generally speaking, I think´s it´s perfectly fine and in a way logical that Troops aren´t especially powerful. They are just Troops. Just like in an actual war, troopers don´t matter that much in the end in a huge conflict and there´s only so much one can achieve when not inside a tank, jet fighter or operating artillery.
They may not be perfect but unlike most they can by tooled up or down, combat sqauded and adapted to face most threats.
There flexible, and rhino,s are very cheap.
Not masters of one but able to face down variable threats.
Yes they do not hit like devestators, attack like sternguard, tank hits like hammernatora or look ugly as hell like centurians.
They are basic flexible infriantry, tons of specialists in space marines too.
RunicFIN wrote: I´m guessing the people saying Tactical Marines suck haven´t had 3-4 squads drop podded on them all blistering with Meltas and Combimeltas ( or even Flamers, if the opponent happens to be the horde type ) backed up by the rest of the armys firepower ofcourse.
And bolters are far from useless. God knows how many times squads much more expensive have been mowed down by rapidfiring bolters. Like mentioned before, playing them in 5 man minimum squads to sit on objectives is the worst way to play them. Just use Sniper Scouts for that if that´s what you´re into, or even Land Speeder Storm ones.
Again. Anything that can go in a pod is awesome in a pod, because pods are like Hollywood agents, they can make anyone shine. You get to show up risk free at the spot you want on turn 1 at your optimal engagement range, or 1 turn away from optimal if it's an assault element. (Since, yknow, GW hates assault.) All you have to worry about is one decent interceptor gun in like...the entire game.
Being awesome in a pod does not make a unit awesome by default. Even flayed ones could be nice in a pod.
It's like saying the unit is awesome with an invisibility thrown on them. Yeah, so is everyone else.
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down,
You know what I've seen kill dozens of Venomthropes? Tactical Marines dropping right behind them.
*Snort*Snort*Derision*Disbelief*
Yeah, they have 2 wounds, the Marines have 20 shots.
Yup, yup, yup. You don't need S8 to kill a venomthropes, or really anything in the Nid army. I find lasguns are pretty good at killing T4 Nids.
OT: if we had cover modifiers instead of cover saves, so armor+cover actually meant something we prolly wouldn't need this thread.
Honestly, I think it is just that Marines get so many cool toys the Tactical Marines pale in comparison. Let's face it, Depending on what flavor of Marine you pick you can have more and cooler toys than batman!
Why do space Tac marines suck? Why is it even a question?
Needs a full squad of 10 to take a heavy and a special weapon.
Costing between 160 - 180 points for proper load outs.
Bad transports - Armor 11 razors? give me a break.
3+ armor is okay. 4+ cover saves for free are even better. (see ruins)
The only real pro of paying so much for troops that don't kill much is ATSKNF. I would much rather lose that ability and gain some killy stats or all 2 heavys or 2 specials in a squad of 10.
Compare IG vets to marines. I must ask...why are the vets cheaper and better?
Apart from the fluff that comes from marines. Like only 3-4 squads needed to clear a planet of all Xenos. I seriously get discouraged by their extreme lack of performance on the table top. I avoid all but the minimum required. Usually 2, 5 mans with laz cannons.
Tacs are flexible units. That's their big advantage. Combat squads, the weapon options, and transport options make them decent at a lot of things. A couple of things work against them.
Bikes are severely undercosted. They have the same advantages, but get Relentless, a nifty cover save, excellent mobility, Twin linked bolters,and a toughness boost. At 7 points a model, that is a ridiculous boost. Imagine giving those same buffs to any other basic troop choice in the game for 7 points per model.
The other major problem is the proliferation of low AP weapons, which GW made worse with the addition of Grav-guns. Every codex I have looked at seriously can kill Tacticals by the bucketfull.
With these limitations in mind, they can still be useful. They just aren't optimal compared with bikes. When bikes as troops goes away or if bikes get a well deserved price hike, you will see Tacticals come back in a big way.
Yeah, I have. It's weak sauce compared to what Xenos and SW can do.
I´d say that´s an overstatement, it´s not like SW troops are 5 times better, just slightly. And if you consider blowing up most of enemy armour or 1-2 Imperial Knights weak with mere Troops then I don´t know, you must be playing an army list that´s in the top 5% when it comes to destructive power.
Now generally speaking, I think´s it´s perfectly fine and in a way logical that Troops aren´t especially powerful. They are just Troops. Just like in an actual war, troopers don´t matter that much in the end in a huge conflict and there´s only so much one can achieve when not inside a tank, jet fighter or operating artillery.
Do regular tacticals get 2 special weapons plus a combi, plus possibly an additional weapon, and counter attack?
I'll agree it's not 5 times better (which no one suggested but you), but saying slightly better doesn't seem correct either.
If we are talking tacticals from SM anyway. BA ones get really nice formations allowing them to charge from DS, which makes them a LOT better. Chaos ones are just awful, no one takes them. SM ones are very weak since you essentially get 1 special weapon and 4 ablative wounds if you combat squad them.
Tac marines, like many other units that are dismissed as terrible out of hand (like 1ksons and possessed), come with a high price tag
Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
14 points is not expensive for a Tactical Marine. It's a steal.
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
200-ish points for a battle-ready Tactical Squad doesn't seem cheap when you add them up, it certainly weakens investment into your support elements.
And no, they are definitely not the 2nd best Troops in the game, nor the third best, they're not even in the top 5. Though the actual layout of the top 5 is disputable, I'd have these lower down that Marines: Dire Avengers, Kabalites, Plague Marines, Ork Boys, Firewarriors, FA Crisis Suits, Necron Immortals and IG Vets; are all considerably better Troops choices.
Even if you're just talking about raw strength and nothing else, Deathwing Terminators, aforementioned Plague Marines, etc all are way nastier than Tacs.
The whole versatility argument is a bit pointless because its just a back and forth game of "they're versatile because of this, so they're good <---> they're not specialised enough because of this, so they're bad". Put it this way; at least its far easier and far more common to see evidence in practice for the latter.
You forgot SM Bikers in the list of best troop choices, but the list is accurate overall.
14 seems like a steal in the same way a Tactical Terminator looks like a steal at 40 points. ATSKNF, Storm Bolter, Power Fist with 2 attacks, and the ability to Deep Strike. It's when you actually start adding up the points you end up realizing you should buy something else, like Assault Terminators or Bikers.
WellSpokenMan wrote: Tacs are flexible units. That's their big advantage. Combat squads, the weapon options, and transport options make them decent at a lot of things. A couple of things work against them.
Bikes are severely undercosted. They have the same advantages, but get Relentless, a nifty cover save, excellent mobility, Twin linked bolters,and a toughness boost. At 7 points a model, that is a ridiculous boost. Imagine giving those same buffs to any other basic troop choice in the game for 7 points per model.
The other major problem is the proliferation of low AP weapons, which GW made worse with the addition of Grav-guns. Every codex I have looked at seriously can kill Tacticals by the bucketfull.
With these limitations in mind, they can still be useful. They just aren't optimal compared with bikes. When bikes as troops goes away or if bikes get a well deserved price hike, you will see Tactical come back in a big way.
Bikes don't even need a price hike - marines just need to cost less or do more and then bikes will look less under priced. Relentless is pretty wasted on a bike, they can't even take a heavy weapon. I'd take marines in droves if they had relentless.
WellSpokenMan wrote: Tacs are flexible units. That's their big advantage. Combat squads, the weapon options, and transport options make them decent at a lot of things. A couple of things work against them.
Bikes are severely undercosted. They have the same advantages, but get Relentless, a nifty cover save, excellent mobility, Twin linked bolters,and a toughness boost. At 7 points a model, that is a ridiculous boost. Imagine giving those same buffs to any other basic troop choice in the game for 7 points per model.
The other major problem is the proliferation of low AP weapons, which GW made worse with the addition of Grav-guns. Every codex I have looked at seriously can kill Tacticals by the bucketfull.
With these limitations in mind, they can still be useful. They just aren't optimal compared with bikes. When bikes as troops goes away or if bikes get a well deserved price hike, you will see Tactical come back in a big way.
Bikes don't even need a price hike - marines just need to cost less or do more and then bikes will look less under priced. Relentless is pretty wasted on a bike, they can't even take a heavy weapon. I'd take marines in droves if they had relentless.
You can rapid fire and charge with relentless. It's not always amazing, but sometimes it helps, especially on chaos bikers and swift claws.
WellSpokenMan wrote: Tacs are flexible units. That's their big advantage. Combat squads, the weapon options, and transport options make them decent at a lot of things. A couple of things work against them.
Bikes are severely undercosted. They have the same advantages, but get Relentless, a nifty cover save, excellent mobility, Twin linked bolters,and a toughness boost. At 7 points a model, that is a ridiculous boost. Imagine giving those same buffs to any other basic troop choice in the game for 7 points per model.
The other major problem is the proliferation of low AP weapons, which GW made worse with the addition of Grav-guns. Every codex I have looked at seriously can kill Tacticals by the bucketfull.
With these limitations in mind, they can still be useful. They just aren't optimal compared with bikes. When bikes as troops goes away or if bikes get a well deserved price hike, you will see Tactical come back in a big way.
Bikes don't even need a price hike - marines just need to cost less or do more and then bikes will look less under priced. Relentless is pretty wasted on a bike, they can't even take a heavy weapon. I'd take marines in droves if they had relentless.
Relentless works very well with Grav-guns, it also allows them to charge after they fire their bolters, which at T5, Hammer of Wrath, and Hit and Run is pretty damn good. How much would you pay for IG Vets that had Relentless, T4, a 3+ Jink Save, the ability to move 12" and boost another 12" with no dice roll, Twin Linked Lasguns, and Hammer of Wrath. If you gave Roughriders that profile, kept the BS4, kept the weapon options, and made them troops, they would fly off the shelves at 120-130pts for 10 models. 7pts for that many upgrades is ridiculous.
Lobukia wrote: If making stock marines better, just change the basic bolter... give in an "explosive rounds" SA or something like that.
Make it +1 S against non-vehicles or give it shred... there you go.
or make it Salvo 2/3... that'd work too.
I mean they change the shuriken catapult, so why not the bolter?
Is escalation really the solution? I thought it was the cause of most of these problems...?
Surely the better solution would be to dial the game down, to the point where bolters can make more meaningful contributions to battles and AP2/3 is less prevalent?
Granted, it's harder and requires more effort, but I just don't think endless escalation will get us anywhere (well, nowhere good, anyway).
As a HH player mostly, I find 40k Tacs to be very good indeed, yes I can get massive tac sqauds, but there are times (comes up a lot) where that special weapon or heavy weapon could really really be useful, don't appreciate what you have till its gone I suppose
Lobukia wrote: If making stock marines better, just change the basic bolter... give in an "explosive rounds" SA or something like that.
Make it +1 S against non-vehicles or give it shred... there you go.
or make it Salvo 2/3... that'd work too.
I mean they change the shuriken catapult, so why not the bolter?
Is escalation really the solution? I thought it was the cause of most of these problems...?
Surely the better solution would be to dial the game down, to the point where bolters can make more meaningful contributions to battles and AP2/3 is less prevalent?
Granted, it's harder and requires more effort, but I just don't think endless escalation will get us anywhere (well, nowhere good, anyway).
Escalation is the problem. But considering that 7th just dropped this year, solidifying the role of flyers, super heavies, and d weapons, I don't see much of a deescalation. That'd require rolling back forge world, Knights, and flyers.
The strict FOC requirements and unit size limits were essential to preserving the balance of power back in 3rd. There were no allies, and I could only field 3 Leman russ tanks, while I can now field 15 in a bound army list. This is a problem across all the codices, it's partially fixed by the more low key 7th edition codices. FOC, and the old mission specific limits on unit selection, were a big part of preserving the feel of a balanced battle, rather than a Death Star / OP unit test.
Lobukia wrote: If making stock marines better, just change the basic bolter... give in an "explosive rounds" SA or something like that.
Make it +1 S against non-vehicles or give it shred... there you go.
or make it Salvo 2/3... that'd work too.
I mean they change the shuriken catapult, so why not the bolter?
Is escalation really the solution? I thought it was the cause of most of these problems...?
Surely the better solution would be to dial the game down, to the point where bolters can make more meaningful contributions to battles and AP2/3 is less prevalent?
Granted, it's harder and requires more effort, but I just don't think endless escalation will get us anywhere (well, nowhere good, anyway).
Giving shred would hit a nice sweet spot... a little escalation, and it would give all marine based codices a slight boost without any major massive change being made. Simply, any Marine (as defined by Veterans of the Long War) or CSM using a bolter, bolt pistol, or storm bolter, gains shred on that weapon when not using its combi weapon (if it has one).
They could then decide whether or not the bolt pistol used in assaults gains or loses this ability... depending on how much better you want more plain marines to be at close combat
Lobukia wrote: If making stock marines better, just change the basic bolter... give in an "explosive rounds" SA or something like that.
Make it +1 S against non-vehicles or give it shred... there you go.
or make it Salvo 2/3... that'd work too.
I mean they change the shuriken catapult, so why not the bolter?
Is escalation really the solution? I thought it was the cause of most of these problems...?
Surely the better solution would be to dial the game down, to the point where bolters can make more meaningful contributions to battles and AP2/3 is less prevalent?
Granted, it's harder and requires more effort, but I just don't think endless escalation will get us anywhere (well, nowhere good, anyway).
So we've got a problem here...standard marines aren't doing enough damage - we can ether reduce the damage of every other army or we can buff the marine...which is easier?
I think the main issue with their perceived value is the difference between their fluff and their actual performance on the table top. They go down fairly easily on the table vs what you see in the books etc.
I actually think they're a very solid choice, especially with Combat Squads and the various chapter tactics giving them special rules.
My only qualm with them is that they don't carry a CCW in addition to their bolt pistol. I think they should at least have the option to purchase them the same way that SWGH can. It's extra infuriating because the models clearly have combat knives in their kits, and in the books they're always pulling out their treasured knives-the-size-of-swords, but they actually don't exist on the table.
On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.
2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.
Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.
Anpu42 wrote: On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.
2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.
Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.
If counter attack forces your opponent to change his tactical decisions, it is by definition not useless. Assaulting tactical marines to tarpit them is often the the best way to neutralize their offensive capabilities, which is essential for any 5+ armor army (Orks, IG, Eldar, DE). Adding in a CCW makes them a major threat. Having the option to increase the unit's threat isn't a disadvantage. Scaring your opponent to the point that they won't assault a unit sounds like a pretty good investment, particularly if they're holding an objective and/or are in cover.
Anpu42 wrote: On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.
2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.
Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.
It sure is nice to never be assaulted. Doesn't sound useless to me.
Anpu42 wrote: On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.
2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.
Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.
If counter attack forces your opponent to change his tactical decisions, it is by definition not useless. Assaulting tactical marines to tarpit them is often the the best way to neutralize their offensive capabilities, which is essential for any 5+ armor army (Orks, IG, Eldar, DE). Adding in a CCW makes them a major threat. Having the option to increase the unit's threat isn't a disadvantage. Scaring your opponent to the point that they won't assault a unit sounds like a pretty good investment, particularly if they're holding an objective and/or are in cover.
Yes it forced the Guard Player to take Artillery and Wyvern's and just pound my Grey Hunters into mush, that is a real advantage for me.
For lists that resources spend on assault, it's a huge advantage. I guess to fully understand, you' d have to army swap with someone who knew how to use SW and demonstrate for you. Grey hunters are a nightmare for other marine lists, and probably Orks and Nids as well. Only the existence of the privileged elite like Tau and Eldar make them not a huge nerf target.
I think a lot of the Tacticals being bad opinion comes from older books, and past experiences. When they used to be more expensive they really were pretty bad compaired to other troops. Throw in that 7e buffed them quite a bit with OS. That said part of the problem is the mathematics of the situation and the random nature of the game.
Marines often have very little upside to their damage potential. We have looked at Tactical marines vs Orks in this thread let's take relatively equal points of orks and Marines. So 2 Shoota Boyz and one marine. Statistically that marine (if in rapid fire) kills 0.6 Orks. Those 2 Boyz statistically only kill 0.222 Marines. So that suggests that the Orks are less durable, which is true. The issue is the upside on the best possible roll for the marine he kills 2 Boyz at best. Those 2 Orks could potentially kill 4 marines if the dice go bad for the marines.
That also does not take into account cover, which does not help the marine at all in this situation, but does help the orks.
This also does not take force multipliers into account, or things like overwatch (those 2 orks are twice as good at putting out wounds in overwatch).
That said, it doesn't make tactical marines bad, just not particularly amazing, and in a game where most people are maximizing threats, and minimizing troops having a relatively high cost of troops is a negative.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
But, are you sure Counter attack isn't the reason people aren't assaulting you?
Speaking personally, I've often refrained from charging a squad with counter-attack because I'm gaining far less benefit from doing so.
I though I made it clear.
Yes, that is why every Army, but Orks and Nids don't Assault me.
Orks and Nids don't care.
Orks have good chance of Surviving my Counter Assault. As a note I love taking on Ork Mobs as they are usually a good fight and it does usually comes down to who Assaulted Who. 90% of the who Assaulted first wins. So to make sure I win I usually Assault the Orks, once more not using Counter-Assault.
As far as the Nids go, the only chance I have is Counter Attack. Gaunts are not the issue those I usually Assault, it is Genestealers I have the issue with. I can either leave cover to counter their Assault, but get rendered to death on I6 or stand receive that Assault and hope the survivors don't rend me to death.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: For lists that resources spend on assault, it's a huge advantage. I guess to fully understand, you' d have to army swap with someone who knew how to use SW and demonstrate for you. Grey hunters are a nightmare for other marine lists, and probably Orks and Nids as well. Only the existence of the privileged elite like Tau and Eldar make them not a huge nerf target.
This is the quote I usually don't understand. How can a Shooting Army [Most Space Marines] have a have an issue with Counter-Attack when they should not be Assaulting in the first place.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
But, are you sure Counter attack isn't the reason people aren't assaulting you?
Speaking personally, I've often refrained from charging a squad with counter-attack because I'm gaining far less benefit from doing so.
I though I made it clear.
Yes, that is why every Army, but Orks and Nids don't Assault me.
Orks and Nids don't care.
Orks have good chance of Surviving my Counter Assault. As a note I love taking on Ork Mobs as they are usually a good fight and it does usually comes down to who Assaulted Who. 90% of the who Assaulted first wins. So to make sure I win I usually Assault the Orks, once more not using Counter-Assault.
As far as the Nids go, the only chance I have is Counter Attack. Gaunts are not the issue those I usually Assault, it is Genestealers I have the issue with. I can either leave cover to counter their Assault, but get rendered to death on I6 or stand receive that Assault and hope the survivors don't rend me to death.
That's such a huge benefit. Why can't you see this? No other chapter tactics forces a change in the way your opponent plays. It's just dumb luck that the best lists are shooting lists to begin with. If not, SW would be the top list.
" How can a Shooting Army [Most Space Marines] have a have an issue with Counter-Attack when they should not be Assaulting in the first place"
Because marines are forced to pay for assault gear. They all come with it. They all paid for WS 4, S4, frag grenades. Part of their alleged advantage is that they club other troops in the head better. SW completely takes that away. A tactical marine is only worth 9-10 pts against a SW since WS 4, S4, frag grenades are now all useless.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
But, are you sure Counter attack isn't the reason people aren't assaulting you?
Speaking personally, I've often refrained from charging a squad with counter-attack because I'm gaining far less benefit from doing so.
I though I made it clear.
Yes, that is why every Army, but Orks and Nids don't Assault me.
Orks and Nids don't care.
Orks have good chance of Surviving my Counter Assault. As a note I love taking on Ork Mobs as they are usually a good fight and it does usually comes down to who Assaulted Who. 90% of the who Assaulted first wins. So to make sure I win I usually Assault the Orks, once more not using Counter-Assault.
As far as the Nids go, the only chance I have is Counter Attack. Gaunts are not the issue those I usually Assault, it is Genestealers I have the issue with. I can either leave cover to counter their Assault, but get rendered to death on I6 or stand receive that Assault and hope the survivors don't rend me to death.
That's such a huge benefit. Why can't you see this? No other chapter tactics forces a change in the way your opponent plays. It's just dumb luck that the best lists are shooting lists to begin with. If not, SW would be the top list.
We are not top of the tier by the opinions of most of Dakka.
Because the best lists are shooting. If the best lists were assault, you would nerf all of them and be the best list, because their big scheme doesn't work well against SW.
Martel732 wrote: Because the best lists are shooting. If the best lists were assault, you would nerf all of them and be the best list, because their big scheme doesn't work well against SW.
Take on a Long Range Firepower List like Tau or Mech-Guard with Space Wolves not in Pods and you will see the issues
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
But, are you sure Counter attack isn't the reason people aren't assaulting you?
Speaking personally, I've often refrained from charging a squad with counter-attack because I'm gaining far less benefit from doing so.
I though I made it clear.
Yes, that is why every Army, but Orks and Nids don't Assault me.
Orks and Nids don't care.
Orks have good chance of Surviving my Counter Assault. As a note I love taking on Ork Mobs as they are usually a good fight and it does usually comes down to who Assaulted Who. 90% of the who Assaulted first wins. So to make sure I win I usually Assault the Orks, once more not using Counter-Assault.
As far as the Nids go, the only chance I have is Counter Attack. Gaunts are not the issue those I usually Assault, it is Genestealers I have the issue with. I can either leave cover to counter their Assault, but get rendered to death on I6 or stand receive that Assault and hope the survivors don't rend me to death.
That's such a huge benefit. Why can't you see this? No other chapter tactics forces a change in the way your opponent plays. It's just dumb luck that the best lists are shooting lists to begin with. If not, SW would be the top list.
" How can a Shooting Army [Most Space Marines] have a have an issue with Counter-Attack when they should not be Assaulting in the first place"
Because marines are forced to pay for assault gear. They all come with it. They all paid for WS 4, S4, frag grenades. Part of their alleged advantage is that they club other troops in the head better. SW completely takes that away. A tactical marine is only worth 9-10 pts against a SW since WS 4, S4, frag grenades are now all useless.
I disagree. The new BA dex changes the way you play. You cannot let those units charge you at I5 and Str5. You have to either stay away or charge them first. All Chapter Tactics should change the way you play, when they don't it's because the writers were lazy or incompetent. Hopefully new DA and SM books will have some nice USRs for the rest of us.
Spoiling attacks have always been the way to neuter BA lists. It's much less of a burden to have to launch spoiling attacks than never be able to assault. Don't forget that the SW get to double tap you at least once and then overwatch you before they counter attack. It's just stupid good.
Martel732 wrote: Because the best lists are shooting. If the best lists were assault, you would nerf all of them and be the best list, because their big scheme doesn't work well against SW.
Take on a Long Range Firepower List like Tau or Mech-Guard with Space Wolves not in Pods and you will see the issues
So building a bad list makes Grey Hunters fair for other meqs? Okay.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.
Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.
My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.
That, and fact that if you're close enough to charge, you're close enough to get pistolled and charged next turn, so you might as well claim the extra attack while it's there.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.
Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.
My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.
That, and fact that if you're close enough to charge, you're close enough to get pistolled and charged next turn, so you might as well claim the extra attack while it's there.
That just makes it a lose/lose. Why get that close to SW in the first place? I guess if they are on an objective, and that's why I think they are so strong.
Martel732 wrote: Because the best lists are shooting. If the best lists were assault, you would nerf all of them and be the best list, because their big scheme doesn't work well against SW.
Take on a Long Range Firepower List like Tau or Mech-Guard with Space Wolves not in Pods and you will see the issues
So building a bad list makes Grey Hunters fair for other meqs? Okay.
No, as Space Wolves without going to Allies or buckets of Long Fangs we do not have Long Range Army.
As I have always said: Space wolves are a Mid Ranged Shooting Army with Superior Counter Assault.
Space Marines have the easy ability to become a Long Range Blast-Heavy Army. This includes Tactical Squads.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.
Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.
My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.
That, and fact that if you're close enough to charge, you're close enough to get pistolled and charged next turn, so you might as well claim the extra attack while it's there.
That just makes it a lose/lose. Why get that close to SW in the first place? I guess if they are on an objective, and that's why I think they are so strong.
If you are, say, Orks or Nids or DE or any unit that specialises in CC rather than shooting.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.
Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.
My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.
That, and fact that if you're close enough to charge, you're close enough to get pistolled and charged next turn, so you might as well claim the extra attack while it's there.
That just makes it a lose/lose. Why get that close to SW in the first place? I guess if they are on an objective, and that's why I think they are so strong.
If you are, say, Orks or Nids or DE or any unit that specialises in CC rather than shooting.
And that's why it seems that SW are a particularly bad matchup for those lists.
DarknessEternal wrote:Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
I'm not saying it's inefficient. Indeed, I was completely agreeing with you.
But 14 points a model is a high by-model price for a troops choice. Most armies come in at less than 10, and at least three have something that comes at 5 points a model or fewer.
I agree that, if you use them as they're designed to be used, you get more than 14 points per model worth of stuff, but most people look at the 14 points and then forget what you get for it (or can't see it because they can't make use of it).
14 Pts isn't too much. You want to compare troops? Compare my Ork Boy to your Tac Marine.
Your Marine costs just a little over double my Boy, exactly double if I want to bring a sub par shooty gun. So, you have a troop that can shoot with some of the best reliability of any army, has access to GOOD special weaponry, shares the same and envied T4, gets a fricken 3+ armor save that makes most armies drool in envy despite AP abundance, can Deep Strike if needed, can't be swept off the board, auto regroups, you get fething KRAK grenades...need i continue?
What does my Boy have for 6 pts? He has toughness 4. *Finger twirl* Yes, he can be taken in bigger numbers but they get pasted by the most basic of guns and numbers dwindle before they get close to be threats if I don't play as smart as possible. Yes he CAN get S4, but only on the charge while your Marines are always S4. I also never get to use my 6+ save, so you can shut up about your 'terrible 3+' save, I get to pay a point for a gun I'll probably never use due to it's poor range and even if I do, my BS sucks so bad I'll miss a lot of shots. And the shots that get through...Oh look...my gun doesn't have decent AP. Most armies will shrug the shots off. Grenades? I get Stikkbombs...whoopie. Special weapons? Why would I bother? My dudes can also kill one another with Mob Rule. My dudes CAN be swept. My dudes CAN run. My troops also can't really deal with armor, all except for my Nob, who I have to protect with the lives of my entire squad. If he dies, then the entire unit becomes drastically weaker. Unlike Marines, where even if they lose their Special Weapon, the unit is still durable and small enough to hug cover proper and can still pull weight in combat.
Marine players boor me with their constant complaining. I love my Orks, despite their flaws. But Christ. Get over it. Tacs ARE one of the best troops in the damn game. Their problem isn't that they are 'bad', it's that you have better options in general, which by comparison makes them SEEM bad.
Martel732 wrote: Because the best lists are shooting. If the best lists were assault, you would nerf all of them and be the best list, because their big scheme doesn't work well against SW.
Take on a Long Range Firepower List like Tau or Mech-Guard with Space Wolves not in Pods and you will see the issues
So building a bad list makes Grey Hunters fair for other meqs? Okay.
No, as Space Wolves without going to Allies or buckets of Long Fangs we do not have Long Range Army.
As I have always said: Space wolves are a Mid Ranged Shooting Army with Superior Counter Assault.
Space Marines have the easy ability to become a Long Range Blast-Heavy Army. This includes Tactical Squads.
I was referring to Space Wolves not in pods. I haven't seen a SW list without pods in a very, very long time. Why would someone not use pods with SW? And tactical marines do not contribute significant firepower in that kind of list. It's all bikers and grav cents, etc.
Breng77 wrote: I disagree with Spacewolf counterattack nerfing assault lists, good assault lists don't care.
Either they are so durable that the SW swings don't really matter or they are higher initiatitive so they make them matter less.
My thought would be that an assault army that cannot handle SW counter attack is a bad assault army.
That, and fact that if you're close enough to charge, you're close enough to get pistolled and charged next turn, so you might as well claim the extra attack while it's there.
That just makes it a lose/lose. Why get that close to SW in the first place? I guess if they are on an objective, and that's why I think they are so strong.
If you are, say, Orks or Nids or DE or any unit that specialises in CC rather than shooting.
This.
You don't think orks care about an extra +2 attacks coming their way? And coming before their own?
It's huge. They have to sit there and trade fire with you at that point in the game, instead of moving forward to assault.
The only reason my Marines are unbound is to not run Tacticals.
The problem with them, as I see it, is they're generalist units in a most dysfunctional way possible; you can only use one of their capacities a turn. What I mean by this is to use their heavy weapon you can't move, thus the chances of using their specials/boltguns is greatly reduced, and the Sergeant's melee abilities are completely null. If you advance to use specials/boltguns, the heavy is near useless and the Sgt. still can't hit anything, because you can't charge after rapid firing, and if you want to assault, heavies and most specials are useless, as are the boltguns, and while the Sgt. can go smack things, the other tacs are almost useless against most targets, especially for their points cost.
Furthermore, if you make them genuinely generalist, they are super expensive, while being totally unable to use a large percentage of the points your paying for.
Now, Blood Angels tacticals seem to be a lot better; furious charge and +1 I on the charge, able to take an assault heavy weapon (Heavy Flamer), a flamer and hand flamer makes them a solid counter-assault/crowd control unit, able to shoot things at close range well and act as decent shock assault units. Red Scorpions tacticals, all having Feel No Pain makes a tactical-centric list pretty durable even with the stupid amount of AP2/3 out there, and an Ultramarine list with Calgar podding in can get some decent firepower down.
Tacticals don't completely suck with the right chapter/special rules, but for most marine armies, they're not useless per se, but extremely cost ineffective. I have Minotaurs as my Marine army, and tacticals do literally nothing for me than provide a too-expensive single lascannon in the backfield to get the one or two local WAACs to stop bitching about how "imba" unbound is.
"Now, Blood Angels tacticals seem to be a lot better; furious charge and +1 I on the charge, able to take an assault heavy weapon (Heavy Flamer), a flamer and hand flamer makes them a solid counter-assault/crowd control unit, able to shoot things at close range well and act as decent shock assault units"
We can't get the magic SW knife, so the assault part is still really shaky.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MajorStoffer wrote: The only reason my Marines are unbound is to not run Tacticals.
The problem with them, as I see it, is they're generalist units in a most dysfunctional way possible; you can only use one of their capacities a turn. What I mean by this is to use their heavy weapon you can't move, thus the chances of using their specials/boltguns is greatly reduced, and the Sergeant's melee abilities are completely null. If you advance to use specials/boltguns, the heavy is near useless and the Sgt. still can't hit anything, because you can't charge after rapid firing, and if you want to assault, heavies and most specials are useless, as are the boltguns, and while the Sgt. can go smack things, the other tacs are almost useless against most targets, especially for their points cost.
Furthermore, if you make them genuinely generalist, they are super expensive, while being totally unable to use a large percentage of the points your paying for.
Now, Blood Angels tacticals seem to be a lot better; furious charge and +1 I on the charge, able to take an assault heavy weapon (Heavy Flamer), a flamer and hand flamer makes them a solid counter-assault/crowd control unit, able to shoot things at close range well and act as decent shock assault units. Red Scorpions tacticals, all having Feel No Pain makes a tactical-centric list pretty durable even with the stupid amount of AP2/3 out there, and an Ultramarine list with Calgar podding in can get some decent firepower down.
Tacticals don't completely suck with the right chapter/special rules, but for most marine armies, they're not useless per se, but extremely cost ineffective. I have Minotaurs as my Marine army, and tacticals do literally nothing for me than provide a too-expensive single lascannon in the backfield to get the one or two local WAACs to stop bitching about how "imba" unbound is.
Using unbound to avoid terrible troops is one thing; using it to bring 20 riptides is another.
DarknessEternal wrote:Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
I'm not saying it's inefficient. Indeed, I was completely agreeing with you.
But 14 points a model is a high by-model price for a troops choice. Most armies come in at less than 10, and at least three have something that comes at 5 points a model or fewer.
I agree that, if you use them as they're designed to be used, you get more than 14 points per model worth of stuff, but most people look at the 14 points and then forget what you get for it (or can't see it because they can't make use of it).
14 Pts isn't too much. You want to compare troops? Compare my Ork Boy to your Tac Marine.
Your Marine costs just a little over double my Boy, exactly double if I want to bring a sub par shooty gun. So, you have a troop that can shoot with some of the best reliability of any army, has access to GOOD special weaponry, shares the same and envied T4, gets a fricken 3+ armor save that makes most armies drool in envy despite AP abundance, can Deep Strike if needed, can't be swept off the board, auto regroups, you get fething KRAK grenades...need i continue?
What does my Boy have for 6 pts? He has toughness 4. *Finger twirl* Yes, he can be taken in bigger numbers but they get pasted by the most basic of guns and numbers dwindle before they get close to be threats if I don't play as smart as possible. Yes he CAN get S4, but only on the charge while your Marines are always S4. I also never get to use my 6+ save, so you can shut up about your 'terrible 3+' save, I get to pay a point for a gun I'll probably never use due to it's poor range and even if I do, my BS sucks so bad I'll miss a lot of shots. And the shots that get through...Oh look...my gun doesn't have decent AP. Most armies will shrug the shots off. Grenades? I get Stikkbombs...whoopie. Special weapons? Why would I bother? My dudes can also kill one another with Mob Rule. My dudes CAN be swept. My dudes CAN run. My troops also can't really deal with armor, all except for my Nob, who I have to protect with the lives of my entire squad. If he dies, then the entire unit becomes drastically weaker. Unlike Marines, where even if they lose their Special Weapon, the unit is still durable and small enough to hug cover proper and can still pull weight in combat.
Marine players boor me with their constant complaining. I love my Orks, despite their flaws. But Christ. Get over it. Tacs ARE one of the best troops in the damn game. Their problem isn't that they are 'bad', it's that you have better options in general, which by comparison makes them SEEM bad.
Your boyz have the most important advantage over the marines though: more wounds to give. That's what matters in 7th; is being able to suck up the huge numbers of incoming wounds. Plus, if your opponent paid for AP 2/3, it is wasted against Orks. That's pretty huge, too.
MajorStoffer wrote: The only reason my Marines are unbound is to not run Tacticals.
The problem with them, as I see it, is they're generalist units in a most dysfunctional way possible; you can only use one of their capacities a turn. What I mean by this is to use their heavy weapon you can't move, thus the chances of using their specials/boltguns is greatly reduced, and the Sergeant's melee abilities are completely null. If you advance to use specials/boltguns, the heavy is near useless and the Sgt. still can't hit anything, because you can't charge after rapid firing, and if you want to assault, heavies and most specials are useless, as are the boltguns, and while the Sgt. can go smack things, the other tacs are almost useless against most targets, especially for their points cost.
Furthermore, if you make them genuinely generalist, they are super expensive, while being totally unable to use a large percentage of the points your paying for.
Now, Blood Angels tacticals seem to be a lot better; furious charge and +1 I on the charge, able to take an assault heavy weapon (Heavy Flamer), a flamer and hand flamer makes them a solid counter-assault/crowd control unit, able to shoot things at close range well and act as decent shock assault units. Red Scorpions tacticals, all having Feel No Pain makes a tactical-centric list pretty durable even with the stupid amount of AP2/3 out there, and an Ultramarine list with Calgar podding in can get some decent firepower down.
Tacticals don't completely suck with the right chapter/special rules, but for most marine armies, they're not useless per se, but extremely cost ineffective. I have Minotaurs as my Marine army, and tacticals do literally nothing for me than provide a too-expensive single lascannon in the backfield to get the one or two local WAACs to stop bitching about how "imba" unbound is.
Yes the Blood Angels are now the best Tactical Marines in the game with their ability to completely Focus (At lest till the new Space Marine Codex comes out, I expect them to get Heavy Flamers to]
With the normal Tactical Marines the closest to a focused build is Imperial Fists Sentinels of Terra with a Heavy Bolter. With the Re-Rolls improves it hit ability, but only at 18".
MajorStoffer wrote: The only reason my Marines are unbound is to not run Tacticals.
The problem with them, as I see it, is they're generalist units in a most dysfunctional way possible; you can only use one of their capacities a turn. What I mean by this is to use their heavy weapon you can't move, thus the chances of using their specials/boltguns is greatly reduced, and the Sergeant's melee abilities are completely null. If you advance to use specials/boltguns, the heavy is near useless and the Sgt. still can't hit anything, because you can't charge after rapid firing, and if you want to assault, heavies and most specials are useless, as are the boltguns, and while the Sgt. can go smack things, the other tacs are almost useless against most targets, especially for their points cost.
Furthermore, if you make them genuinely generalist, they are super expensive, while being totally unable to use a large percentage of the points your paying for.
Now, Blood Angels tacticals seem to be a lot better; furious charge and +1 I on the charge, able to take an assault heavy weapon (Heavy Flamer), a flamer and hand flamer makes them a solid counter-assault/crowd control unit, able to shoot things at close range well and act as decent shock assault units. Red Scorpions tacticals, all having Feel No Pain makes a tactical-centric list pretty durable even with the stupid amount of AP2/3 out there, and an Ultramarine list with Calgar podding in can get some decent firepower down.
Tacticals don't completely suck with the right chapter/special rules, but for most marine armies, they're not useless per se, but extremely cost ineffective. I have Minotaurs as my Marine army, and tacticals do literally nothing for me than provide a too-expensive single lascannon in the backfield to get the one or two local WAACs to stop bitching about how "imba" unbound is.
Yes the Blood Angels are now the best Tactical Marines in the game with their ability to completely Focus (At lest till the new Space Marine Codex comes out, I expect them to get Heavy Flamers to]
With the normal Tactical Marines the closest to a focused build is Imperial Fists Sentinels of Terra with a Heavy Bolter. With the Re-Rolls improves it hit ability, but only at 18".
And your Grey Hunters still completely own them in both shooting and assault.
Sure it hurts more than not, but enough to scare me away from assaulting.
In other armies things like Grotesques, Monsterous Creatures (nids Talos etc), Chaos Spawn, walkers, Imperial Knights.....
Sure bad assault units like assault marines (irony in that kills me) care, because they are bad to begin with, even then Raven Guard Assault marines with bonuses to hammer of wrath, or bike units with hammer of wrath, probably don't care enough to not assault. The larger issue is that a lot of assault based units in this game are bad units. Not because counter attack, because they are bad.
MajorStoffer wrote: The only reason my Marines are unbound is to not run Tacticals.
The problem with them, as I see it, is they're generalist units in a most dysfunctional way possible; you can only use one of their capacities a turn. What I mean by this is to use their heavy weapon you can't move, thus the chances of using their specials/boltguns is greatly reduced, and the Sergeant's melee abilities are completely null. If you advance to use specials/boltguns, the heavy is near useless and the Sgt. still can't hit anything, because you can't charge after rapid firing, and if you want to assault, heavies and most specials are useless, as are the boltguns, and while the Sgt. can go smack things, the other tacs are almost useless against most targets, especially for their points cost.
Furthermore, if you make them genuinely generalist, they are super expensive, while being totally unable to use a large percentage of the points your paying for.
Now, Blood Angels tacticals seem to be a lot better; furious charge and +1 I on the charge, able to take an assault heavy weapon (Heavy Flamer), a flamer and hand flamer makes them a solid counter-assault/crowd control unit, able to shoot things at close range well and act as decent shock assault units. Red Scorpions tacticals, all having Feel No Pain makes a tactical-centric list pretty durable even with the stupid amount of AP2/3 out there, and an Ultramarine list with Calgar podding in can get some decent firepower down.
Tacticals don't completely suck with the right chapter/special rules, but for most marine armies, they're not useless per se, but extremely cost ineffective. I have Minotaurs as my Marine army, and tacticals do literally nothing for me than provide a too-expensive single lascannon in the backfield to get the one or two local WAACs to stop bitching about how "imba" unbound is.
5 man tac with laz cannon is the only option for most marine players. It's a terribly bad unit.
Sure it hurts more than not, but enough to scare me away from assaulting.
In other armies things like Grotesques, Monsterous Creatures (nids Talos etc), Chaos Spawn, walkers, Imperial Knights.....
Sure bad assault units like assault marines (irony in that kills me) care, because they are bad to begin with, even then Raven Guard Assault marines with bonuses to hammer of wrath, or bike units with hammer of wrath, probably don't care enough to not assault. The larger issue is that a lot of assault based units in this game are bad units. Not because counter attack, because they are bad.
I admit there there is probably a good deal of that going on as well. Counter attack certainly makes them even worse,though, if they started as bad. And changes slightly above average to below average or even bad.
Sure it doesn't help, but if they were good to begin with it would hurt but you would not care. But like I said things seekers don't really care (unless you are in terrain) as I'll hit you first and close to wipe the squad before I get hit back. So you having 3 attacks instead of 2 coming back at me is meh.
Or units like my beast of nurgle unit, won't even lose a model charging grey hunters and will proceeded to kill 6-10 Grey Hunters. It is a much more expensive unit, but at that rate, I'll eat 4-5 squads with minimal damage....
Also BA assault squads, on the charge should kill 3 GH before they strike, and lose about 2 models. Assuming no special close combat weapons in either squad, and no shooting prior to the charge.....so even then it hurts (costs you 1 additional model) but it is not the end of the world.
Breng77 wrote: Sure it doesn't help, but if they were good to begin with it would hurt but you would not care. But like I said things seekers don't really care (unless you are in terrain) as I'll hit you first and close to wipe the squad before I get hit back. So you having 3 attacks instead of 2 coming back at me is meh.
Or units like my beast of nurgle unit, won't even lose a model charging grey hunters and will proceeded to kill 6-10 Grey Hunters. It is a much more expensive unit, but at that rate, I'll eat 4-5 squads with minimal damage....
Also BA assault squads, on the charge should kill 3 GH before they strike, and lose about 2 models. Assuming no special close combat weapons in either squad, and no shooting prior to the charge.....so even then it hurts (costs you 1 additional model) but it is not the end of the world.
Yeah, but the grey hunters are going to double tap the crap out of those assault marines before they get there. I can't remember the last time a BA squad actually made it anywhere intact. Actually, I can. 3rd edition.
Martel732 wrote: "Now, Blood Angels tacticals seem to be a lot better; furious charge and +1 I on the charge, able to take an assault heavy weapon (Heavy Flamer), a flamer and hand flamer makes them a solid counter-assault/crowd control unit, able to shoot things at close range well and act as decent shock assault units"
We can't get the magic SW knife, so the assault part is still really shaky.
Yes you can not PAY for a Chainsword
That still will not fix the Problem of Tactical Squads being "Average" in a world of "Better Choices"
You are still not seeing how Blood Angel Tactical Squads re now Better than any other "MEQ" Tactical Like Squads. So lets try this.
The Assault Phase
I5 Challenge: The Blood Angel Sargent with his Power Sword cuts down the Opposing Sargent (or WGPL) in the Challenge inflicting one spare wound.
I4 Challenge: There is not the model has been removed.
I5: The rest of the Blood Angels inflict a number of wounds [on a 3+] and one from the Challenge
I4: What is left can Attack inflicting a lot less wounds that if they had gone of simultaneously.
Results: The Blood Angels Tactical Squad will probably win the Assault more time than not.
Martel732 wrote: "Now, Blood Angels tacticals seem to be a lot better; furious charge and +1 I on the charge, able to take an assault heavy weapon (Heavy Flamer), a flamer and hand flamer makes them a solid counter-assault/crowd control unit, able to shoot things at close range well and act as decent shock assault units"
We can't get the magic SW knife, so the assault part is still really shaky.
Yes you can not PAY for a Chainsword
That still will not fix the Problem of Tactical Squads being "Average" in a world of "Better Choices"
You are still not seeing how Blood Angel Tactical Squads re now Better than any other "MEQ" Tactical Like Squads. So lets try this.
The Assault Phase
I5 Challenge: The Blood Angel Sargent with his Power Sword cuts down the Opposing Sargent (or WGPL) in the Challenge inflicting one spare wound.
I4 Challenge: There is not the model has been removed.
I5: The rest of the Blood Angels inflict a number of wounds [on a 3+] and one from the Challenge
I4: What is left can Attack inflicting a lot less wounds that if they had gone of simultaneously.
Results: The Blood Angels Tactical Squad will probably win the Assault more time than not.
You are never going to let a BA tactical squad assault you. You will spoiling assault them. The counter attack become super valuable against units that actually can pull off an assault. Tac squads are on foot, with no assault transports. They can't assault you. People are saying BA tacs are good because now they can make them suicide heavy flamer units. I still maintain suiciding meqs is not usually a good plan. Guardsmen, sure.
"Yes you can not PAY for a Chainsword "
Sorry they aren't quite as crazy as 5th. No, not really.
Breng77 wrote: Sure it doesn't help, but if they were good to begin with it would hurt but you would not care. But like I said things seekers don't really care (unless you are in terrain) as I'll hit you first and close to wipe the squad before I get hit back. So you having 3 attacks instead of 2 coming back at me is meh.
Or units like my beast of nurgle unit, won't even lose a model charging grey hunters and will proceeded to kill 6-10 Grey Hunters. It is a much more expensive unit, but at that rate, I'll eat 4-5 squads with minimal damage....
Also BA assault squads, on the charge should kill 3 GH before they strike, and lose about 2 models. Assuming no special close combat weapons in either squad, and no shooting prior to the charge.....so even then it hurts (costs you 1 additional model) but it is not the end of the world.
Why would I not be in cover versus demons, an army that needs to approach me?
Do seekers not care about 30 attacks plus overwatch?
Breng77 wrote: Sure it doesn't help, but if they were good to begin with it would hurt but you would not care. But like I said things seekers don't really care (unless you are in terrain) as I'll hit you first and close to wipe the squad before I get hit back. So you having 3 attacks instead of 2 coming back at me is meh.
Or units like my beast of nurgle unit, won't even lose a model charging grey hunters and will proceeded to kill 6-10 Grey Hunters. It is a much more expensive unit, but at that rate, I'll eat 4-5 squads with minimal damage....
Also BA assault squads, on the charge should kill 3 GH before they strike, and lose about 2 models. Assuming no special close combat weapons in either squad, and no shooting prior to the charge.....so even then it hurts (costs you 1 additional model) but it is not the end of the world.
Why would I not be in cover versus demons, an army that needs to approach me?
Do seekers not care about 30 attacks plus overwatch?
Apparently not. I'll take his word for it, since I haven't seen the demon codex myself. I'll tell you that my BA certainly care. Assuming he lets me charge him.
Martel732 wrote: You are never going to let a BA tactical squad assault you. You will spoiling assault them. The counter attack become super valuable against units that actually can pull off an assault. Tac squads are on foot, with no assault transports. They can't assault you.
Have been paying attention to the Blood Angel Threads. You have a Formation that lets your Army Assault out of Reserves filled with Tactical Squad loaded in Flying Assault Vehicles that can show up on Turn One. There is no Other Army out there that can do that!
Martel732 wrote: You are never going to let a BA tactical squad assault you. You will spoiling assault them. The counter attack become super valuable against units that actually can pull off an assault. Tac squads are on foot, with no assault transports. They can't assault you.
Have been paying attention to the Blood Angel Threads. You have a Formation that lets your Army Assault out of Reserves filled with Tactical Squad loaded in Flying Assault Vehicles that can show up on Turn One. There is no Other Army out there that can do that!
A single formation that requires three Stormravens and a huge amount of the list to be reserved. No thanks, I'll pass. I'm not sure that formation gives the +1 I, either. If I faced that list, I'd treat it like a triple helldrake list and move on with life. Loaded stormravens are still death traps in 7th ed.
Martel732 wrote: You are never going to let a BA tactical squad assault you. You will spoiling assault them. The counter attack become super valuable against units that actually can pull off an assault. Tac squads are on foot, with no assault transports. They can't assault you.
Have been paying attention to the Blood Angel Threads. You have a Formation that lets your Army Assault out of Reserves filled with Tactical Squad loaded in Flying Assault Vehicles that can show up on Turn One. There is no Other Army out there that can do that!
A single formation that requires three Stormravens and a huge amount of the list to be reserved. No thanks, I'll pass. I'm not sure that formation gives the +1 I, either. If I faced that list, I'd treat it like a triple helldrake list and move on with life.
Your HATRED for Grey Hunters and inability to see that Blood Angels Tactical have gotten Much Better I think is clouding how you think.
Blood Angel Tactical Marines got Cheaper and gained the use of the Heavy Flamer, Both are Good things right?
Grey Hunters lost their Free Close Combat Weapon and now have to pay more than 1 point for, both things you wanted for them, this is good right?
Martel732 wrote: You are never going to let a BA tactical squad assault you. You will spoiling assault them. The counter attack become super valuable against units that actually can pull off an assault. Tac squads are on foot, with no assault transports. They can't assault you.
Have been paying attention to the Blood Angel Threads. You have a Formation that lets your Army Assault out of Reserves filled with Tactical Squad loaded in Flying Assault Vehicles that can show up on Turn One. There is no Other Army out there that can do that!
A single formation that requires three Stormravens and a huge amount of the list to be reserved. No thanks, I'll pass. I'm not sure that formation gives the +1 I, either. If I faced that list, I'd treat it like a triple helldrake list and move on with life.
Your HATRED for Grey Hunters and inability to see that Blood Angels Tactical have gotten Much Better I think is clouding how you think.
Blood Angel Tactical Marines got Cheaper and gained the use of the Heavy Flamer, Both are Good things right?
Grey Hunters lost their Free Close Combat Weapon and now have to pay more than 1 point for, both things you wanted for them, this is good right?
Well, let's see.
Blood angel tacticals get 2 attacks off the charge, and can flamer as well
GH will get 3 attacks can overwatch with 6 plasma shots. I am not sure how popping the banner plays into it, so I will ignore it for now
Let's assume every flamer hits 3-4 guys, so 7 for the two flamers.
7 hits, 3.5 at str 5, 3.5 at str 4
2.25 wounds from the heavy flamer, results in nearly 1 dead marine. 1.75 wounds from the flamer results in .5 dead marines. So let's round and call it 1 dead marine.
GH fires 6 plasma shots on overwatch, 1 hits, killing one guy 5/6 times.
14 bolters fire, ~2 hit, 1 wound, 1/3 dead guys. So let's say 1 dead marine per side before combat.
9 charge in for BA, 18 attacks, 9 hit, 6 wounds, 2 dead marines.
21 attacks, 10.5 hits, 5.25 wounds, just under 2 dead marines.
So, BA win by...1 on average it seems. In the next round, it becomes
BA: 7 marines, 7 attacks, 3.5 hit. 1.75 wound, little over 50% chance of killing
GH: 7 marines, 14 attacks, 7 hits, 3.5 wounds, little over 1 dead.
So unless they win the first and every round of combat and keep charging, they will eventually lose. The Wolf army will outnumber you because they don't have 600 points of storm raven as well.
Martel732 wrote: You are never going to let a BA tactical squad assault you. You will spoiling assault them. The counter attack become super valuable against units that actually can pull off an assault. Tac squads are on foot, with no assault transports. They can't assault you.
Have been paying attention to the Blood Angel Threads. You have a Formation that lets your Army Assault out of Reserves filled with Tactical Squad loaded in Flying Assault Vehicles that can show up on Turn One. There is no Other Army out there that can do that!
A single formation that requires three Stormravens and a huge amount of the list to be reserved. No thanks, I'll pass. I'm not sure that formation gives the +1 I, either. If I faced that list, I'd treat it like a triple helldrake list and move on with life.
Your HATRED for Grey Hunters and inability to see that Blood Angels Tactical have gotten Much Better I think is clouding how you think.
Blood Angel Tactical Marines got Cheaper and gained the use of the Heavy Flamer, Both are Good things right?
Grey Hunters lost their Free Close Combat Weapon and now have to pay more than 1 point for, both things you wanted for them, this is good right?
Well, let's see.
Blood angel tacticals get 2 attacks off the charge, and can flamer as well
GH will get 3 attacks can overwatch with 6 plasma shots. I am not sure how popping the banner plays into it, so I will ignore it for now
Let's assume every flamer hits 3-4 guys, so 7 for the two flamers.
7 hits, 3.5 at str 5, 3.5 at str 4
2.25 wounds from the heavy flamer, results in nearly 1 dead marine. 1.75 wounds from the flamer results in .5 dead marines. So let's round and call it 1 dead marine.
GH fires 6 plasma shots on overwatch, 1 hits, killing one guy 5/6 times.
14 bolters fire, ~2 hit, 1 wound, 1/3 dead guys. So let's say 1 dead marine per side before combat.
9 charge in for BA, 18 attacks, 9 hit, 6 wounds, 2 dead marines.
21 attacks, 10.5 hits, 5.25 wounds, just under 2 dead marines.
So, BA win by...1 on average it seems. In the next round, it becomes
BA: 7 marines, 7 attacks, 3.5 hit. 1.75 wound, little over 50% chance of killing
GH: 7 marines, 14 attacks, 7 hits, 3.5 wounds, little over 1 dead.
So unless they win the first and every round of combat and keep charging, they will eventually lose. The Wolf army will outnumber you because they don't have 600 points of storm raven as well.
6 Plasma Shots...WDLP with a Combi-Plasma I assume.
Martel732 wrote: You are never going to let a BA tactical squad assault you. You will spoiling assault them. The counter attack become super valuable against units that actually can pull off an assault. Tac squads are on foot, with no assault transports. They can't assault you.
Have been paying attention to the Blood Angel Threads. You have a Formation that lets your Army Assault out of Reserves filled with Tactical Squad loaded in Flying Assault Vehicles that can show up on Turn One. There is no Other Army out there that can do that!
A single formation that requires three Stormravens and a huge amount of the list to be reserved. No thanks, I'll pass. I'm not sure that formation gives the +1 I, either. If I faced that list, I'd treat it like a triple helldrake list and move on with life.
Your HATRED for Grey Hunters and inability to see that Blood Angels Tactical have gotten Much Better I think is clouding how you think.
Blood Angel Tactical Marines got Cheaper and gained the use of the Heavy Flamer, Both are Good things right?
Grey Hunters lost their Free Close Combat Weapon and now have to pay more than 1 point for, both things you wanted for them, this is good right?
Well, let's see.
Blood angel tacticals get 2 attacks off the charge, and can flamer as well
GH will get 3 attacks can overwatch with 6 plasma shots. I am not sure how popping the banner plays into it, so I will ignore it for now
Let's assume every flamer hits 3-4 guys, so 7 for the two flamers.
7 hits, 3.5 at str 5, 3.5 at str 4
2.25 wounds from the heavy flamer, results in nearly 1 dead marine. 1.75 wounds from the flamer results in .5 dead marines. So let's round and call it 1 dead marine.
GH fires 6 plasma shots on overwatch, 1 hits, killing one guy 5/6 times.
14 bolters fire, ~2 hit, 1 wound, 1/3 dead guys. So let's say 1 dead marine per side before combat.
9 charge in for BA, 18 attacks, 9 hit, 6 wounds, 2 dead marines.
21 attacks, 10.5 hits, 5.25 wounds, just under 2 dead marines.
So, BA win by...1 on average it seems. In the next round, it becomes
BA: 7 marines, 7 attacks, 3.5 hit. 1.75 wound, little over 50% chance of killing
GH: 7 marines, 14 attacks, 7 hits, 3.5 wounds, little over 1 dead.
So unless they win the first and every round of combat and keep charging, they will eventually lose. The Wolf army will outnumber you because they don't have 600 points of storm raven as well.
6 Plasma Shots...WDLP with a Combi-Plasma I assume.
Yes.
I didn't include the extra attack for them or the BA sarge, though this does help BA a bit
Also having more power swords helps BA more than GH, which helps as well.
No banner...tried to keep it somewhat simple.
That formation is amazing, but I wouldn't use it against a lot of opponents. Against the top tier dexes though...it is so much win.
Breng77 wrote: Sure it doesn't help, but if they were good to begin with it would hurt but you would not care. But like I said things seekers don't really care (unless you are in terrain) as I'll hit you first and close to wipe the squad before I get hit back. So you having 3 attacks instead of 2 coming back at me is meh.
Or units like my beast of nurgle unit, won't even lose a model charging grey hunters and will proceeded to kill 6-10 Grey Hunters. It is a much more expensive unit, but at that rate, I'll eat 4-5 squads with minimal damage....
Also BA assault squads, on the charge should kill 3 GH before they strike, and lose about 2 models. Assuming no special close combat weapons in either squad, and no shooting prior to the charge.....so even then it hurts (costs you 1 additional model) but it is not the end of the world.
Why would I not be in cover versus demons, an army that needs to approach me?
Do seekers not care about 30 attacks plus overwatch?
If you want to sit in cover all game while the rest of my army does stuff, like summon new units and claim objectives I'm alright with it. And yes seekers care about 30 attacks, which is why I said not in cover, but my prefered beasts of nurgle don't, simply put they walk right through your double tap, overwatch, and 30 attacks and eat your grey hunters.
That also leaves out the possiblilities like Seekers being invisible, or having a 2++ save etc. Or having the Slaanesh psychic power that gives you negative initiative and no overwatch....
Like I said good assault units will still own grey hunters....
Martel732 wrote: You are never going to let a BA tactical squad assault you. You will spoiling assault them. The counter attack become super valuable against units that actually can pull off an assault. Tac squads are on foot, with no assault transports. They can't assault you.
Have been paying attention to the Blood Angel Threads. You have a Formation that lets your Army Assault out of Reserves filled with Tactical Squad loaded in Flying Assault Vehicles that can show up on Turn One. There is no Other Army out there that can do that!
A single formation that requires three Stormravens and a huge amount of the list to be reserved. No thanks, I'll pass. I'm not sure that formation gives the +1 I, either. If I faced that list, I'd treat it like a triple helldrake list and move on with life.
Your HATRED for Grey Hunters and inability to see that Blood Angels Tactical have gotten Much Better I think is clouding how you think.
Blood Angel Tactical Marines got Cheaper and gained the use of the Heavy Flamer, Both are Good things right?
Grey Hunters lost their Free Close Combat Weapon and now have to pay more than 1 point for, both things you wanted for them, this is good right?
Well, let's see.
Blood angel tacticals get 2 attacks off the charge, and can flamer as well
GH will get 3 attacks can overwatch with 6 plasma shots. I am not sure how popping the banner plays into it, so I will ignore it for now
Let's assume every flamer hits 3-4 guys, so 7 for the two flamers.
7 hits, 3.5 at str 5, 3.5 at str 4
2.25 wounds from the heavy flamer, results in nearly 1 dead marine. 1.75 wounds from the flamer results in .5 dead marines. So let's round and call it 1 dead marine.
GH fires 6 plasma shots on overwatch, 1 hits, killing one guy 5/6 times.
14 bolters fire, ~2 hit, 1 wound, 1/3 dead guys. So let's say 1 dead marine per side before combat.
9 charge in for BA, 18 attacks, 9 hit, 6 wounds, 2 dead marines.
21 attacks, 10.5 hits, 5.25 wounds, just under 2 dead marines.
So, BA win by...1 on average it seems. In the next round, it becomes
BA: 7 marines, 7 attacks, 3.5 hit. 1.75 wound, little over 50% chance of killing
GH: 7 marines, 14 attacks, 7 hits, 3.5 wounds, little over 1 dead.
So unless they win the first and every round of combat and keep charging, they will eventually lose. The Wolf army will outnumber you because they don't have 600 points of storm raven as well.
6 Plasma Shots...WDLP with a Combi-Plasma I assume.
Yes.
I didn't include the extra attack for them or the BA sarge, though this does help BA a bit
Also having more power swords helps BA more than GH, which helps as well.
No banner...tried to keep it somewhat simple.
That formation is amazing, but I wouldn't use it against a lot of opponents. Against the top tier dexes though...it is so much win.
The WGPL though causes the whole Challenge issue. For me if I had loaded up with the Combi-Plasma he would also have a Wolf Claw or if I was expecting to be Assaulted a Storm Shield and Frost Blade.
Breng77 wrote: Sure it doesn't help, but if they were good to begin with it would hurt but you would not care. But like I said things seekers don't really care (unless you are in terrain) as I'll hit you first and close to wipe the squad before I get hit back. So you having 3 attacks instead of 2 coming back at me is meh.
Or units like my beast of nurgle unit, won't even lose a model charging grey hunters and will proceeded to kill 6-10 Grey Hunters. It is a much more expensive unit, but at that rate, I'll eat 4-5 squads with minimal damage....
Also BA assault squads, on the charge should kill 3 GH before they strike, and lose about 2 models. Assuming no special close combat weapons in either squad, and no shooting prior to the charge.....so even then it hurts (costs you 1 additional model) but it is not the end of the world.
Why would I not be in cover versus demons, an army that needs to approach me?
Do seekers not care about 30 attacks plus overwatch?
If you want to sit in cover all game while the rest of my army does stuff, like summon new units and claim objectives I'm alright with it. And yes seekers care about 30 attacks, which is why I said not in cover, but my prefered beasts of nurgle don't, simply put they walk right through your double tap, overwatch, and 30 attacks and eat your grey hunters.
That also leaves out the possiblilities like Seekers being invisible, or having a 2++ save etc. Or having the Slaanesh psychic power that gives you negative initiative and no overwatch....
Like I said good assault units will still own grey hunters....
Summon units for days. If you take large amounts of seekers or beasts, it won't happen very quickly. Even then, your demons need to approach me at some point.
Yes, you can use your invisibility to help quite a bit. Assuming you get it and cast it, this helps immensely. Doesn't speak about seekers, just that the spell itself is busted beyond belief.
Negative init helps (Does it drop it to 1? If not, GH still hitting first. If so, equal hitting power so seekers probably take more damage then they give out, points wise) though, but now we are throwing a lot of points at killing ~150-200 points of my army (so 10% on average?)
Nurgle beasts...let's see
20 bolters, 3 hits, 50% change to wound, so 30% chance for one wound to go through? Yikes. A plasma gun helps but not by a whole lot.
30 attacks, I think hitting on 4?, 15 hits, ~3 wounds, ~2 go through. I believe. Nobody plays demons locally anymore so I'm weak on their stat lines, and the old guy played Slaanesh demons for his Emperor's children force. I'm not sure if they would wipe the unit or not.
Beasts are T5, with 4 wounds, and shrouded and IWND, I typically run at least 1 herald to give them FNP (and often Endurance). They are far more points than Grey Hunters.
So 20 bolters, assuming my first guy does not toe the cover you are hiding in. So that is about 0.49 wounds (if cover that goes down to 0.25, if endurance it drops further to 0.19). 30 attacks hitting on 3s, Puts out 2.9 wounds (again without endurance). So you almost kill one beast. Who then might regen a wound, then the beasts hit you back and with herald support likely come close to wiping the squad, then you break and run most of the time.
As for approaching you it depends, what is the mission? If objectives where are the objectives, if malestom what are the cards, if relic unless it is in cover and you drop on it I'll claim it pretty quickly and then walk away, this is also not playing super summoning or screamerstar or FMCs etc. Point is I don't really need to approach you unless you have more objectives than me, or we are playing Kill points, then sure I need to come to you...but if I kill you and you don't kill me it all works out.
Point is GH are not super OMG broken with counter attack, any more than any other marines with their own advantages are.
Breng77 wrote: Beasts are T5, with 4 wounds, and shrouded and IWND, I typically run at least 1 herald to give them FNP (and often Endurance). They are far more points than Grey Hunters.
So 20 bolters, assuming my first guy does not toe the cover you are hiding in. So that is about 0.49 wounds (if cover that goes down to 0.25, if endurance it drops further to 0.19). 30 attacks hitting on 3s, Puts out 2.9 wounds (again without endurance). So you almost kill one beast. Who then might regen a wound, then the beasts hit you back and with herald support likely come close to wiping the squad, then you break and run most of the time.
I assume they have a 5++?
If so, 20 shots get ~3 hits, 1 wound, 66% of 1 wound, 44% after IWND. Shrouded makes it worse.
30 attacks, 20 hits, ~7 wounds, 4-5 go through, FNP and IWND drop it below one dead beast.
Yeah, I don't think anything can deal with beasts unless they fire plasma, or TWC charging in. Oddly enough, termies might do excellent against them assuming they do not ignore armor.
Luckily they don't have guns, so I do get a few plasma shots before watching them hit me, but I'm guessing it would take 400 points of GH to take them on successfully, maybe 300-350.
Yeah Termies are a problem except for the heralds I stick in their run with AP 2 S6 Weapons most of the time, so will kill marines and termies by the bunch. (They also guarantee FNP, which is where my numbers come in + shrouded). The other reason I am unlikely to lose models is that they guy eating the shooting is not often the guy eating the CC attacks. So you'll do wounds to 2 different models, and then I potentially grow them back.
You IN combat you would likely need ~30 Grey Hunters to accomplish anything meaningful and even then with a herald or 2 I still likely win the combat.
As for shooting them on the way in, being beasts, you likely get one round of shooting at them often into cover. But in general they rarely die. They have some big achilles heels, namely walkers, a dread with a fist will murder them in most cases, as will things like IKnights.
Breng77 wrote: Yeah Termies are a problem except for the heralds I stick in their run with AP 2 S6 Weapons most of the time, so will kill marines and termies by the bunch. (They also guarantee FNP, which is where my numbers come in + shrouded).
You IN combat you would likely need ~30 Grey Hunters to accomplish anything meaningful and even then with a herald or 2 I still likely win the combat.
As for shooting them on the way in, being beasts, you likely get one round of shooting at them often into cover. But in general they rarely die. They have some big achilles heels, namely walkers, a dread with a fist will murder them in most cases, as will things like IKnights.
Yeah, when I said 2 squads I assumed I would get 1 turn of rapid fire and then you're on me. 12 plasma shots would help but in general...that is a tough unit. Maybe popping a banner and getting some maces would help, but that is list tailoring at that point.
Yeah, they are gross for stock infantry to deal with 12 Plasma shots help, as that is 3 wounds (assuming heralds FNP), but unless they are all on one beast...it does not help as much as one might think. But like I said 1 Imperial Knight or an AV 13 walker (av12 is not much better) and they fold really quickly. It is one of the reasons that though they lack durability Plague drones are a bit better in many cases as they have plague swords to glance down vehicles.
Martel732 wrote: You are never going to let a BA tactical squad assault you. You will spoiling assault them. The counter attack become super valuable against units that actually can pull off an assault. Tac squads are on foot, with no assault transports. They can't assault you.
Have been paying attention to the Blood Angel Threads. You have a Formation that lets your Army Assault out of Reserves filled with Tactical Squad loaded in Flying Assault Vehicles that can show up on Turn One. There is no Other Army out there that can do that!
A single formation that requires three Stormravens and a huge amount of the list to be reserved. No thanks, I'll pass. I'm not sure that formation gives the +1 I, either. If I faced that list, I'd treat it like a triple helldrake list and move on with life.
Your HATRED for Grey Hunters and inability to see that Blood Angels Tactical have gotten Much Better I think is clouding how you think.
Blood Angel Tactical Marines got Cheaper and gained the use of the Heavy Flamer, Both are Good things right?
Grey Hunters lost their Free Close Combat Weapon and now have to pay more than 1 point for, both things you wanted for them, this is good right?
It's better, but the Grey Hunter is still head and shoulders above other meqs. You never answered whether that formation has +1 I or not. If not, then it's pretty much suicide against SW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ailaros wrote: Wait, WS4 S4 T4 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv3+ is rubbish, but WS4 S5 T4 I5 A2 Ld9 Sv3+ is good?
No the formation does not give it, but one of the Detachments [The name escapes me at the moment] can and if the Formation is part of that Detachment they would get it.
If you let my BA charge you, you either suck at 40k or I made a ludicrous 12" charge. (Barring the raven formation that is broken-good. Seriously, I'm gonna get to bring that thing once before it goes on the "we won't play against that" list.)
Pro-tip vs BA. Charge them. I don't care if you think your guys suck in melee or whatever. Always charge them, never let them charge you. It nerfs them so hardcore, especially death company.
Grey hunters, you're getting smacked by that extra attack whether you charge or not. If they are on an objective in cover, and you don't have assault grenades, don't go near them unless your unit is rated far above theirs in power and durability. (Like mostly full ork boy squads.) just try to whittle them down with shooting until you have the advantage even with counterattack.
If that was any other marine chapter, the recommendation would be to charge, charge, charge.
To the guy that tried to math out 1 marine and 2 orks:
That is LITERALLY looking at the models in a vacuum. It shows no evidence whatsoever of how a game would go involving the two of them.
Any tac marine may be in: a tax unit of 5, maybe with a heavy/special, non-vet sarge. A unit of 10 in a non-assault vehicle with a couple heavies/specials, possibly a vet sarge with melee weapon, 5 man with a special in a non assault vehicle with non-vet sarge, or a pod of 10 with specials, maybe vet sarge with weapon.
(As I've said before, pods are awesome, and using them to show that a unit carried by a pod is awesome is a fallacy, considering that pods make anything that wants to be close without taking fire awesome.)
Orks could be in 11 boys +pkbp nob in a light assault vehicle, 19 boys +pkbp nob in a heavy assault vehicle, or 29 boys and pkbp nob on foot. Any of these are almost impossible to break morale-wise (1.1% chance) until they dip below 10 boys. Afterwards, as long as the nob is up, the chance of breaking only goes up to 18.5% from non-combat. (In combat, mob rule helps even more.). They are a scary melee unit that can murder things, and benefit from a run+charge if a waaagh is called, and also inherently have a reroll on charge range. They still have bolter-strength shots at short range. Accuracy sucks, but they have a lot of them. Paying for ap3/2 is near worthless against them, as only 1 of 6 boys would've saved anyway, so you'd need to kill 18 boys with your power sword before you broke even on points. Charging them to spoil their charge is not a great option. They are so melee focused that unless their squad has already been thrashed, they're going to whomp you regardless of who charged, unless your squad is a grade A meat grinder, like a big death company or some squad that's at almost-deathstar point status.
Anpu42 wrote: No the formation does not give it, but one of the Detachments [The name escapes me at the moment] can and if the Formation is part of that Detachment they would get it.
A Formation cannot be "part" of another Detachment, as I understand it, as it is its own Detachment.
Martel732 wrote: Your pro-tip is why I never lose in army swap battles. I literally have not lost to BA either in mirror match or army swap since 5th ed.
Yeah me either. Somehow people think my asm are godly, then we army swap and I'm just like "hey I'll charge your asm with my cultists!" And then they're confused as to why the asm aren't performing as well for them.
Anpu42 wrote: No the formation does not give it, but one of the Detachments [The name escapes me at the moment] can and if the Formation is part of that Detachment they would get it.
A Formation cannot be "part" of another Detachment, as I understand it, as it is its own Detachment.
EDIT: woohoo, 2000th post!
As I understand it you can take 1 Formation as part of a Detachment making that Formation part of the Detachment, like a LoW or Fortification.
Anpu42 wrote: On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.
2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.
Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.
This is LITERALLY the first time I have seen someone complain about the ability to take two special weapons instead of 1 Special and 1 Heavy. 2 Specials is FAR superior because no snap shooting when you have to move, and the fact that Drop Pods are the best way to deliver Tactical Marines to places in the first places, so you would get more out of a weapon when dropping in for the kill.
Also, the complaint about Counter Attack is stupid. That's like saying because Night Fighting isn't taking place, my Crisis Suits or Dark Eldar now have useless USR's. It makes it so your Marines are LESS LIKELY to be charged, which is kinda something good.
Seriously, like, was that post even thought out?
Anpu42 wrote: On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.
2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.
Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.
This is LITERALLY the first time I have seen someone complain about the ability to take two special weapons instead of 1 Special and 1 Heavy. 2 Specials is FAR superior because no snap shooting when you have to move, and the fact that Drop Pods are the best way to deliver Tactical Marines to places in the first places, so you would get more out of a weapon when dropping in for the kill.
Also, the complaint about Counter Attack is stupid. That's like saying because Night Fighting isn't taking place, my Crisis Suits or Dark Eldar now have useless USR's. It makes it so your Marines are LESS LIKELY to be charged, which is kinda something good.
Seriously, like, was that post even thought out?
Complain, No, I was pointing out the Disadvantage of 2 Specialist Weapons. I have no Long Range Firepower. 2 13"-24" Plasma Shots really don't do much, to really get the most of them you have to get within 12", there is no other option. Melta-Gun make it 6" and Flamers 8". So Grey Hunters HAVE to move. My Opponent know this and can plan for it.
The Drop Hunters, if that is the "Only" way to use them that means I have no Flexibility, not a sign of a good well rounded unit.
The Counter Attack to me has been completely worthless to me since the 7th Edition BRB rolled out. My opponents do not Assault Me, they just blast me from 25"+ range now, unless they are Orks and Nids.
What I am saying more than anything is Grey Hunters=Tactical Squads in true battlefield power if you opponent know how to deal with them. I can project a solid 12" Don't go near me Bubble, compared to most Tactical Squads who can pull off a 36" Threat Bubble and can combat Squad and have other nifty tricks based on their CT.
I don't think we're playing the same game. Tactical squads don't have a 36" threat bubble. In practice, it's 12" just like your Grey Hunters.
I ignore tactical squads until they're convenient to crush. Straight up ignore them. Because they can't do anything. And I win games doing this. A lot of games. It's the lists full of stuff I can't ignore that I have trouble with.
Ailaros wrote: Wait, WS4 S4 T4 I4 A2 Ld9 Sv3+ is rubbish, but WS4 S5 T4 I5 A2 Ld9 Sv3+ is good?
They're scarcely different.
A tad disingenuous.
And by a tad, I mean quite a lot.
I5 means that they strike before MEQs or lesser - this is a big deal because it mitigates the return damage.
S5 is 16.6% better in most evey sense than S4, in terms of both damage output and what can be hurt.
You can also factor in that WS5 can reasonably be achieved in most cases to go alongside that, again boosting the damage output against MEQ or lesser.
So yeah, two tiny numbers that can make a hell of a difference on the table. Although I'm sure all those maths can just be countered by intelligent play.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think we're playing the same game. Tactical squads don't have a 36" threat bubble. In practice, it's 12" just like your Grey Hunters.
Tacticals can take thing like Plasma-Cannons, Las Cannons, Heavy Bolters and Missile Launchers.
The Advantages of Grey Hunters over Tactical Squads
>We are more Mobile
>We Are Better at Close Combat
>Drop Pod Assualt
The Advantages of Tactical Marines over Grey Hunters
>Can take Long Range Weapons
>Combat Squads
>Flexibility in CT >Flexibility in Use.
Anpu42 wrote: On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.
2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.
Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.
This is LITERALLY the first time I have seen someone complain about the ability to take two special weapons instead of 1 Special and 1 Heavy. 2 Specials is FAR superior because no snap shooting when you have to move, and the fact that Drop Pods are the best way to deliver Tactical Marines to places in the first places, so you would get more out of a weapon when dropping in for the kill.
Also, the complaint about Counter Attack is stupid. That's like saying because Night Fighting isn't taking place, my Crisis Suits or Dark Eldar now have useless USR's. It makes it so your Marines are LESS LIKELY to be charged, which is kinda something good.
Seriously, like, was that post even thought out?
Complain, No, I was pointing out the Disadvantage of 2 Specialist Weapons. I have no Long Range Firepower. 2 13"-24" Plasma Shots really don't do much, to really get the most of them you have to get within 12", there is no other option. Melta-Gun make it 6" and Flamers 8". So Grey Hunters HAVE to move. My Opponent know this and can plan for it.
The Drop Hunters, if that is the "Only" way to use them that means I have no Flexibility, not a sign of a good well rounded unit.
The Counter Attack to me has been completely worthless to me since the 7th Edition BRB rolled out. My opponents do not Assault Me, they just blast me from 25"+ range now, unless they are Orks and Nids.
What I am saying more than anything is Grey Hunters=Tactical Squads in true battlefield power if you opponent know how to deal with them. I can project a solid 12" Don't go near me Bubble, compared to most Tactical Squads who can pull off a 36" Threat Bubble and can combat Squad and have other nifty tricks based on their CT.
I think what you mean is that C:SM Tacticals have one weapon that can reach outside 24". That's not exactly threatening.
When you want to do that, Devastator Squads exist., where you can have your Heavy Weapons exceed your Bolters. Isn't that a bit terrible?
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down,
You know what I've seen kill dozens of Venomthropes? Tactical Marines dropping right behind them.
*Snort*Snort*Derision*Disbelief*
Yeah, they have 2 wounds, the Marines have 20 shots.
13.3 hits, 6.7 wounds, 1.1 failed save. No halfway decent nid player doesn't get their thropes in some ruins for 2+ cover with some surrounding chaff units, especially when they see a pod over on your reserves table.
Also drop pods are good. I even outlined that in this very thread. Showing up where you want on the table virtually risk-free and able to immediately shoot is amazing, and ANYONE getting to use this, even the less-than-stellar taxicals, can shine. That's more about the drop pod being awesome than the squad though.
Somehow marines being lame always brings out the guy who's like "but they're awesome in drop pods!"
Literally everything you can put in a drop pod is awesome in a drop pod. Alpha strikes from the direction and location that you want are GOOOOOD. (Me I'd rather have my fragiosos take the pods.)
BATac Squad taking a heavy flamer, with the sarge carrying a combi-flamer and hand flamer. Not to mention theres always something within 6" of the thrope to get extra hits off of with good positioning.
Anpu42 wrote: On Grey Hunters vs Tactical Marines
Yes we get 2 Special Weapons, Counter Attack and the ability to take a CCW. However each can bee seen as an Disadvantage, the keyword it CAN vs the right Opponent who realizes their weakness.
2 Special Weapons: Yes I can take 2 Plasma-Guns which does not tie me down with a Heavy Weapon, but without a Weapon with a range of Greater than 24" I am forced to be mobile or be outranged. This may not seem like a big problem, but unless I am in good cover or a Fortification I must now buy a Transport or move towards me enemy buy leaving the safety of cover.
>A way to beat Grey Hunters Using Range: Just stay at 24+" and blast them away.
Counter-Attack Counter: Is a wonderful USR, but it only works if you ASSAULT me. You don't Assault Space Wolves I have a completely useless USR.
Adding a Close Combat Weapon: This is great I can get an Extra Attack for the price of an extra Plasma-Gun+ for a full sized Squad. With Chainsword I now cost the same as in the 5th Ed Book. Like Counter Attack you simple don't Assault them or Like Martel keeps chanting blasting them off the map before they can do anything like any other MEQ.
Now this does not mean I think Tactical Squads are Better or Worse than Grey Hunter Packs, just different.
This is LITERALLY the first time I have seen someone complain about the ability to take two special weapons instead of 1 Special and 1 Heavy. 2 Specials is FAR superior because no snap shooting when you have to move, and the fact that Drop Pods are the best way to deliver Tactical Marines to places in the first places, so you would get more out of a weapon when dropping in for the kill.
Also, the complaint about Counter Attack is stupid. That's like saying because Night Fighting isn't taking place, my Crisis Suits or Dark Eldar now have useless USR's. It makes it so your Marines are LESS LIKELY to be charged, which is kinda something good.
Seriously, like, was that post even thought out?
Complain, No, I was pointing out the Disadvantage of 2 Specialist Weapons. I have no Long Range Firepower. 2 13"-24" Plasma Shots really don't do much, to really get the most of them you have to get within 12", there is no other option. Melta-Gun make it 6" and Flamers 8". So Grey Hunters HAVE to move. My Opponent know this and can plan for it.
The Drop Hunters, if that is the "Only" way to use them that means I have no Flexibility, not a sign of a good well rounded unit.
The Counter Attack to me has been completely worthless to me since the 7th Edition BRB rolled out. My opponents do not Assault Me, they just blast me from 25"+ range now, unless they are Orks and Nids.
What I am saying more than anything is Grey Hunters=Tactical Squads in true battlefield power if you opponent know how to deal with them. I can project a solid 12" Don't go near me Bubble, compared to most Tactical Squads who can pull off a 36" Threat Bubble and can combat Squad and have other nifty tricks based on their CT.
I think what you mean is that C:SM Tacticals have one weapon that can reach outside 24". That's not exactly threatening.
When you want to do that, Devastator Squads exist., where you can have your Heavy Weapons exceed your Bolters. Isn't that a bit terrible?
Yes, a Plasma-Cannon is not going to stop the Enemy Forces at 36", but 2-4 Can.
My normal Tactical Squad layout is 1 Combi-Plasma, 1 Plasma Gun and 1 Plasma-Cannons. My normal Tactic I use is to Focus my Plasma-Cannons on Transports. Usually the 2nd or 3rd pops the Transport, if I am lucky the 1st one does the job. Once the Transport is opened up the rest focus on the infantry now (Usually Standing in the Smoking Crater).
I can't do that with Grey Hunters on Turn 1.
Johnnytorrance wrote: Susceptible to AP3 or better(lot of it all over)
If they could get a combat knife for an extra attack would be nice
They used to way back when.
I would have no issue with Marines getting their Knife back.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well Trying to get back on subject...
For Decades this has been my standard setup for Tactical Squads.
Sargent: Combi-Plasma/Lighting Claw or Plasma Pistol/Power Weapon [Usually a Sword]
7x Tacticals: Bolt-Gun/Bolt Pistol
1x Tactical: Plasma-Gun/Bolt Pistol
1x Tactical: Plasma-Cannon/Bolt Pistol
Though since the 6th C: SM came out I have looking at:
Sargent: Combi-Plasma/Lighting Claw or Plasma Pistol/Power Weapon [Usually a Sword]
7x Tacticals: Bolt-Gun/Bolt Pistol
1x Tactical: Plasma-Gun/Bolt Pistol
1x Tactical: Heavy-Bolter/Bolt Pistol
Imperial Fist/Sentinels of Tara Chapter Tactics.
Martel732 wrote: "Focus my Plasma-Cannons on Transports. Usually the 2nd or 3rd pops the Transport,"
This is incredibly unlikely against most transports. You get a glance on a 4+ and on a pen only get a kill on a "6", thanks to 7th ed.
Like I stated earlier, I seem have luck with Plasma, my First Shot usually gets a Glance or Pen, that pen is usually a Crew Stunned or Weapon Destroyed. The Second is usually another Pen and either a Immobilized, Weapon Destroyed [and if they did not take the 2nd Storm-Bolter now an Immobilized] or I roll a 6.
However my Las-Cannon and Melta shots usually don't even Glance, don't ask why anymore. I have stopped fighting it and just stick with my Plasma.
Johnnytorrance wrote: If they could get a combat knife for an extra attack would be nice
They used to way back when.
I would have no issue with Marines getting their Knife back.
You know, there are very up-to-date rules for knives in this game. A power knife is Melee S-1 AP3 Specialist Weapon. Go ahead and put knives in the wargear, it will be a very minor help if you happen to take a specialist weapon on the sergeant.
I think it's dumb from a background perspective, and even getting a real ccw would not make tactical squads good for anything they are not good for already.
Martel732 wrote:I don't think we're playing the same game. Tactical squads don't have a 36" threat bubble. In practice, it's 12" just like your Grey Hunters.
Supposedly the good lists in fifth edition were an MSU network of 5+ tactical squad heavy weapons and spammed Fast Attack multi-meltas. Which, like you said, is a totally different game. 3x multi-melta combat squads, 3x plasma cannon combat squads and 6x meltagun rhinos are are totally different things in 7th edition than they were then and with Grav, Riptides, or Serpent Shields they just evaporate.
I think you are wrong that they have a 12" threat bubble, it doesn't seem that threatening to me.
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down,
You know what I've seen kill dozens of Venomthropes? Tactical Marines dropping right behind them.
*Snort*Snort*Derision*Disbelief*
Yeah, they have 2 wounds, the Marines have 20 shots.
13.3 hits, 6.7 wounds, 1.1 failed save. No halfway decent nid player doesn't get their thropes in some ruins for 2+ cover with some surrounding chaff units, especially when they see a pod over on your reserves table.
Also drop pods are good. I even outlined that in this very thread. Showing up where you want on the table virtually risk-free and able to immediately shoot is amazing, and ANYONE getting to use this, even the less-than-stellar taxicals, can shine. That's more about the drop pod being awesome than the squad though.
Somehow marines being lame always brings out the guy who's like "but they're awesome in drop pods!"
Literally everything you can put in a drop pod is awesome in a drop pod. Alpha strikes from the direction and location that you want are GOOOOOD. (Me I'd rather have my fragiosos take the pods.)
BATac Squad taking a heavy flamer, with the sarge carrying a combi-flamer and hand flamer. Not to mention theres always something within 6" of the thrope to get extra hits off of with good positioning.
Your move?
Not only are you still going on about pod-tacticals being awesome, now you're delving into list tailoring territory. We don't do that here. I'm sure if I brought up salamander terminators, you'd have the same argument, but with plasmamcplasplas squad instead of flameymcflameflame squad.
Again, for like the 5th time today, pods being awesome doesn't = the unit inside being awesome. There are several other units that can use the pod better, like sternguard (which could combat squad and down two venomthropes at once!) or fragiosos. And then we're back to the original OP. Tac marines suck, and wouldn't be taken except that they're mandatory to not be unbound. And by the people who apparently are playing a different game where tac marines actually accomplish things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the other hand, that brings up an interesting idea.
What if tac squads were allowed to leave some points banked, and then buy their load outs with banked points after seeing mission/table setups and enemy army composition?
Martel732 wrote: "Focus my Plasma-Cannons on Transports. Usually the 2nd or 3rd pops the Transport,"
This is incredibly unlikely against most transports. You get a glance on a 4+ and on a pen only get a kill on a "6", thanks to 7th ed.
Like I stated earlier, I seem have luck with Plasma, my First Shot usually gets a Glance or Pen, that pen is usually a Crew Stunned or Weapon Destroyed. The Second is usually another Pen and either a Immobilized, Weapon Destroyed [and if they did not take the 2nd Storm-Bolter now an Immobilized] or I roll a 6.
However my Las-Cannon and Melta shots usually don't even Glance, don't ask why anymore. I have stopped fighting it and just stick with my Plasma.
That is a bunch of superstitious nonsense. It is not usable in a general discussion.
"For Decades this has been my standard setup for Tactical Squads.
Sargent: Combi-Plasma/Lighting Claw or Plasma Pistol/Power Weapon [Usually a Sword]
7x Tacticals: Bolt-Gun/Bolt Pistol
1x Tactical: Plasma-Gun/Bolt Pistol
1x Tactical: Plasma-Cannon/Bolt Pistol "
Yeah, very weak firepower outside 12" and if it gets into HTH, it dies like slime. Just like we are saying. Grey Hunters have every advantage, because I can discount your firepower outside 12". You are not popping my transports with the plasma cannon consistently enough for me to worry about. That squad gets ignored until I'm ready to kill it.
Martel732 wrote: "Focus my Plasma-Cannons on Transports. Usually the 2nd or 3rd pops the Transport,"
This is incredibly unlikely against most transports. You get a glance on a 4+ and on a pen only get a kill on a "6", thanks to 7th ed.
Like I stated earlier, I seem have luck with Plasma, my First Shot usually gets a Glance or Pen, that pen is usually a Crew Stunned or Weapon Destroyed. The Second is usually another Pen and either a Immobilized, Weapon Destroyed [and if they did not take the 2nd Storm-Bolter now an Immobilized] or I roll a 6.
However my Las-Cannon and Melta shots usually don't even Glance, don't ask why anymore. I have stopped fighting it and just stick with my Plasma.
That is a bunch of superstitious nonsense. It is not usable in a general discussion.
Superstition or not this is what has happen time after time to me.
Now for others Plasma does not work, but Las-Cannons might be a Better choice or Missile Launchers, the principle is the same.
One [Insert Heavy Weapon of choice] Does little. 2-4 [Insert Heavy Weapon of choice] can take down [Insert Target of choice] at range until they get close enough for your Bolt Guns and [Insert Special Weapon of Choice].
Martel732 wrote: "Focus my Plasma-Cannons on Transports. Usually the 2nd or 3rd pops the Transport,"
This is incredibly unlikely against most transports. You get a glance on a 4+ and on a pen only get a kill on a "6", thanks to 7th ed.
Like I stated earlier, I seem have luck with Plasma, my First Shot usually gets a Glance or Pen, that pen is usually a Crew Stunned or Weapon Destroyed. The Second is usually another Pen and either a Immobilized, Weapon Destroyed [and if they did not take the 2nd Storm-Bolter now an Immobilized] or I roll a 6.
However my Las-Cannon and Melta shots usually don't even Glance, don't ask why anymore. I have stopped fighting it and just stick with my Plasma.
That is a bunch of superstitious nonsense. It is not usable in a general discussion.
Superstition or not this is what has happen time after time to me.
Now for others Plasma does not work, but Las-Cannons might be a Better choice or Missile Launchers, the principle is the same.
One [Insert Heavy Weapon of choice] Does little. 2-4 [Insert Heavy Weapon of choice] can take down [Insert Target of choice] at range until they get close enough for your Bolt Guns and [Insert Special Weapon of Choice].
Needing four army slots to kill a Rhino is insane. Yet, this is what you are proposing.
I can assure you you won't be popping all my transports with the amount of plasma you are talking about. It doesn't really matter what your experiences are. The law of massive amounts of dice works.
Martel732 wrote: "Focus my Plasma-Cannons on Transports. Usually the 2nd or 3rd pops the Transport,"
This is incredibly unlikely against most transports. You get a glance on a 4+ and on a pen only get a kill on a "6", thanks to 7th ed.
Like I stated earlier, I seem have luck with Plasma, my First Shot usually gets a Glance or Pen, that pen is usually a Crew Stunned or Weapon Destroyed. The Second is usually another Pen and either a Immobilized, Weapon Destroyed [and if they did not take the 2nd Storm-Bolter now an Immobilized] or I roll a 6.
However my Las-Cannon and Melta shots usually don't even Glance, don't ask why anymore. I have stopped fighting it and just stick with my Plasma.
That is a bunch of superstitious nonsense. It is not usable in a general discussion.
Superstition or not this is what has happen time after time to me.
Now for others Plasma does not work, but Las-Cannons might be a Better choice or Missile Launchers, the principle is the same.
One [Insert Heavy Weapon of choice] Does little. 2-4 [Insert Heavy Weapon of choice] can take down [Insert Target of choice] at range until they get close enough for your Bolt Guns and [Insert Special Weapon of Choice].
Needing four army slots to kill a Rhino is insane. Yet, this is what you are proposing.
Yes, While my Tactical squads are popping Transports and the Squads in side them and my 4 Plasma-Cannon Devastator Squads re doing the same, by turn 2 you have 6 partial units walking across the board.
That is the other thing everyone seems to be doing, Taking Tactical in a Vacuum.
Tactical Squad re not going to win the Game by Destroying everything They can shoot at. They win the game by taking/holding Objectives/Important parts of the board while the Specialist do their Job. That is a Tactical Squads Job! A Job they Do, not Greatly, but it is what they do.
Martel732 wrote: "While my Tactical squads are popping Transports "
Except they won't.
" 4 Plasma-Cannon Devastator Squads re doing the same"
This just gets better and better. Tailor for meqs much?
"They win the game by taking/holding Objectives/Important parts of the board"
They won't be doing that because I will have killed them. Because they can't kill me.
List Tailor No, it is just one of many list like to throw against any Enemy. I went to Plasma because it was the Only Heavy Weapon working for me back in 2nd besides Auto-Cannons. If I could take Auto-Cannons I would be using those.
And I though your Army could not kill anyone and were always blasted off the board before you could do anything?
Martel732 wrote: "While my Tactical squads are popping Transports "
Except they won't.
" 4 Plasma-Cannon Devastator Squads re doing the same"
This just gets better and better. Tailor for meqs much?
"They win the game by taking/holding Objectives/Important parts of the board"
They won't be doing that because I will have killed them. Because they can't kill me.
List Tailor No, it is just one of many list like to throw against any Enemy. I went to Plasma because it was the Only Heavy Weapon working for me back in 2nd besides Auto-Cannons. If I could take Auto-Cannons I would be using those.
And I though your Army could not kill anyone and were always blasted off the board before you could do anything?
Against Eldar. And Tau. Using a 5th ed codex. The game is a bit different now. While BA are still no match for Xeno firepower, I have no respect at all for armies fielding large numbers of tacticals. Those lists are just victims. I'm not scared of a few plasma cannons after facing what the Eldar can do. I don't think you fully comprehend how much less firepower these squads you are talking about have compared to Tau or Eldar or even IG.
The fearsome marine lists have smashbane, grav stars, and grav bikers. I'd rather lose to that stuff though, than tired old Grey Hunters.
Martel732 wrote: "While my Tactical squads are popping Transports "
Except they won't.
" 4 Plasma-Cannon Devastator Squads re doing the same"
This just gets better and better. Tailor for meqs much?
"They win the game by taking/holding Objectives/Important parts of the board"
They won't be doing that because I will have killed them. Because they can't kill me.
List Tailor No, it is just one of many list like to throw against any Enemy. I went to Plasma because it was the Only Heavy Weapon working for me back in 2nd besides Auto-Cannons. If I could take Auto-Cannons I would be using those.
And I though your Army could not kill anyone and were always blasted off the board before you could do anything?
Against Eldar. And Tau. Using a 5th ed codex. The game is a bit different now. While BA are still no match for Xeno firepower, I have no respect at all for armies fielding large numbers of tacticals. Those lists are just victims. The fearsome marine lists have smashbane, grav stars, and grav bikers.
In Your META.
Mine plays different as I have stated in the past. We occasional get together and pull out "Big Gun Competitive List", but mostly we play low key games where it is not uncommon to see 6 Full Sized Boyz Mobs vs 6x Tactical Squads list
That does not make my Experiences Invalid, Better or Worse than anyone else just different.
Martel732 wrote: "While my Tactical squads are popping Transports "
Except they won't.
" 4 Plasma-Cannon Devastator Squads re doing the same"
This just gets better and better. Tailor for meqs much?
"They win the game by taking/holding Objectives/Important parts of the board"
They won't be doing that because I will have killed them. Because they can't kill me.
List Tailor No, it is just one of many list like to throw against any Enemy. I went to Plasma because it was the Only Heavy Weapon working for me back in 2nd besides Auto-Cannons. If I could take Auto-Cannons I would be using those.
And I though your Army could not kill anyone and were always blasted off the board before you could do anything?
Against Eldar. And Tau. Using a 5th ed codex. The game is a bit different now. While BA are still no match for Xeno firepower, I have no respect at all for armies fielding large numbers of tacticals. Those lists are just victims. The fearsome marine lists have smashbane, grav stars, and grav bikers.
In Your META.
Mine plays different as I have stated in the past. We occasional get together and pull out "Big Gun Competitive List", but mostly we play low key games where it is not uncommon to see 6 Full Sized Boyz Mobs vs 6x Tactical Squads list
That does not make my Experiences Invalid, Better or Worse than anyone else just different.
It kinda does when we are talking about how competitive a choice is
Martel732 wrote: "While my Tactical squads are popping Transports "
Except they won't.
" 4 Plasma-Cannon Devastator Squads re doing the same"
This just gets better and better. Tailor for meqs much?
"They win the game by taking/holding Objectives/Important parts of the board"
They won't be doing that because I will have killed them. Because they can't kill me.
List Tailor No, it is just one of many list like to throw against any Enemy. I went to Plasma because it was the Only Heavy Weapon working for me back in 2nd besides Auto-Cannons. If I could take Auto-Cannons I would be using those.
And I though your Army could not kill anyone and were always blasted off the board before you could do anything?
Against Eldar. And Tau. Using a 5th ed codex. The game is a bit different now. While BA are still no match for Xeno firepower, I have no respect at all for armies fielding large numbers of tacticals. Those lists are just victims. The fearsome marine lists have smashbane, grav stars, and grav bikers.
In Your META.
Mine plays different as I have stated in the past. We occasional get together and pull out "Big Gun Competitive List", but mostly we play low key games where it is not uncommon to see 6 Full Sized Boyz Mobs vs 6x Tactical Squads list
That does not make my Experiences Invalid, Better or Worse than anyone else just different.
It kinda does when we are talking about how competitive a choice is
Well that also makes everything you tell me Invalid for me then.
All I can tell is how things work for me.
I think when you're trying to discuss how good a unit is, you're going to assume a certain baseline of list quality to use for the discussion.
If we're talking about a meta that takes assault centurions, old ork codex flash gits, the new captain Tycho, and other such silliness, then ANYTHING could be good. (Of course in the same situation, already good things would be extremely OP.)
Also you seem to be implying that six full-size boys mobs aren't scary. I know most of my lists can't put out 180ish wounds against t4 with any reliable speed. And that's only around 11-1200 points for the orks.
Martel732 wrote: "While my Tactical squads are popping Transports "
Except they won't.
" 4 Plasma-Cannon Devastator Squads re doing the same"
This just gets better and better. Tailor for meqs much?
"They win the game by taking/holding Objectives/Important parts of the board"
They won't be doing that because I will have killed them. Because they can't kill me.
List Tailor No, it is just one of many list like to throw against any Enemy. I went to Plasma because it was the Only Heavy Weapon working for me back in 2nd besides Auto-Cannons. If I could take Auto-Cannons I would be using those.
And I though your Army could not kill anyone and were always blasted off the board before you could do anything?
Against Eldar. And Tau. Using a 5th ed codex. The game is a bit different now. While BA are still no match for Xeno firepower, I have no respect at all for armies fielding large numbers of tacticals. Those lists are just victims. The fearsome marine lists have smashbane, grav stars, and grav bikers.
In Your META.
Mine plays different as I have stated in the past. We occasional get together and pull out "Big Gun Competitive List", but mostly we play low key games where it is not uncommon to see 6 Full Sized Boyz Mobs vs 6x Tactical Squads list
That does not make my Experiences Invalid, Better or Worse than anyone else just different.
It kinda does when we are talking about how competitive a choice is
Well that also makes everything you tell me Invalid for me then.
All I can tell is how things work for me.
Is there a fallacy akin to a child being told his drawing is bad, therefore your drawing is also bad?
Because if so, this is happening.
But yes, all of us are toeing a line, but you're a maverick with real thinking and thoughts and things that no one else can understand!
Don't let silly things like math and logic slow you down now, be the rebel!
I also have dice act oddly for me, but I don't bring it into a competitive discussion about a unit choice.
There's nothing wrong with a tactical squad. Think of the Tactical squad as your TAC unit or a Swiss army knife and you'll find that the unit works really well if you kit it to do the task.
Sometimes I feel that people wouldn't be happy unless something is broken or an auto include. It's like the only way tactical marines are going to be good in the internet is if they have them cost 35 points and boost the stats to T5, 2+,4++ with plasma/melta for 5pt each for each squad.
Then you'd hear people say how GW hates xeno players and how tacticals are now the best unit to take. GW releases new dex boosting xeno units to be able to take out the Tactical squad. Now as it's no longer an auto include the cycle starts all over again.
I can hear the keys' clicking right now. "But Inkubas, what about the tournament scenes? We don't see many people use the TAC squads! Checkmate!" Well, yea. The unit is meant to be an all corners unit. It's not meant to take out everything out there. And people who come up with lists to win tournaments don't really play something 'fair' and 'balanced'. They bring heavy hitters that marines wouldn't be too effective against. A tactical squad can take out a baneblade but I wouldn't rely on them to. I certainly won't be writing them off for it either.
Unless I am doing my math wrong. x points of bolter marines will win a firefight with x points of any other troop in the game, all other things being equal.
Alcibiades wrote: Unless I am doing my math wrong. x points of bolter marines will win a firefight with x points of any other troop in the game, all other things being equal.
So I am somewhat baffled.
It's not that simple, and I don't think that's even accurate. X pts of dire avengers will almost certainly kill X pts of tac marines in a fire fight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inkubas wrote: There's nothing wrong with a tactical squad. Think of the Tactical squad as your TAC unit or a Swiss army knife and you'll find that the unit works really well if you kit it to do the task.
Sometimes I feel that people wouldn't be happy unless something is broken or an auto include. It's like the only way tactical marines are going to be good in the internet is if they have them cost 35 points and boost the stats to T5, 2+,4++ with plasma/melta for 5pt each for each squad.
Then you'd hear people say how GW hates xeno players and how tacticals are now the best unit to take. GW releases new dex boosting xeno units to be able to take out the Tactical squad. Now as it's no longer an auto include the cycle starts all over again.
I can hear the keys' clicking right now. "But Inkubas, what about the tournament scenes? We don't see many people use the TAC squads! Checkmate!" Well, yea. The unit is meant to be an all corners unit. It's not meant to take out everything out there. And people who come up with lists to win tournaments don't really play something 'fair' and 'balanced'. They bring heavy hitters that marines wouldn't be too effective against. A tactical squad can take out a baneblade but I wouldn't rely on them to. I certainly won't be writing them off for it either.
I know there's something wrong with them, because I can ignore them on the battlefield. I can't ignore dire avengers.
Martel732 wrote: "While my Tactical squads are popping Transports "
Except they won't.
" 4 Plasma-Cannon Devastator Squads re doing the same"
This just gets better and better. Tailor for meqs much?
"They win the game by taking/holding Objectives/Important parts of the board"
They won't be doing that because I will have killed them. Because they can't kill me.
List Tailor No, it is just one of many list like to throw against any Enemy. I went to Plasma because it was the Only Heavy Weapon working for me back in 2nd besides Auto-Cannons. If I could take Auto-Cannons I would be using those.
And I though your Army could not kill anyone and were always blasted off the board before you could do anything?
Against Eldar. And Tau. Using a 5th ed codex. The game is a bit different now. While BA are still no match for Xeno firepower, I have no respect at all for armies fielding large numbers of tacticals. Those lists are just victims. The fearsome marine lists have smashbane, grav stars, and grav bikers.
In Your META.
Mine plays different as I have stated in the past. We occasional get together and pull out "Big Gun Competitive List", but mostly we play low key games where it is not uncommon to see 6 Full Sized Boyz Mobs vs 6x Tactical Squads list
That does not make my Experiences Invalid, Better or Worse than anyone else just different.
Sounds like you play with opponents who don't even try to optimize their lists. Sounds like your meta is the opposite of WAAC. That invalidates pretty much everything say about how effective something will be in a general sense. Can you maybe for once pretend your are NOT in your meta? If you don't play against good lists, then you really have no idea what really works in an all-comers setting.
Wait. You can ignore them and therefore they aren't an effective unit in the game? I have to ask. What do you play on a typical list? Heldrakes are deadly to MEQ but if I play Deathwing I can ignore them too. It doesn't mean that they suck.
Pyeatt wrote: If tactical marines had shields that they could shoot at opponents, or jink... theyd be good.
They are fine as is. Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't complain if all of the sudden they get a 2+/FNP/3++ or any additional weapon options, however, I don't need that to make it work.
I just thought of cultists. They work for what they do but it'd be cool to have a few of them self destruct (S4 AP2 large blast).
Had to re-edit this in!
Choose Alpha Legion cultists and make them scream "For the Emperor!" as they blow up. That is all.
I just realized something Martel. I have never ever seen you write anything good about blood angels. Like according to you they have been the worst codex ever. Though it doesn't make any of the points you make on this thread less valid. Nobody has mentioned this yet but I would say crusader squads are pretty good. 5 man las/plas units in rhino- cheap and can usually make there points back in a game.
Alcibiades wrote: Unless I am doing my math wrong. x points of bolter marines will win a firefight with x points of any other troop in the game, all other things being equal.
So I am somewhat baffled.
Marine bikers for an instant correction. 1ksons will absolutely destroy them. Tau would destroy them simply due to range. Any wraith guard will wreck them, 46 gretchin with a couple points to spare actually win out in the open, and massively win if there's cover.
A bunch of the units that they DO actually beat in a Multi-round firefight won't let them shoot multiple rounds. They'll just come beat them up instead. WS 4 s4 A1 is a pretty pathetic melee statline in today's game. They could REALLY use a knife to get 1/2 for pistol+knife.
Mr.bacon wrote: I just realized something Martel. I have never ever seen you write anything good about blood angels. Like according to you they have been the worst codex ever. Though it doesn't make any of the points you make on this thread less valid. Nobody has mentioned this yet but I would say crusader squads are pretty good. 5 man las/plas units in rhino- cheap and can usually make there points back in a game.
I said good things about the new codex. It's good, but not great or inspiring. Still gets massacred by Eldar.
The Tactical Marines are - in the end - pretty good. One of the toughest troops to hold the objective.
However, they have some big problems that need solving:
- AP3/AP2 is everywhere nowadays. Even though they've got one of the best armour saves in the game amongst any other troop choices across the codices, it isn't enough. It just isn't, and that makes me sad.
- They're AMAZINGLY AVERAGE at best. Just one special and/or heavy weapon maximum per squad? Come on, let me take 2 special weapons, I don't like having heavy weapons in my tac squad, anyway. Meanwhile, the special snowflake Wolves have this option.
- The squad's Sergeant / Veteran Sergeant statline is almost identical with the regular marine one. Why not better 1WS/BS? +1Ld is nice with the upgrade, and almost mandatory, since Ld8 is so easy to fail for me.
Also: he can't take special weapons.
A bunch of the units that they DO actually beat in a Multi-round firefight won't let them shoot multiple rounds. They'll just come beat them up instead. WS 4 s4 A1 is a pretty pathetic melee statline in today's game. They could REALLY use a knife to get 1/2 for pistol+knife.
A. You need a different solution because the 8-10 extra attacks will not dissuade or defeat any of the things that want to charge you.
B. The power knife is -1S and Specialist Weapon. That is exactly the way it should be, even ignoring what the existing models have no marine knife should be a full ccw.
Tigramans wrote:The Tactical Marines are - in the end - pretty good. One of the toughest troops to hold the objective.
However, they have some big problems that need solving:
- AP3/AP2 is everywhere nowadays. Even though they've got one of the best armour saves in the game amongst any other troop choices across the codices, it isn't enough. It just isn't, and that makes me sad.
You should try them at FNP 5+ and 4+ save.
Just one special and/or heavy weapon maximum per squad? Come on, let me take 2 special weapons, I don't like having heavy weapons in my tac squad, anyway. Meanwhile, the special snowflake Wolves have this option.
No I have no respect for this. Special weapons only get to shoot like 3 turns a game, that is not better than heavy weapons.
A bunch of the units that they DO actually beat in a Multi-round firefight won't let them shoot multiple rounds. They'll just come beat them up instead. WS 4 s4 A1 is a pretty pathetic melee statline in today's game. They could REALLY use a knife to get 1/2 for pistol+knife.
No I have no respect for this. Special weapons only get to shoot like 3 turns a game, that is not better than heavy weapons.
Sigh
By this weak, hamfisted logic Heavy Weapons are worse as they'll be lucky to only fire about once or twice a game in a mobile squad. And static HWTac Squads are just a joke.
A piddly little Lascannon or ML added to your firepower reserve is nothing compared to a pair of plasmaguns in the 12'' bracket horribly murdering the unit you're already pelting with bolters, and need to kill ASAP.
One thing I grabbed through this discussion is that Tacticals can be ignored, and I came to think about it - Being ignored can be one of the best things ever to happen to Troops.
When you use a Tactical Squad and expect them to go about and kill other units of their own size, you'll likely be disappointed, if not severely so - It's not that Bolters are weak weapons, they are just a bit... Average. And most other troop choices aren't average at the art of killing (Orks, SW and BA Tacticals, Termagaunts), so this might put people off. The thing I've noticed is that Tacticals have a lot of points in defense - 3+ Sv, ATSKNF, Ld 9... All pretty goddamn good, if we just assume we're not fighting three Heldrakes at a time.
So, instead of focusing on offensive power, what about focusing on defensive? As mentioned, a squad of Tacticals can be ignored, so you can plop them in a ruin and on an objective and just sit the match through, pelting your enemies witha litle bit of Bolter fire if you feel like it, or maybe even pick a Heavy Weapon to help you out with that. The Squad isn't important or damaging enough to go and kill (At least it won't be if you have Assault Terminators, Vindicators and other threats to take priority), and a little pelting fire here and there won't do them in easy enough, because you can easily get back on the field with ATSKNF, and, if you are really threathened, just Squad up and let the enemy choose if he really wanna use 2-4 units to clear the building. If your Squad is the most obvious and easy target for your enemy, that must mean that all other forces on your side has been removed (at which point you have already lost) or that you didn't bring anything else (at which point you should lose as a result).
What I think is important to remember is that 14 pt for a 3+ Sv, T 4, Almost Fearless model is pretty fricking great, and very hard to remove from a ruin, as long as the enmy force is properly occupied with your more hitty forces.
The Wise Dane wrote: One thing I grabbed through this discussion is that Tacticals can be ignored, and I came to think about it - Being ignored can be one of the best things ever to happen to Troops.
When you use a Tactical Squad and expect them to go about and kill other units of their own size, you'll likely be disappointed, if not severely so - It's not that Bolters are weak weapons, they are just a bit... Average. And most other troop choices aren't average at the art of killing (Orks, SW and BA Tacticals, Termagaunts), so this might put people off. The thing I've noticed is that Tacticals have a lot of points in defense - 3+ Sv, ATSKNF, Ld 9... All pretty goddamn good, if we just assume we're not fighting three Heldrakes at a time.
So, instead of focusing on offensive power, what about focusing on defensive? As mentioned, a squad of Tacticals can be ignored, so you can plop them in a ruin and on an objective and just sit the match through, pelting your enemies witha litle bit of Bolter fire if you feel like it, or maybe even pick a Heavy Weapon to help you out with that. The Squad isn't important or damaging enough to go and kill (At least it won't be if you have Assault Terminators, Vindicators and other threats to take priority), and a little pelting fire here and there won't do them in easy enough, because you can easily get back on the field with ATSKNF, and, if you are really threathened, just Squad up and let the enemy choose if he really wanna use 2-4 units to clear the building. If your Squad is the most obvious and easy target for your enemy, that must mean that all other forces on your side has been removed (at which point you have already lost) or that you didn't bring anything else (at which point you should lose as a result).
What I think is important to remember is that 14 pt for a 3+ Sv, T 4, Almost Fearless model is pretty fricking great, and very hard to remove from a ruin, as long as the enmy force is properly occupied with your more hitty forces.
But being ignored is a disaster for all your other slots, because they end up taking that much more fire. And your tac squads are going to die at the middle/end of the game anyway.
So, instead of focusing on offensive power, what about focusing on defensive? As mentioned, a squad of Tacticals can be ignored, so you can plop them in a ruin and on an objective and just sit the match through, pelting your enemies witha litle bit of Bolter fire if you feel like it, or maybe even pick a Heavy Weapon to help you out with that.
because their defensive power is too low. They are sometimes ignored by good armies, because they know they can wipe out those sternguards/cent starfirst and then they will have enough fire power to grind the tacticals to dust, as the return fire will be minimal. bolters do nothing to flyers or transports that are good, and heavy weapons that don't ignore cover have to be more in number, then tacticals can pull off. how long does it take for 2 tacs to take down a serpent or a nightscyth, probably more then the game lasts.
So, instead of focusing on offensive power, what about focusing on defensive? As mentioned, a squad of Tacticals can be ignored, so you can plop them in a ruin and on an objective and just sit the match through, pelting your enemies witha litle bit of Bolter fire if you feel like it, or maybe even pick a Heavy Weapon to help you out with that.
because their defensive power is too low. They are sometimes ignored by good armies, because they know they can wipe out those sternguards/cent starfirst and then they will have enough fire power to grind the tacticals to dust, as the return fire will be minimal. bolters do nothing to flyers or transports that are good, and heavy weapons that don't ignore cover have to be more in number, then tacticals can pull off. how long does it take for 2 tacs to take down a serpent or a nightscyth, probably more then the game lasts.
Give this man the prize!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inkubas wrote: Wait. You can ignore them and therefore they aren't an effective unit in the game? I have to ask. What do you play on a typical list? Heldrakes are deadly to MEQ but if I play Deathwing I can ignore them too. It doesn't mean that they suck.
I don't play lists like that. They will just never be prioritized over bikers, gravstars or Sternguard. I ignore them. I can't ignore DA, or their transport.
Kirby did an article on that line of thought ages ago
"I intentionally take bad units, look at what a psychological genius I am!"
No, taking bad units means you have dead weights in your list. Small, cheap, throwaway units like 5 man scout/tac squads are fine, but taking 10 Man kitted out Tactical Squads because the opponent won't care enough to obliterate them first thing is laughable.
Is the non-barebones Tactical Squad a threat turn 1? Y (1) / N (2)
(1) The squad gets obliterated.
(2) Will it be a significant threat later? Y (1) N (3)
(3) Why'd you take it moron?
DISCLAIMER:
Spoiler:
I couldn't care less if you take it because the like the look/idea. I'm speaking practically.
All the Tactical Squad is going to do is pop off a measly HW shot a turn, and then get shot to pieces as soon as your opponent marches his army over the cold corpses of your understrength, weak frontline troops.
I've come to the conclusion - if you think tac marines are any good - you are playing a different game. Their firepower is lacking an it's easy to understand why - 1 heavy weapon for 10 troops that cost 14 points a piece is not enough.
If Tacs had the option to take 2 heavies or 2 specials they would be in a much better place. It would actually allow me to use some "Tactics."
Another option would be to give marines relentless - this would allow you to use the unit as having a special and a heavy. PC Plasma squads in rhinos would be pretty fun to drive up on people. Same with the Multi-Melta which is currently unusable in a tac squad. Might even consider a HBlol.
Xenomancers wrote: I've come to the conclusion - if you think tac marines are any good - you are playing a different game. Their firepower is lacking an it's easy to understand why - 1 heavy weapon for 10 troops that cost 14 points a piece is not enough.
If Tacs had the option to take 2 heavies or 2 specials they would be in a much better place. It would actually allow me to use some "Tactics."
Another option would be to give marines relentless - this would allow you to use the unit as having a special and a heavy. PC Plasma squads in rhinos would be pretty fun to drive up on people. Same with the Multi-Melta which is currently unusable in a tac squad. Might even consider a HBlol.
It's clear they need something.
Relentless would be awesome and fitting.
Relentless with a knife would make them very worth the points without being overpowered. It would, however, make ASM and Termies very useless as currently represented
Distractions are fine, but most things people claim to take as distractions are bad distractions. My 120pt naked Wraithlord that forces the other guy to chop through T8/4W to deal with him is a distraction.
As to Tactical Marines it's a meta problem, not a problem intrinsic to the unit; cheap/consequence-free long-range AP2/3 guns are way, way too common in the game today. Tactical Marines were more useful before Riptides, Exocrines, Wraithknights, and their ilk started showing up on the field because their armour meant something; today your soldiers' armour means very little in competitive games because you can build an entire army that ignores it, so Tactical Marines are paying for stats that don't matter.
Yeah, when one riptide can take a 5 point gun, and on turn 3 or 4 decide he's run out of good targets and almost ONE-SHOT the entire tac squad from across the board...
That's a good example of how the game has escalated AROUND the marines, but the marines haven't been adjusted to be able to deal with it.
For me, the problem its lethality.
There got none. Bolters are pathetic against most anything that isn't a guardsman, a single special weapon is unreliable, and a single heavy weapon is useless. If they could double up on one or the other, and get a special rule like the old veterans (or current heresy era veterans) I would like them. right now, any tactical flexibility is essentially left to sternguard, who are everything I want for a tactical marine plus some bells, whistles,a large price tag and force organization chart shift
loyaltemplar wrote: For me, the problem its lethality.
There got none. Bolters are pathetic against most anything that isn't a guardsman, a single special weapon is unreliable, and a single heavy weapon is useless. If they could double up on one or the other, and get a special rule like the old veterans (or current heresy era veterans) I would like them. right now, any tactical flexibility is essentially left to sternguard, who are everything I want for a tactical marine plus some bells, whistles,a large price tag and force organization chart shift
Pretty much my feelings. I've seen a lot of "well they can hold objectives!" Yeah, and with 7th, my LR can too. So.....
Xenomancers wrote: I've come to the conclusion - if you think tac marines are any good - you are playing a different game. Their firepower is lacking an it's easy to understand why - 1 heavy weapon for 10 troops that cost 14 points a piece is not enough.
If Tacs had the option to take 2 heavies or 2 specials they would be in a much better place. It would actually allow me to use some "Tactics."
Another option would be to give marines relentless - this would allow you to use the unit as having a special and a heavy. PC Plasma squads in rhinos would be pretty fun to drive up on people. Same with the Multi-Melta which is currently unusable in a tac squad. Might even consider a HBlol.
It's clear they need something.
Clearly Anpu is playing a different game. In his game, plasma takes out transports reliably.
Xenomancers wrote: I've come to the conclusion - if you think tac marines are any good - you are playing a different game. Their firepower is lacking an it's easy to understand why - 1 heavy weapon for 10 troops that cost 14 points a piece is not enough.
If Tacs had the option to take 2 heavies or 2 specials they would be in a much better place. It would actually allow me to use some "Tactics."
Another option would be to give marines relentless - this would allow you to use the unit as having a special and a heavy. PC Plasma squads in rhinos would be pretty fun to drive up on people. Same with the Multi-Melta which is currently unusable in a tac squad. Might even consider a HBlol.
It's clear they need something.
I wouldn't say it isn't a different game, but more a case of a different meta. Though tactics wise that is why there is the ability to combat squad. You can break it off and have the special go around and harass units and then have the heavy weapon sit in the back and act as supporting fire. Such as tac squad takes melta gun and plasma cannon, drops half unit with melta behind transport, tries to open it up and if they do manage to do that they can then use a plasma cannon to take out the unit that just popped out.
I can't imagine a meta where a) people put any thought at all into their lists and b) tac marines are as effective as the proponents claim. Tac marines don't DO anything.
Martel732 wrote: I can't imagine a meta where a) people put any thought at all into their lists and b) tac marines are as effective as the proponents claim. Tac marines don't DO anything.
I feel like you keep comparing tacs to either the broken trifecta of eldar, tau and chaos daemons or environments where everyone is WAAC and only brings the most broken lists with most broken armies. Otherwise tacs can be great is used tactically and with the proper chapter tactics.
You can't use something tactically that poses no threat to pretty much any opposing squad. The myopic 12" threat range is way too short. Tacs weren't getting anywhere against my 5th ed BA lists, and those were the worst lists in the game.
Martel732 wrote: I can't imagine a meta where a) people put any thought at all into their lists and b) tac marines are as effective as the proponents claim. Tac marines don't DO anything.
It's fine. I just play DA, GK, or IG with SM allies to avoid ever having to use a tac squad. Works pretty good.
Look at it this way, what is the difference between a Devastator Squad and a Tactical Squad...? Pretty much nothing except the Devs can take 3 extra Heavy weapons and that makes them pretty desirable for some people, BECAUSE they can then specialize in a role. The natural progression would then just simply allow Devastator and Assault marine be troops, or what GW has been doing more as of late is just take a formation to replace the CAD. Don't you worry! By the time the SM codex update is around you'll probably not have to take a single Tactical or Scout squad.
Las wrote: Yeah, it's easy to discount tac marines when you compare them to units kitted out to kill MEQ. Play better.
How are firewarriors or ork boyz designed to kill MEQ specifically?
Also, L2P? That's adorable
Ork boyz are meant to be a squishy unit that hits hard if you let them. Tac marines are not meant to be able to take out 20+ boyz if they get charged, however they can hold their own in that situation with a bit of luck. But don't depend on it.
Tac marines are a troop choice with more options than either of those units. They are meant to work in concert with the rest of your army and accomplish small, specific tasks. They require skill to use. You can't just plop them down and expect them play themselves.
Yes, at a certain point L2P becomes kind of relevent.
Quickjager wrote: Look at it this way, what is the difference between a Devastator Squad and a Tactical Squad...? Pretty much nothing except the Devs can take 3 extra Heavy weapons and that makes them pretty desirable for some people, BECAUSE they can then specialize in a role. The natural progression would then just simply allow Devastator and Assault marine be troops, or what GW has been doing more as of late is just take a formation to replace the CAD. Don't you worry! By the time the SM codex update is around you'll probably not have to take a single Tactical or Scout squad.
Devs are immobile long range shooters/objective campers. That's their role. Tac marines can be kitted to be mobile and play reactively. Devs cannot do that.
Las wrote: Yeah, it's easy to discount tac marines when you compare them to units kitted out to kill MEQ. Play better.
How are firewarriors or ork boyz designed to kill MEQ specifically?
Also, L2P? That's adorable
Ork boyz are meant to be a squishy unit that hits hard if you let them. Tac marines are not meant to be able to take out 20+ boyz if they get charged, however they can hold their own in that situation with a bit of luck. But don't depend on it.
Tac marines are a troop choice with more options than either of those units. They are meant to work in concert with the rest of your army and accomplish small, specific tasks. They require skill to use. You can't just plop them down and expect them play themselves.
Yes, at a certain point L2P becomes kind of relevent.
Wouldn't a generalist unit be easier to use since it can always be applied in some way to the situation at hand?
If you want people to believe you, you'll need something more specific than "meant to work in concert with the rest of your army".
Considering they can't be a tarpit because they don't have a big enough foot print. They don't absorb firepower well enough, point for point, unless out in the open. They don't buff anyone or help anyone. 1 heavy weapon flying solo won't threaten any tank thanks to HP.
Unless by "working in concert" you meant "I throw 500 points of marines at 180 points of your guys", in which case, sure. Yeah. That's uh...that's great.
But they don't make that easy being slow and having a small ideal firing range. Tau, Eldar, Necrons, GK, Guard, Orks, all do it better. Heck, even scouts with snipers do it better!
Martel732 wrote: No, it really doesn't. Because no amount of L2P will let make tactical marines dangerous to your opponent.
" more options than either of those units."
Options that mean nothing in the scheme of a game.
Really? A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output? With obsec to deny a crucial maelstrom obj? Combat squaring for essentially split fire? The ability to hurt most MCs in CC or reliably crush something like a maulerfiend even after being charged? There's a ton you can do with them, it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit."
They're a blast to play imo. They require skill with maneuvering and model placement, smart synergy with other units, baiting the enemy to play on your terms, etc. Learn to make em work and they can shine.
Martel732 wrote: No, it really doesn't. Because no amount of L2P will let make tactical marines dangerous to your opponent.
" more options than either of those units."
Options that mean nothing in the scheme of a game.
Really? A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output? With obsec to deny a crucial maelstrom obj? Combat squaring for essentially split fire? The ability to hurt most MCs in CC or reliably crush something like a maulerfiend even after being charged? There's a ton you can do with them, it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit."
They're a blast to play imo. They require skill with maneuvering and model placement, smart synergy with other units, baiting the enemy to play on your terms, etc. Learn to make em work and they can shine.
Thats right - we just aren't baiting them hard enough.
Tacs aren't grey hunters okay. You can play them that way if you want but they will always do less damage than grey hunters for the same cost. 5 mans with a combi vet in pod cost roughly 140 points. I can get a tri laz pred for that without throwing my object sec units away. Grey hunters work that way because theres a good chance that 30 GH will kill everything that threatens them and if they don't they still get double the CC attacks back at the enemy as basic marines.
Martel732 wrote: No, it really doesn't. Because no amount of L2P will let make tactical marines dangerous to your opponent.
" more options than either of those units."
Options that mean nothing in the scheme of a game.
Really? A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output?
Pods are good, put anything in there and they would be awesome. But in one round of shooting they won't make their points back, and unless they cripple a tank, it doesn't seem worth it unless done in mass
With obsec to deny a crucial maelstrom obj?
Not unique to them
Combat squaring for essentially split fire?
So I get 3 bolters, a combi, and a special weapon and 1 heavy from down field? What unit am I crippling with this impressive salvo?
The ability to hurt most MCs in CC or reliably crush something like a maulerfiend even after being charged?
Hurt most MC's? Sure, they may take a wound, but the MC is going to kill the marines over 2 combat phases. Maybe 3. And it won't die in that time period unless you roll way over average. If it's a character MC it's worse. Maulerfiends are a bad unit, that are used to hunt tanks, and are WAY faster than marines. Why is it even touching them unless it wants to?
There's a ton you can do with them, it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit."
See above
They're a blast to play imo. They require skill with maneuvering and model placement, smart synergy with other units, baiting the enemy to play on your terms, etc. Learn to make em work and they can shine.
Baiting only works if they are a threat, you have not explained how they are. Or if your opponent is an idiot and charges basic marines over devs for some reason. You still have not explained this amazing synergy they have with anything other than a drop pod
ive played a templars list with a hundred (ten squads) initiates, which was pretty fun and had too many targets to attack before they got into combat. was great fun. though i know crusader squads arent exactly tac squads
So I get 3 bolters, a combi, and a special weapon and 1 heavy from down field? What unit am I crippling with this impressive salvo?
I'm not sure it's necessarily about crippling something. Just that not many armies can choose to have a troop choice advance on the enemy, whilst the same troop choice holds a backfield objective and provides supporting fire.
Akiasura wrote: Hurt most MC's? Sure, they may take a wound, but the MC is going to kill the marines over 2 combat phases. Maybe 3. And it won't die in that time period unless you roll way over average.
Well, to be fair, 2 combat phases can still be enough to keep a MC of an objective, or stop it interfering in an important combat until it's too late.
In terms of killing it, surely that's why you don't charge a MC on full wounds? It's just an option if your other firepower has left it clinging to a single wound, and you really need it dead or out of action in your opponent's turn.
more wounds is superior than better saves. marines come in squads of 10 but guardsmen/orks come in squads of 15+ and while fire warriors, guardians and scouts are also only squads of 10 their noticeably cheaper.
they need to have a price cut and increase max squad size to 15 imo. tactical squads and marines in general stopped being relevant when better saves stopped being important and the only way to fix it now is to 1) removes ap3/ap2 on piles of stuff which would make so many people angry like you dont even know, or 2) drop prices and increase suqad sizes.
however they are a mild problem for marines compared to terminators. termites are absolutely dreadful and they need a massive fix, i move that they need to do a huge brb fix.
So I get 3 bolters, a combi, and a special weapon and 1 heavy from down field? What unit am I crippling with this impressive salvo?
I'm not sure it's necessarily about crippling something. Just that not many armies can choose to have a troop choice advance on the enemy, whilst the same troop choice holds a backfield objective and provides supporting fire.
And how is that useful? I could take a cheaper option to hold the backfield objective (5 marines and a heavy weapon is 80 points roughly, depends on the weapon) and 1 weapon is supporting fire...technically.
Akiasura wrote: Hurt most MC's? Sure, they may take a wound, but the MC is going to kill the marines over 2 combat phases. Maybe 3. And it won't die in that time period unless you roll way over average.
Well, to be fair, 2 combat phases can still be enough to keep a MC of an objective, or stop it interfering in an important combat until it's too late.
In terms of killing it, surely that's why you don't charge a MC on full wounds? It's just an option if your other firepower has left it clinging to a single wound, and you really need it dead or out of action in your opponent's turn.
I am not the one who said MC in CC, so please don't edit what I said to make it seem this is so. I was refuting another poster's statement that this was a role they can perform.
2 combat phases is literally one turn. Remember, CC happens in everyone's turn, regardless of who won. Any unit would delay it, since most MC will hit on 3/4's, wound on 2's, no saves regardless of stat lines. There are a few only SM can wound, true, but I wouldn't call that a useful function for the price you pay at 14ppm. Same thing with taking one wound off of a MC, that's pretty crappy for 14ppm. You are also assuming that it is an MC they can catch, hit (so not flying) and wound in a situation that another troop couldn't do so, since anyone else can do it for cheaper (and Eldar/Tau do it better).
Let us know when you come up with a strategy game that doesn't involve player skill.
I'm sure it will be even cuter.
Anyways, it seems that the reasons people have with tac marines is that they're not as shooty as HS choices, and they're not as good against marines as things which are specialized to be good against infantry. I feel like someone already went over this. Oh, right...
Ailaros wrote:Comparing them face to face against things that do a single thing well is always pointless. As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against unless the marine player is doing something very wrong.
If you want to look at versatility, you have to compare two units against everything, not against each other. Will ork boyz beat their points in space marines? Yes. Now, let's look at everything else.
Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them. Which is why tac marines are better than boyz, with a few exceptions, not boyz are better than marines because of one comparison.
Let us know when you come up with a strategy game that doesn't involve player skill.
I'm sure it will be even cuter.
Honestly, I would like you to come up with a strategy at all that doesn't consist of handwavium, but I've never been one for Christmas miracles.
And you're strawmanning. I never mentioned the game not requiring strategy, or developing a game that doesn't. I was mocking someone saying L2P, which is a trope and doesn't add anything.
Anyways, it seems that the reasons people have with tac marines is that they're not as shooty as HS choices, and they're not as good against marines as things which are specialized to be good against infantry. I feel like someone already went over this. Oh, right...
Ailaros wrote:Comparing them face to face against things that do a single thing well is always pointless. As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against unless the marine player is doing something very wrong.
Quoting yourself might be the most egotistical thing I've ever seen, but alright. How is the marine player doing something wrong when dire avengers get dropped off by a transport that pops theirs, dislodges troops that they can't avoid because they are so much slower, and get shot up? How do they avoid Tau fire when the Tau outrange the majority of their weapons? I suppose you could buy a full squad just to fire a single heavy weapon, but I wouldn't call it worth it. How do you fight off equivalent amount of orks, cult troops, bikers, IG, or anything else, all from the troops sections? You don't out range them (save with a single weapon), you don't out assault them, and you aren't faster. You can't. That's why they are podded, fire as much as they can, and then get wiped. Or not taken, which is more common in competitive metas.
If you want to look at versatility, you have to compare two units against everything, not against each other. Will ork boyz beat their points in space marines? Yes. Now, let's look at everything else.
OMG YOU ARE GOING TO DO ACTUAL COMPARSIONS WITH DETAILS!? GET HYPED.
Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them. Which is why tac marines are better than boyz, with a few exceptions, not boyz are better than marines because of one comparison.
" A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output?"
Yes, it is.
" it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit." "
Most of the time, it is.
" baiting the enemy to play on your terms"
My terms will be killing all your units I care about and then tabling your tac marines. It's hard to obj sec when you're dead.
"Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them"
You have to do more than claim this. I can tell you that mathematically boyz are better at sucking down Riptide templates. That seems like a big strike right there.
" As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against "
You don't always get that choice. Your opponent gets turns, too, you know.
Akiasura wrote:Honestly, I would like you to come up with a strategy at all that doesn't consist of handwavium, but I've never been one for Christmas miracles.
A great mind understands the value of ad hominem.
Akiasura wrote:And you're strawmanning. I never mentioned the game not requiring strategy, or developing a game that doesn't. I was mocking someone saying L2P, which is a trope and doesn't add anything.
If what's wrong with tactical marines is that people are using them wrong, then it does have use.
It's especially useful when people are playing a game that requires player skill, and people are making arguments as if that's not true. A simple L2P dismisses a bunch of phony arguments.
Akiasura wrote:How is the marine player doing something wrong when dire avengers get dropped off by a transport that pops theirs, dislodges troops that they can't avoid because they are so much slower, and get shot up?
You start by assuming that tac marines aren't designed to beat up twice their points of elite slots, and continue with taking it out of the vacuum and assuming for a moment that the space marine player knows what target prioritization is and shoots at the skimmer before it's game-changingly too late.
Akiasura wrote:How do they avoid Tau fire when the Tau outrange the majority of their weapons?
Are you talking about all tau? Are you comparing HS riptides that are designed to kill space marines against space marines?
Or are you saying that space marines are just screwed against tau, as most infantry units in the SM codex don't have longer ranged weapons than tau. Because if you don't believe that tau are just a straight hard counter, then what you do with tac marines is what you do with the rest of your army to beat tau.
For example, by not engaging in a pointless long-range gunfight with them. Tac marines are no different than everything else in the army.
Akiasura wrote:How do you fight off equivalent amount of orks, cult troops, bikers, IG, or anything else, all from the troops sections?
Well, assuming you're not drop podding on them and wiping them out with flamers, I'd say that the space marine player, once again, shouldn't be a moron and throw unsupported tac squads into situations they're designed to lose. Assume a modicum of player skill on the marine player's part, who, if it's really that important, will shoot at them before the tac squad gets there, or will use an assault unit to disrupt.
If your arguments are really based on space marine players marching blindly forward with no tactics whatsoever, then your comments only apply to the circumstances where the marine player is an idiot. Indeed, if you're a bad player, then you won't get very much from tac squads, which was rather the point in the first place.
Countering "tac squads can do well if you use them right" with "tac squads do poorly if you use them wrong" doesn't really address the issue. Saying "lol, l2p ka-waiiii!" doesn't either.
Akiasura wrote:
OMG YOU ARE GOING TO DO ACTUAL COMPARSIONS WITH DETAILS!? GET HYPED.
Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them. Which is why tac marines are better than boyz, with a few exceptions, not boyz are better than marines because of one comparison.
Oh.....
Some day you'll be able to do basic analytics yourself instead of shutting down and typing with the caps lock key on.
If you need this kind of help, then let's compare shoota boyz, the nob with a klaw and rokkit against their points in tac marines with a lascannon, meltagun, and power fist.
Now look at AV11+. In close combat, both units get some S8 Ap2, except then the marines are better because they're using krak grenades while the orks are picking their noses. What about shooting? A BS4 meltagun is already vastly superior to a BS2 rokkit, and when you look at long range, the marines have the ability to sit and shoot with a BS4 lascannon while the orks are desperately running around trying to get a BS2 rokkit in range.
So, a tac squad is better against all vehicles of AV11+
You're also making the huge assumption that versatility is worth a damn in this game. I can build versatility into my list, I don't need in it at the squad level. I would never use a tac squad to take out and AV 11 vehicle, because they'll probably fail from lack of firepower.
" "tac squads do poorly if you use them wrong""
They do poorly no matter what you do with them. That's the whole point.
Martel732 wrote: " A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output?"
Yes, it is.
" it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit." "
Most of the time, it is.
" baiting the enemy to play on your terms"
My terms will be killing all your units I care about and then tabling your tac marines. It's hard to obj sec when you're dead.
"Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them"
You have to do more than claim this. I can tell you that mathematically boyz are better at sucking down Riptide templates. That seems like a big strike right there.
" As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against "
You don't always get that choice. Your opponent gets turns, too, you know.
1: that's not an argument.
2: That's not how the unit plays best, necessarily. If you're expecting tacs to be doing that all the time, then of course they will be less effective at that than dedicated long range shooters.
3: that's why I make you play on my terms.
As for your final point, that's why you have to, you know, play well.
Edit: you don't put a tac squad in a list and think "I will use this to kill av11 vehicles." The point is that if you need them to they sure as hell can.
Martel732 wrote: " A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output?"
Yes, it is.
" it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit." "
Most of the time, it is.
" baiting the enemy to play on your terms"
My terms will be killing all your units I care about and then tabling your tac marines. It's hard to obj sec when you're dead.
"Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them"
You have to do more than claim this. I can tell you that mathematically boyz are better at sucking down Riptide templates. That seems like a big strike right there.
" As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against "
You don't always get that choice. Your opponent gets turns, too, you know.
1: that's not an argument.
2: That's not how the unit plays best, necessarily. If you're expecting tacs to be doing that all the time, then of course they will be less effective at that than dedicated long range shooters.
3: that's why I make you play on my terms.
As for your final point, that's why you have to, you know, play well.
Let me just make this clear. There is no way to make me "play on your terms" with tac marines. If you have smashbane, a grav star, grav bikers, and some tac marines, those other units are making me play a certain way, not the tac marines. They are literally dead weight. You'd be better off with more bikers.
"If you're expecting tacs to be doing that all the time"
No, I just expect SOMETHING for 14pts/model, and usually get nothing. Or my opponent gets nothing which was more often the case up until now. Now BA are faced with fielding these abominations of math. Your statement also implies using tac for hth, since that's the alternative to shooting. Which they are even worse at. Can you please provide some specific examples of how to squeeze the value out of tacs?
Las wrote:Tac marines are a troop choice with more options than either of those units.
What, like the lascannon? What about taking power fist + power axe + meltabombs on the sergeant, that is an option, and more options make units better.
Also, how does having "options" help a unit that is playing on the table top? Right, it wouldn't matter at this point if you were saying some things that were correct.
niv-mizzet wrote: Yeah, when one riptide can take a 5 point gun, and on turn 3 or 4 decide he's run out of good targets and almost ONE-SHOT the entire tac squad from across the board...
That's a good example of how the game has escalated AROUND the marines, but the marines haven't been adjusted to be able to deal with it.
Yeah well that is your fault for playing any games besides just the starter set. t4 3+ is pretty ballin against cultists if they are completely alone and don't have a player controlling them in the single player intro missions from Dark Vengeance.
loyaltemplar wrote: For me, the problem its lethality.
There got none. Bolters are pathetic against most anything that isn't a guardsman, a single special weapon is unreliable, and a single heavy weapon is useless. If they could double up on one or the other, and get a special rule like the old veterans (or current heresy era veterans) I would like them. right now, any tactical flexibility is essentially left to sternguard, who are everything I want for a tactical marine plus some bells, whistles,a large price tag and force organization chart shift
It's really sad that the reason a veteran unit is strong is that they have expensive ammo instead of skills. Too bad that bs5 bolters do not get closer to good than bs4 bolters.
Ailaros wrote: I feel like someone already went over this. Oh, right...
Ailaros wrote:Comparing them face to face against things that do a single thing well is always pointless. As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against unless the marine player is doing something very wrong.
How is the Ailarian doing these days anyway; do you have reunions with all the contributors, laden with bonhomie? Do you think if you quote yourself to yourself enough that it will create an echo across the universe that makes it seem to a casual observer like you are conducting a bona fide mutually fulfilling conversation?
RE riptides, plasma spam, and exocrines: army-wide FNP gives you a save against those guns that doesn't work against actual battle cannons or prism cannon. pay for the FNP without increasing points by going to 4+ armor save. The net is the same against small-arms, better against ap1-3, the same against ap4 if you are in 4+ cover and only partly worse against ap4 if you are not in 4+ cover.
RE lethality: marines are supposed to be good because any three of them with just small arms are supposed to be amazing. Problem: in this game small arms without special rules are pointless. Marines are good at a part of fighting that the game doesn't even include. Change the game so that firefights that happen at close range allow both sides to fire and the sides to win or lose like close combat, with morale penalties for the loser. When heavy weapons are Unwieldy and can get shot down in the very turn they try to fire, bolters become really important defensive/suppressive guns, more so because power armor can give bonuses to snap fire that regular armor doesn't.
Ailaros wrote: So, a tac squad is better against all vehicles of AV11+
So what? They still suck at the job, so who cares if they're better than another unit that also sucks at it? The fact that your mandatory troops that you never take more than the minimum of are slightly less of a waste than some other mandatory troops doesn't mean they're a good unit, or that you should include more than the minimum required to have a legal list.
And how is that useful? I could take a cheaper option to hold the backfield objective (5 marines and a heavy weapon is 80 points roughly, depends on the weapon) and 1 weapon is supporting fire...technically.
Objective secured?
Special weapons up front?
Akiasura wrote: I am not the one who said MC in CC, so please don't edit what I said to make it seem this is so.
I didn't edit what you said. You were talking about a MC in combat, and I was responding to the point you made.
If you want me to also quote the post you were responding to, then may I suggest you choose a way of responding that is less of a pain to quote.
Akiasura wrote: Any unit would delay it, since most MC will hit on 3/4's, wound on 2's, no saves regardless of stat lines.
The difference is that many units would also run and get cut down - which can't happen to marines.
Akiasura wrote: There are a few only SM can wound, true, but I wouldn't call that a useful function for the price you pay at 14ppm. Same thing with taking one wound off of a MC, that's pretty crappy for 14ppm. You are also assuming that it is an MC they can catch, hit (so not flying) and wound in a situation that another troop couldn't do so, since anyone else can do it for cheaper (and Eldar/Tau do it better).
Well, I don't think anyone suggested this as their main role.
It's just another option for them that many other units don't have access to.
Saying that, I do think GW dropped the ball when they made all units scoring. Whilst only allowing troops to score probably isn't ideal, it gave them a vital role that didn't relate to their killing power.
vipoid wrote: The difference is that many units would also run and get cut down - which can't happen to marines.
Note that this is a bad thing most of the time. Usually if you're in combat and can't win you want to fall back immediately so that you can shoot the enemy unit next turn instead of leaving it locked in combat (where you aren't going to kill it) and immune to shooting. Having a MSU unit that won't reliably die when it gets charged is a liability, not something to praise.
It's just another option for them that many other units don't have access to.
But who cares about options that aren't very useful? I'd much rather have a unit that doesn't have the barely-relevant option but costs fewer points.
Note that this is a bad thing most of the time. Usually if you're in combat and can't win you want to fall back immediately so that you can shoot the enemy unit next turn instead of leaving it locked in combat (where you aren't going to kill it) and immune to shooting. Having a MSU unit that won't reliably die when it gets charged is a liability, not something to praise.
I thought the original idea was the marines charging the MC? In which case running would leave it free to do whatever it wants in your opponent's turn.
vipoid wrote: I thought the original idea was the marines charging the MC? In which case running would leave it free to do whatever it wants in your opponent's turn.
That makes even less sense then. Why would you voluntarily charge an MC with a few tactical marines?
Akiasura wrote:Honestly, I would like you to come up with a strategy at all that doesn't consist of handwavium, but I've never been one for Christmas miracles.
A great mind understands the value of ad hominem.
I would say it's better to stay away from this considering a mod jumped in, so I'll leave this alone.
Akiasura wrote:And you're strawmanning. I never mentioned the game not requiring strategy, or developing a game that doesn't. I was mocking someone saying L2P, which is a trope and doesn't add anything.
If what's wrong with tactical marines is that people are using them wrong, then it does have use.
It's especially useful when people are playing a game that requires player skill, and people are making arguments as if that's not true. A simple L2P dismisses a bunch of phony arguments.
L2P is a trope that addresses nothing. If you have a strategy that helps tacs play better, please, enlighten all of us and you'll win the debate. If you don't, continue to support L2P arguments.
Akiasura wrote:How is the marine player doing something wrong when dire avengers get dropped off by a transport that pops theirs, dislodges troops that they can't avoid because they are so much slower, and get shot up?
You start by assuming that tac marines aren't designed to beat up twice their points of elite slots, and continue with taking it out of the vacuum and assuming for a moment that the space marine player knows what target prioritization is and shoots at the skimmer before it's game-changingly too late.
I am comparing them only to troops. In this case it could have been Dire Avengers in a WS, Necrons in a flyer, Tau in a fish, among a few others. Elites were never mentioned by me, please do not Strawman. Please explain how a marine squad will destroy a skimmer when it can fire 1 heavy weapon, and possibly 1 plasma shot at it before it does it's thing?
Akiasura wrote:How do they avoid Tau fire when the Tau outrange the majority of their weapons?
Are you talking about all tau? Are you comparing HS riptides that are designed to kill space marines against space marines?
Or are you saying that space marines are just screwed against tau, as most infantry units in the SM codex don't have longer ranged weapons than tau. Because if you don't believe that tau are just a straight hard counter, then what you do with tac marines is what you do with the rest of your army to beat tau.
For example, by not engaging in a pointless long-range gunfight with them. Tac marines are no different than everything else in the army.
I am only comparing troops, as I stated. I never once mentioned riptides (if I did, please source and win the debate!). If you can not, please do not strawman.
I am saying that troop marines are screwed against fire warriors. Tau out range them, so you can't sit back and shoot except with one weapon. You don't want to rapid fire them, since they are cheaper and can put out serious hurt, so points wise you will lose. You are not fast enough nor have the means, outside of a landraider, to get to melee range with them.
Akiasura wrote:How do you fight off equivalent amount of orks, cult troops, bikers, IG, or anything else, all from the troops sections?
Well, assuming you're not drop podding on them and wiping them out with flamers, I'd say that the space marine player, once again, shouldn't be a moron and throw unsupported tac squads into situations they're designed to lose. Assume a modicum of player skill on the marine player's part, who, if it's really that important, will shoot at them before the tac squad gets there, or will use an assault unit to disrupt.
How do you reach assault? Also, will 2 flamers really wipe out an entire unit of Orks, Cult troops, bikers, or IG?
What are you shooting at the enemies with from outside of their range, the one heavy weapon?
So your strategy is to pod in, use two flamers and rapid fire, then die? Or to combat squad, have 5 guys sit there and fire one weapon while the other 5 march up to do battle? I can't see that beating any of the enemies I mentioned in either case.
If your arguments are really based on space marine players marching blindly forward with no tactics whatsoever, then your comments only apply to the circumstances where the marine player is an idiot. Indeed, if you're a bad player, then you won't get very much from tac squads, which was rather the point in the first place.
Instead of suggesting all of us are bad players, suggest a strategy that does work. I have yet to hear one.
Countering "tac squads can do well if you use them right" with "tac squads do poorly if you use them wrong" doesn't really address the issue. Saying "lol, l2p ka-waiiii!" doesn't either.
Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them. Which is why tac marines are better than boyz, with a few exceptions, not boyz are better than marines because of one comparison.
Oh.....
Some day you'll be able to do basic analytics yourself instead of shutting down and typing with the caps lock key on.
I'm a published researcher in the field of chemistry. I get by.
If you need this kind of help, then let's compare shoota boyz, the nob with a klaw and rokkit against their points in tac marines with a lascannon, meltagun, and power fist.
Now look at AV11+. In close combat, both units get some S8 Ap2, except then the marines are better because they're using krak grenades while the orks are picking their noses. What about shooting? A BS4 meltagun is already vastly superior to a BS2 rokkit, and when you look at long range, the marines have the ability to sit and shoot with a BS4 lascannon while the orks are desperately running around trying to get a BS2 rokkit in range.
So, a tac squad is better against all vehicles of AV11+
Would you like me to list them all for you?
I would like you to list more than 1. Keep in mind, the lascannon will take 3 rounds, half the game, of the marines sitting there to destroy a transport, which is most likely 35 points and has done it's job by then. The orks can charge in with their 4 claw attacks and destroy it in one round, same thing the marines are likely to do in a similar situation. They could take a melta and combi melta, a smarter choice, and hope for a pen, but then they are really close and could charge regardless.
How about against av 12? Monstrous creatures? Or the other troop choices, like I mentioned?
Vipoid,
I will try to quote in a way that's a bit easier, though considering it was literally right above me, and I've been told to quote this way, I am not sure how I can do so.
I was refuting someone's point that marines can beat a MC in CC. I was not suggesting that marines should charge it, as you suggested I did.
Peregrine wrote: That makes even less sense then. Why would you voluntarily charge an MC with a few tactical marines?
To try and take off it's last wound? To keep it away from an objective for a turn?
Better to shoot it then. As many 'attacks' as charging, but that hit on 3+ instead of (likely) 4+.
You'll be standing there with ObSec anyway, and since pretty much no MCs in the game are ObSec, you're better off trying to evade and shoot it as much as possible while staying in objective range. One round melee less means one round less attacks for the MC.
Better to shoot it then. As many 'attacks' as charging, but that hit on 3+ instead of (likely) 4+.
You'll be standing there with ObSec anyway, and since pretty much no MCs in the game are ObSec, you're better off trying to evade and shoot it as much as possible while staying in objective range. One round melee less means one round less attacks for the MC.
Peregrine wrote: That makes even less sense then. Why would you voluntarily charge an MC with a few tactical marines?
To try and take off it's last wound? To keep it away from an objective for a turn?
Better to shoot it then. As many 'attacks' as charging, but that hit on 3+ instead of (likely) 4+.
You'll be standing there with ObSec anyway, and since pretty much no MCs in the game are ObSec, you're better off trying to evade and shoot it as much as possible while staying in objective range. One round melee less means one round less attacks for the MC.
Sometimes you don't have the option. This is what were saying.
Peregrine wrote: That makes even less sense then. Why would you voluntarily charge an MC with a few tactical marines?
To try and take off it's last wound? To keep it away from an objective for a turn?
Better to shoot it then. As many 'attacks' as charging, but that hit on 3+ instead of (likely) 4+.
You'll be standing there with ObSec anyway, and since pretty much no MCs in the game are ObSec, you're better off trying to evade and shoot it as much as possible while staying in objective range. One round melee less means one round less attacks for the MC.
Sometimes you don't have the option. This is what were saying.
In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.
Granted, this is somewhat off topic. Against MC, unless a character, Orks do a good job, Eldar/De want to shoot it and do it better, Tau shoot it better, CSM cult units can lay out some pain in melee, IG light it up, Necrons do a slightly worse job, but probably ppm wise are equivalent to marines and this is the worst way to use them...most troops have more viable strategies than a marine in this situation.
It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.
In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.
Actually, it's the other way round.
If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.
Akiasura wrote: It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.
In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.
Actually, it's the other way round.
If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.
Fair point.
Though, the MC most likely wants to be in combat, and it isn't as bad for them, and it depends on how long it takes an MC to wipe a marine squad. I want to say, assuming the marines break and get charged every combat, it'll be 2-4 rounds depending on the attacks and combat ability of the MC (compare a keeper to a carnifex, for example), so it could be worth it for either side. Unless the MC is at low wounds, he'll roll over the marines though, and a squad of marines cost close to a MC, unless he's a flying MC (in which case, no combat).
Still, I hardly think a specific scenario that rarely comes up (Special and heavy weapons guy dead, charge range, 1 wound left, MC on the ground) makes a 14ppm worth it. I think marines should get relentless (Most likely make BA and SW too strong though...), or bolters get shred, or they drop to something more reasonable, like 11ppm.
Akiasura wrote: It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.
A depressing state of affairs for the game then.
It really is. In 3rd edition, I did not mind fighting the rhino rush with my Biel-tan eldar. Marines, even basic troops, were to be feared, and were extremely tough to take out. I enjoyed facing them, liked the fact my troops were afraid to fight them up close and had to use hit and run strategies to win.
Now the armies seem so unfluffy, with minimal troops taken, termies hardly ever used, and bikes all day every day. I play 40k because this is my favorite setting of all time, I want to see battles unfold like in the fluff.
I will say, there's been a few strong showings for DE and Nids at GTs and such in past month-ish. If those two keep showing up, IF and UM tacticals (not to mention DA) might be a strong option if the Riptide+Broadside and WS+Dires meta continues to wane.
Akiasura wrote: Fair point.
Though, the MC most likely wants to be in combat, and it isn't as bad for them, and it depends on how long it takes an MC to wipe a marine squad. I want to say, assuming the marines break and get charged every combat, it'll be 2-4 rounds depending on the attacks and combat ability of the MC (compare a keeper to a carnifex, for example), so it could be worth it for either side. Unless the MC is at low wounds, he'll roll over the marines though, and a squad of marines cost close to a MC, unless he's a flying MC (in which case, no combat).
Still, I hardly think a specific scenario that rarely comes up (Special and heavy weapons guy dead, charge range, 1 wound left, MC on the ground) makes a 14ppm worth it. I think marines should get relentless (Most likely make BA and SW too strong though...), or bolters get shred, or they drop to something more reasonable, like 11ppm.
I don't think marines should get a point drop, honestly. It just leaves too little room in terms of units that should be cheaper.
Frankly, I think there have been far too many price-drops for units in general. We should perhaps be looking to raise prices on other units, rather than constantly dropping under-performing units. It's just not sustainable. I mean, we already have units that cost just 3pts per model, how much lower can we reasonably go?
Plus, as units get price-drops, it makes many upgrades less and less viable (suddenly you go from paying 25% of a unit's cost for a Power Fist, to paying 50% or somesuch). So, you just end up with everyone taking only the bare minimum (or badly underpriced) upgrades, and these sort of armies just feel lacking in character.
I know that raising prices is harder, as is de-escalating the game (reducing AP2 and AP3 weapons), but I think it will be much better in the long-term.
Just my 2 cents.
Akiasura wrote: It really is. In 3rd edition, I did not mind fighting the rhino rush with my Biel-tan eldar. Marines, even basic troops, were to be feared, and were extremely tough to take out. I enjoyed facing them, liked the fact my troops were afraid to fight them up close and had to use hit and run strategies to win.
Now the armies seem so unfluffy, with minimal troops taken, termies hardly ever used, and bikes all day every day. I play 40k because this is my favorite setting of all time, I want to see battles unfold like in the fluff.
It seems like the more GW talks about narrative gaming and armies with loads of tactical marines and such, the more it alters the rules to make such armies less and less desirable.
Akiasura wrote: Fair point.
Though, the MC most likely wants to be in combat, and it isn't as bad for them, and it depends on how long it takes an MC to wipe a marine squad. I want to say, assuming the marines break and get charged every combat, it'll be 2-4 rounds depending on the attacks and combat ability of the MC (compare a keeper to a carnifex, for example), so it could be worth it for either side. Unless the MC is at low wounds, he'll roll over the marines though, and a squad of marines cost close to a MC, unless he's a flying MC (in which case, no combat).
Still, I hardly think a specific scenario that rarely comes up (Special and heavy weapons guy dead, charge range, 1 wound left, MC on the ground) makes a 14ppm worth it. I think marines should get relentless (Most likely make BA and SW too strong though...), or bolters get shred, or they drop to something more reasonable, like 11ppm.
I don't think marines should get a point drop, honestly. It just leaves too little room in terms of units that should be cheaper.
Frankly, I think there have been far too many price-drops for units in general. We should perhaps be looking to raise prices on other units, rather than constantly dropping under-performing units. It's just not sustainable. I mean, we already have units that cost just 3pts per model, how much lower can we reasonably go?
Plus, as units get price-drops, it makes many upgrades less and less viable (suddenly you go from paying 25% of a unit's cost for a Power Fist, to paying 50% or somesuch). So, you just end up with everyone taking only the bare minimum (or badly underpriced) upgrades, and these sort of armies just feel lacking in character.
I know that raising prices is harder, as is de-escalating the game (reducing AP2 and AP3 weapons), but I think it will be much better in the long-term.
Just my 2 cents.
I would love it if everything went up in points. It would lower the cost of the game, make upgrades worth it, give more leeway in terms of costing things to make everything viable.
But they would never do that sadly. They want armies to get bigger, not smaller, and raising point costs would mean less sales.
Still, I agree with you 100% on this.
Akiasura wrote: It really is. In 3rd edition, I did not mind fighting the rhino rush with my Biel-tan eldar. Marines, even basic troops, were to be feared, and were extremely tough to take out. I enjoyed facing them, liked the fact my troops were afraid to fight them up close and had to use hit and run strategies to win.
Now the armies seem so unfluffy, with minimal troops taken, termies hardly ever used, and bikes all day every day. I play 40k because this is my favorite setting of all time, I want to see battles unfold like in the fluff.
It seems like the more GW talks about narrative gaming and armies with loads of tactical marines and such, the more it alters the rules to make such armies less and less desirable.
They have such a large disconnect with players and how their own game operates. I remember in the 3rd edition rule book, they had a battle report between eldar and marines. The marine player just rolled over the eldar player, who had taken a horrible army list (no one took striking scorpions back then) and couldn't handle basic strategies like "don't use snipers in melee against terminators". Before playing I thought the game sounded epic, and I wanted to play the underdog, but within about 6 months of playing and reading WD it became quickly apparent that only...2?...people at GW actually knew how to play the game.
So did players. I forget the edition, but a few of them had rules that if a transport had all the exits blocked and troops couldn't be placed, all the troops inside a transport died if the transport was destroyed. It was a fluffy thing that rarely mattered unless your troops could say...teleport. Or fly.
In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.
Actually, it's the other way round.
If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.
Akiasura wrote: It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.
A depressing state of affairs for the game then.
Tac Marines have been depressing on the table top for a long time. They have been one of the worst troop options in the game since at least 3rd and from what I heard in 2nd they were even worse. It's not really a new thing for AP 2/3 to be rampant - it always has been. Sure there's more of it now because there are new weapons and armies since 3rd but that only makes tacs struggle even more than they have been struggling. Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs. Clearly GW understands tacs are really underwhelming. In terms of an easy fix - something GW should be looking for - buffing the bolter is probably the best thing to do - 2/3 salvo 24" would work nicely - then buff the SB and HB accordingly (also weapons that are really lacking). Adding relentless to the PA profile would also be an appropriate fix (I always imagine space marines would be a steadily advancing army - I can't imagine them being tied down by a heavy weapon or having walking really effect their ability to use their weapon.) I think that with relentless at their current price tactical would be fairly priced - I'd even be willing to pay a little more to get it like 16 ppm or just increase the heavy weapons costs by 5- 10 points.
In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.
Actually, it's the other way round.
If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.
Akiasura wrote: It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.
A depressing state of affairs for the game then.
Tac Marines have been depressing on the table top for a long time. They have been one of the worst troop options in the game since at least 3rd and from what I heard in 2nd they were even worse. It's not really a new thing for AP 2/3 to be rampant - it always has been. Sure there's more of it now because there are new weapons and armies since 3rd but that only makes tacs struggle even more than they have been struggling. Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs. Clearly GW understands tacs are really underwhelming. In terms of an easy fix - something GW should be looking for - buffing the bolter is probably the best thing to do - 2/3 salvo 24" would work nicely - then buff the SB and HB accordingly (also weapons that are really lacking). Adding relentless to the PA profile would also be an appropriate fix (I always imagine space marines would be a steadily advancing army - I can't imagine them being tied down by a heavy weapon or having walking really effect their ability to use their weapon.) I think that with relentless at their current price tactical would be fairly priced - I'd even be willing to pay a little more to get it like 16 ppm or just increase the heavy weapons costs by 5- 10 points.
In 3rd they weren't that bad, the only army that could just roll over them was a starcannon heavy eldar list, and even that suffered considering how good the transports were. The dreaded rhino rush was a thing. I can't speak to 4th, I didn't play too much during 4th since my army went from mediocre to OP in a hurry, but by 5th...yes, they were terrible.
Salvo, relentless, shred on bolters...all those things would be fine, and are much more likely to happen over a point drop.
I wish my local group allowed house rules so I could field marines outside of grey hunters. Bikers and such just don't fit with alpha legion...and I like my horde of marines from different legions with the hydra shoulderpads to be on foot.
In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.
Actually, it's the other way round.
If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.
Akiasura wrote: It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.
A depressing state of affairs for the game then.
Tac Marines have been depressing on the table top for a long time. They have been one of the worst troop options in the game since at least 3rd and from what I heard in 2nd they were even worse. It's not really a new thing for AP 2/3 to be rampant - it always has been. Sure there's more of it now because there are new weapons and armies since 3rd but that only makes tacs struggle even more than they have been struggling. Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs. Clearly GW understands tacs are really underwhelming. In terms of an easy fix - something GW should be looking for - buffing the bolter is probably the best thing to do - 2/3 salvo 24" would work nicely - then buff the SB and HB accordingly (also weapons that are really lacking). Adding relentless to the PA profile would also be an appropriate fix (I always imagine space marines would be a steadily advancing army - I can't imagine them being tied down by a heavy weapon or having walking really effect their ability to use their weapon.) I think that with relentless at their current price tactical would be fairly priced - I'd even be willing to pay a little more to get it like 16 ppm or just increase the heavy weapons costs by 5- 10 points.
In 3rd they weren't that bad, the only army that could just roll over them was a starcannon heavy eldar list, and even that suffered considering how good the transports were. The dreaded rhino rush was a thing. I can't speak to 4th, I didn't play too much during 4th since my army went from mediocre to OP in a hurry, but by 5th...yes, they were terrible.
Salvo, relentless, shred on bolters...all those things would be fine, and are much more likely to happen over a point drop.
I wish my local group allowed house rules so I could field marines outside of grey hunters. Bikers and such just don't fit with alpha legion...and I like my horde of marines from different legions with the hydra shoulderpads to be on foot.
Cant CSM take CCW on marines? In a few editions they were able to. I really couldn't tell you because I haven't seen a CSM is ages. All chaos is daemons with psychic shenanigans. CCW marines with a rhino could at least serve a purpose.
In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.
Actually, it's the other way round.
If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.
Akiasura wrote: It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.
A depressing state of affairs for the game then.
Tac Marines have been depressing on the table top for a long time. They have been one of the worst troop options in the game since at least 3rd and from what I heard in 2nd they were even worse. It's not really a new thing for AP 2/3 to be rampant - it always has been. Sure there's more of it now because there are new weapons and armies since 3rd but that only makes tacs struggle even more than they have been struggling. Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs. Clearly GW understands tacs are really underwhelming. In terms of an easy fix - something GW should be looking for - buffing the bolter is probably the best thing to do - 2/3 salvo 24" would work nicely - then buff the SB and HB accordingly (also weapons that are really lacking). Adding relentless to the PA profile would also be an appropriate fix (I always imagine space marines would be a steadily advancing army - I can't imagine them being tied down by a heavy weapon or having walking really effect their ability to use their weapon.) I think that with relentless at their current price tactical would be fairly priced - I'd even be willing to pay a little more to get it like 16 ppm or just increase the heavy weapons costs by 5- 10 points.
In 2nd edition, loyalist marines were unplayable. When 3rd dropped, my record went from 0-11(12?) to 12-2 immediately.
I agree that dropping the price of tacs is not the answer. Making them able to DO something meaningful is the solution. But given how poor a marine's offensive/pt is in general, I don't have a fix.
Xenomancers wrote: Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs.
When did they drop by 1 ppm?
Hard to say...I've had codex marines ranging from 16 - 14 ppm. I think they were 15 ppm in 4th and 16 ppm in 5th (but started getting frag and krak for free.) Now they are 14ppm. I'm certain this is the cheapest they have ever been. However they really have never been weaker.
Xenomancers wrote: Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs.
When did they drop by 1 ppm?
Hard to say...I've had codex marines ranging from 16 - 14 ppm. I think they were 15 ppm in 4th and 16 ppm in 5th (but started getting frag and krak for free.) Now they are 14ppm. I'm certain this is the cheapest they have ever been. However they really have never been weaker.
Xenomancers wrote: Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs.
When did they drop by 1 ppm?
Hard to say...I've had codex marines ranging from 16 - 14 ppm. I think they were 15 ppm in 4th and 16 ppm in 5th (but started getting frag and krak for free.) Now they are 14ppm. I'm certain this is the cheapest they have ever been. However they really have never been weaker.
I don't know about 4th, but I'm sure they were at least 17 ppm in 5th (I think the first 5 were effectively 19 ppm, because of the sergeant-tax). They got a pretty decent point-drop in 6th.
With regard to this being the weakest they've ever been, do you think that's more of a problem with the current system?
I'm wondering if the problem lies more in the game becoming about MCs, bikes and vehicles, whilst infantry in general are left behind.
In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.
Actually, it's the other way round.
If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.
Akiasura wrote: It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.
A depressing state of affairs for the game then.
Tac Marines have been depressing on the table top for a long time. They have been one of the worst troop options in the game since at least 3rd and from what I heard in 2nd they were even worse. It's not really a new thing for AP 2/3 to be rampant - it always has been. Sure there's more of it now because there are new weapons and armies since 3rd but that only makes tacs struggle even more than they have been struggling. Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs. Clearly GW understands tacs are really underwhelming. In terms of an easy fix - something GW should be looking for - buffing the bolter is probably the best thing to do - 2/3 salvo 24" would work nicely - then buff the SB and HB accordingly (also weapons that are really lacking). Adding relentless to the PA profile would also be an appropriate fix (I always imagine space marines would be a steadily advancing army - I can't imagine them being tied down by a heavy weapon or having walking really effect their ability to use their weapon.) I think that with relentless at their current price tactical would be fairly priced - I'd even be willing to pay a little more to get it like 16 ppm or just increase the heavy weapons costs by 5- 10 points.
In 3rd they weren't that bad, the only army that could just roll over them was a starcannon heavy eldar list, and even that suffered considering how good the transports were. The dreaded rhino rush was a thing. I can't speak to 4th, I didn't play too much during 4th since my army went from mediocre to OP in a hurry, but by 5th...yes, they were terrible.
Salvo, relentless, shred on bolters...all those things would be fine, and are much more likely to happen over a point drop.
I wish my local group allowed house rules so I could field marines outside of grey hunters. Bikers and such just don't fit with alpha legion...and I like my horde of marines from different legions with the hydra shoulderpads to be on foot.
Cant CSM take CCW on marines? In a few editions they were able to. I really couldn't tell you because I haven't seen a CSM is ages. All chaos is daemons with psychic shenanigans. CCW marines with a rhino could at least serve a purpose.
They can, for a point.
Everyone takes plague marines, noise marines, and cultists. There is 1 player who takes 1k Sons and swears they are good.
In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.
Actually, it's the other way round.
If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.
Akiasura wrote: It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.
A depressing state of affairs for the game then.
Tac Marines have been depressing on the table top for a long time. They have been one of the worst troop options in the game since at least 3rd and from what I heard in 2nd they were even worse. It's not really a new thing for AP 2/3 to be rampant - it always has been. Sure there's more of it now because there are new weapons and armies since 3rd but that only makes tacs struggle even more than they have been struggling. Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs. Clearly GW understands tacs are really underwhelming. In terms of an easy fix - something GW should be looking for - buffing the bolter is probably the best thing to do - 2/3 salvo 24" would work nicely - then buff the SB and HB accordingly (also weapons that are really lacking). Adding relentless to the PA profile would also be an appropriate fix (I always imagine space marines would be a steadily advancing army - I can't imagine them being tied down by a heavy weapon or having walking really effect their ability to use their weapon.) I think that with relentless at their current price tactical would be fairly priced - I'd even be willing to pay a little more to get it like 16 ppm or just increase the heavy weapons costs by 5- 10 points.
In 3rd they weren't that bad, the only army that could just roll over them was a starcannon heavy eldar list, and even that suffered considering how good the transports were. The dreaded rhino rush was a thing. I can't speak to 4th, I didn't play too much during 4th since my army went from mediocre to OP in a hurry, but by 5th...yes, they were terrible.
Salvo, relentless, shred on bolters...all those things would be fine, and are much more likely to happen over a point drop.
I wish my local group allowed house rules so I could field marines outside of grey hunters. Bikers and such just don't fit with alpha legion...and I like my horde of marines from different legions with the hydra shoulderpads to be on foot.
In 4th they weren't bad either, one of the tournament lists that was popular involved having 5-6 6 man las/plas squads as the base (the rest was a squad of AMs, a Libby, and as many assault cannons as you could fit).
Personally I'm iffy on another points drop. We're already at the point where you're able to put almost an entire company on the table and that just feels wrong for an army that's supposed to be small and elite.
I think we've reached the point where shooting is just too lethal for a healthy game, and it needs to be scaled back.
Las wrote: A wraith lord with one wound left. Your special weapons is dead, it's on a secondary objective that you need by the end of the turn.
It has 3 attacks and hits on 4+. That means it'll take time for it to chew through the unit.
You wound it on 6s, however, with a 3+ armour save. You need 36 Krak grenade melee attacks to reliably wound it. Best to just dance around it as much as you can while throwing a krak at it. If you have no firepower to spare and it's the last turn, you have no need to worry- it won't wipe you out, and you have ObSec so it won't even contest the objective either way.
So no, no reason to charge and give it an extra round of melee in which the Wraithlord has a chance to make you fall back out of objective range.
Las wrote: A wraith lord with one wound left. Your special weapons is dead, it's on a secondary objective that you need by the end of the turn.
It has 3 attacks and hits on 4+. That means it'll take time for it to chew through the unit.
You wound it on 6s, however, with a 3+ armour save. You need 36 Krak grenade melee attacks to reliably wound it. Best to just dance around it as much as you can while throwing a krak at it. If you have no firepower to spare and it's the last turn, you have no need to worry- it won't wipe you out, and you have ObSec so it won't even contest the objective either way.
So no, no reason to charge and give it an extra round of melee in which the Wraithlord has a chance to make you fall back out of objective range.
Sounds like a good time for a drive by with grav bikers. Oh yeah, that's a unit better than tacticals.
Most definitely. Tacticals will maybe be able to stall the Wraithlord and has a small chance to even wound it, whereas the grav bikers will reliably kill it.
Wraithlords are also slow, so you should be able to kite it with ease - hell, why did you let it get so close? A slow melee MC is very predictable in its movement since it is all but mandatory for it to rush against the closest foe to have any hope of inflicting damage.
Ashiraya wrote: Most definitely. Tacticals will maybe be able to stall the Wraithlord and has a small chance to even wound it, whereas the grav bikers will reliably kill it.
Wraithlords are also slow, so you should be able to kite it with ease - hell, why did you let it get so close? A slow melee MC is very predictable in its movement since it is all but mandatory for it to rush against the closest foe to have any hope of inflicting damage.
And I have grav cents too and las devs etc. but there's a million reasons why they might not be able to shoot at that specific unit this turn. My point is that tacs can do that if they need to and a bunch of other stuff if I want them too. They're a hole plugger.
Ashiraya wrote: Most definitely. Tacticals will maybe be able to stall the Wraithlord and has a small chance to even wound it, whereas the grav bikers will reliably kill it.
Wraithlords are also slow, so you should be able to kite it with ease - hell, why did you let it get so close? A slow melee MC is very predictable in its movement since it is all but mandatory for it to rush against the closest foe to have any hope of inflicting damage.
And I have grav cents too. My point is that tacs can do that if they need to and a bunch of other stuff if I want them too. They're a hole plugger.
Besides, not everyone wants to run bikes.
What is the bunch of other stuff? 40K is not a strategic level game. There are no "holes".
Ashiraya wrote: Most definitely. Tacticals will maybe be able to stall the Wraithlord and has a small chance to even wound it, whereas the grav bikers will reliably kill it.
Wraithlords are also slow, so you should be able to kite it with ease - hell, why did you let it get so close? A slow melee MC is very predictable in its movement since it is all but mandatory for it to rush against the closest foe to have any hope of inflicting damage.
And I have grav cents too. My point is that tacs can do that if they need to and a bunch of other stuff if I want them too. They're a hole plugger.
Besides, not everyone wants to run bikes.
What is the bunch of other stuff? 40K is not a strategic level game. There are no "holes".
The nature of the game is a whole different discussion.
The unit can drop pod. It can camp an objective with a long range at weapon AND respond to down field threats in a transport at the same time, to name two. "They're not bikes," isn't a relevent point.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, and for a marine list that can make bikes troops, not being bikes IS the point. It's beyond relevant. It is the summation of the problem.
RunicFIN wrote: Weird, my Tacticals perform well in all my games and are almost always worth their points. Must be something I do then.
More likely it's your meta.
Compare them, point for point, against any other troop choice in the game, and you'll see marines come out losing in nearly all situations that are common on a battlefield.
In extreme situations, they can roll dice, but not do it very well.
It's why people are anxious to swap them out for other options.
It's why chaos uses cult units, even with the lord tax.
Edit:
Las, if you don't like bikes, then run scouts. You'd be better off.
If you like them for reasons, that is fine (I used to like warp spiders in 3rd, and they were viewed as one of the worst aspects back then so I understand), but that doesn't make them good. That just means you like them enough to spend extra resources to make them work.
RunicFIN wrote: Weird, my Tacticals perform well in all my games and are almost always worth their points. Must be something I do then.
Given your previous comments about how "balanced" 40k's rules are and how little improvement they need I think we can safely conclude that you play in a very casual environment where nobody ever brings good lists and everyone always cooperates to forge a narrative and ensure that even the worst units get their opportunity to be useful.
Las wrote: Bikes are a good choice for bike lists? Shocker.
No, bikes are the default choice for any codex that can take bikes as troops. Even if you aren't doing a themed bike list they're still the better option.
Las wrote: Bikes are a good choice for bike lists? Shocker.
No, bikes are the default choice for any codex that can take bikes as troops. Even if you aren't doing a themed bike list they're still the better option.
This. Take a look at DA, who have technically four troops choices: scouts, tac marines, bikes, and terminators. Bikes are consistently the chosen army for DA and usually outperform tac or terminator lists of the same codex.
The taxical marines are SUPPOSED to be ok for doing activity A, and then be ok at doing activity B, where there are better units for both A and B each.
In practice, they just suck. In a 5-6 turn game, it's easy to set things up where a specialist squad would be doing what it's good at all game. A shooty squad goes at the back, a melee squad goes at the front.
MAYBE if you were playing in some long campaign where you couldn't replace losses, and had dudes split up everywhere in different forces, MAYBE a tax marine squad somewhere might be in the right place at the right time to give their C+ effort at two different things and be valuable.
But after playing hundreds of games, and watching hundreds of batreps, I have literally NEVER seen a taxical marine squad deployed or played in such a way that I wouldn't have rather had a Devastator squad, scout squad, or assault squad instead for the length of the game.
Can anyone point out a batrep that I can watch where the whole tactical "we're C+ at everything!" ability actually makes them the best choice for a spot?
In my opinion, you don't need tight ends in 40k. You need the line, the line backers, the receivers, the runningbacks, and you ARE the QB, but a tight end whose role is "be adaptable" just doesn't fit.
niv-mizzet wrote: In my opinion, you don't need tight ends in 40k. You need the line, the line backers, the receivers, the runningbacks, and you ARE the QB, but a tight end whose role is "be adaptable" just doesn't fit.
Unless of course you're talking about balance mistakes that are great at everything.
niv-mizzet wrote: In my opinion, you don't need tight ends in 40k. You need the line, the line backers, the receivers, the runningbacks, and you ARE the QB, but a tight end whose role is "be adaptable" just doesn't fit.
Unless of course you're talking about balance mistakes that are great at everything.
Would the improvement of marines go ham in hand with maybe improvements with the bolter? Speaking from the ork side of the house, I have to pay 11pts for a hard boy with a shoota. So that gives me a str 4 ap5 shot and armour save of 4+. No added benefits anything. From what I see in marines, you're getting a 3+ sv and unlike orks they don't try and kill each other whenever they lose a few guys.
Maybe instead of making marines cheaper, they up the stats of the bolter by pushing its range up or increasing it's str/ap.
That's why it's rare (in my local area) for anyone to take it. Throw it in the war bosses group maybe, but at best it's giving you a chance for trukk explosions to hurt less. That's why as an ork player the only ap that concerns me is ap 2, because my Mega's are the only thing in that armour range.
But 3+ is stil giving you more surviviabilty than most other troops. Guard are only 5+ if I recall (I'm at work so I have no codex's on me), tau 4+ for warriors? And iirc, your marine is stronger and tougher than the squisher races anyways.
