Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
There are usable troops in the Space Marine codex.
Bikes are more capable at being versatile at either shooting or assaulting (perhaps more so since they can get up the field fast, suffer no penalties for doing both to the same unit, and are somewhat more resilient at T5 and with jink saves).
Scouts allow you to go cheaper, and are easier to protect with camo cloaks and objective grab with outflank.
Tac Marines at this point are mostly limited to drop pods, though I've seen some lists that just spam combat squads and do hilariously well, though the main way they win against Eldar and Tau is hiding until turn 4.
Waaaghpower wrote: So what you're saying is, you're better off paying for a bunch of things you'll never use, just in case it comes up as important, than only paying for things that you *know* will be used?
The main thing you pay for with tactical marines is survivability. You are pretty much guaranteed to use that.
People are saying that T 4 and a 3+ save aren't worth much because there are weapons which ignore them. What that doesn't account for is the cost of those weapons compared to alternatives which work better against weaker targets. If you force your opponent to spend 70% more to get something which is optimised against marines rather than fire warriors, you've already made up the cost difference in those two units. A couple of Wyverns or Thunderfire Cannons will chew through fire warriors, guardsmen, kroot and any other light infantry unit much faster than a buffed riptide will take out marines, for fewer points.
Plus, marines can take two of the best transports in the game: Land Raiders and Storm Ravens. What transport can a 40-man combined infantry squad take? They can't even fit in a building, so they are going to be taking casualties right from the start of the game. With fortifications and tough transports available, there's absolutely no need for a tactical squad to worry about taking casualties before they have a chance to do anything.
For strictly sitting in a bunker, fire warriors and kroot may seem more efficient, but bunkers don't last forever and when they start taking damage, 3+ armour saves are very good to have. Marines take an average of 1.94 casualties from a collapsing building, 4+ save models take an average of 2.92. Marines take about two thirds as many casualties, and cost about 50% more than Fire Warriors. Compared to Kroot, they take 40% of the casualties for twice the cost. Only Imperial Guard veterans in carapace armour are significantly more survivable against that kind of 'wound spam' point-for-point. Same situation when getting hit by a serpent shield, or a wyvern, or a TFC. That's without the benefit of the Iron Hands chapter tactics, by the way. Add that into the equation and the marines get about 17% tougher... which brings them to within 7% of the point-per-point survivability of carapace veterans.
BS 4 on emplaced weapons is nice too. Five marines in a bastion is 145 points. Eight fire warriors in a bastion is 147 points. Assuming two sides of the building are facing the enemy and each side has one heavy bolter and two fire points which can draw LOS, the marines can fire two HB and 3 bolters, the FW can fire two HB and 4 pulse rifles. Let's say they are shooting at orks in 5+ cover 20" away. Marines kill 2.44 orks, FW kill 2.22. Kroot do no better than FW. Give the marines a Heavy Weapon and things turn even more in their favour. Again, only one common troop unit in the game seems to do this job better than marines; the guard veteran squad.
In short, the numbers do not support the idea that marines are paying significantly more points for 'unusable' abilities. Their price is consistent with most other troops units in terms of anti-infantry shooting capability and survivability. In a straight fire-fight, they should do well against any other common infantry unit from the standard troops selection except imperial guard veterans. Specialist weapons which kill them more efficiently are priced significantly higher than ones which kill cheaper troops just as effectively. In many cases it's a bit more points efficient to slaughter cheaper troops.
I believe that the problems marines really face are these:
Few people take hordes of cheap troops. They are expensive, take more time to build and paint and are less fun to play with than marines. Therefore people place less value in weapons optimised against them. Because few people play large numbers of poor-save units, they often take people by surprise and perform well because they aren't facing forces designed to kill them.
Some of the best units in the game at the moment are monstrous creatures (like the riptide), or other good-save, high-toughness models, such as eldar jetbikes, marine bikes, plague marines, battlesuits and so on. People have to take weapons which can deal with those threats. Such weapons are pretty much universally great at killing marines too. Note that many of those units are considered good despite being more expensive than marines and being just as vulnerable to getting wiped-out by anti-marine weapons. If that level of vulnerability was really such a problem, why would people take those units? They might have more firepower and maneuverability than tactical squads, but what good does that do them if they don't survive to use it?
Eldar jetbikes are T 4, 3+ save guys who cost more than marines and only have a cover save to make them any tougher... but everyone seems to think that cover saves are useless now. They are great for last-minute objective claiming, but everyone seems to be saying that such a unit will never survive until the end of the game. Marine bikes are praised for being T 5, but T 5 is just as useless as T 4 against S 7, which is apparently what does most of the damage these days.
A 10-man squad of Iron Hands takes 21 plasma hits to wipe off the board (assuming 5+ cover). A basic riptide takes just 12. The riptide can increase it's survivability with a stimulant injector, but it's still only taking 18 plasma hits to kill and it now costs much more than the marines. The Nova Reactor has a two-third chance of doubling the riptide's survivability (but a one-third chance of damaging it). Even then, it's 'only' going to take 30 plasma hits to wipe it off the board on average. For a unit which costs 215 point minimum. For that cost, you can buy fifteen marines, who take 32 plasma hits to kill. Marines are basically just as tough as riptides point-per-point against plasma. They benefit more from defensive buffs and hiding in terrain or transports too. The riptide does better against small-arms of course, but they don't do much to either unit.
But surely the riptide has more firepower? An anti-marine riptide can inflict two or three casualties a turn on a marine squad. Meanwhile 10 marines with a lascannon and plasma gun will inflict about two thirds that damage for about two thirds the cost. The riptide is better, but not much better (it's impossible to quantify exactly how good the RT is unfortunately, because there is no easy way to calculate the average hits from a large blast... but against small units which can spread out in line formation, it isn't that many). Against a unit of guard veterans with camo-gear, the riptide does significantly worse than marines. You can boost the riptide's performance by buffing it with ignores cover, but when you factor in the cost of ignoring cover (about 50 points per unit using markerlights), the riptide is approaching the cost of two whole squads of marines. Whichever way you cut it, the marines have access to firepower which is at least comparable to the riptide's once you factor in cost. The riptide kills marines and bikes better, the marines handle vehicles and light infantry better. Both do about the same against monstrous creatures. The riptide may work out a little more efficient overall, but it's close. The riptide is mostly just more impressive, because slapping down a big blast and then removing several models without a save is a more intimidating effect than plinking away with a couple of squads even though on average, they cause the same casualties.
So, when it comes to the basic jobs of killing stuff and not dying, marines don't look too bad when compared to the riptide, generally considered one of the best units in the game.
But surely the riptide has many other advantages, such as being able to jump and smash? Well, marines have other minor advantages too, but we dismissed them as useless already, because the game now comes down to shooting the other guy until he is dead. Which marines do just as well as pretty much everyone else, according to my math-hammer.
"Plus, marines can take two of the best transports in the game: Land Raiders and Storm Ravens"
That statement makes me lol. Both are overcosted, FURTHER contributing to the marines' model count woes.
Tac marines have too much gear and can't cause enough damage for their points.
" Whichever way you cut it, the marines have access to firepower which is at least comparable to the riptide's once you factor in cost."
You forgot range. And move shoot move. And the fact that the riptide's firepower doesn't degrade as it takes damage. And the fact that small arms are much, much worse and putting wounds on a Riptide. Shall I go on?
In practice, tac marines are a dumpster fire. It has been outlined many times in this thread as to why this is the case. But the single biggest thing to me is that they are 200 pts of models that no one fears and no one has to game for.
Bharring wrote: If you want to take Marines, and strip out their versatility for lower point cost, you can. They're called Guard (just the dakka), or Orks (just the choppy).
The versatility is fine but overpriced. My personal take on Marines is something like:
1) Against shooty armies you can attempt to...
-...pretend you're a shooty troop and shoot and get out shot and blown away.
-...pretend you're an assault troop and get blown away and by the time you get there you aren't good enough in assault to actually make a dent anyway.
2) Against assault armies you can attempt to...
-...pretend you're an assault troop and get minced by the opponent's ACTUAL assault troops
-...pretend you're shooty and sit back but not do enough damage to stop the enemy assaulting you and then get minced because you aren't good enough in assault to beat what survived your shooting.
Now, part of that comes down to the fact I think they pay too much for the 3+ save. There's just too much AP3/2 out there and/or opponents who can lay down enough wounds that they'll be decimating your units despite the 3+ save. The way tactical marines do best is by having other things in the army that are more appealing to kill first.
I feel like if you want Tac marines to become appealing (beyond just "I need these things to score") then you probably need to either make them better at shooting with no significant points increase, better at assault with no significant points increase (hello Grey Hunters), or make their Power Armour tougher with no significant points increase.
So basically the argument is that they can't match everyone else's single-purpose dedicated units at what they're single-purposed to do, and apparently there's no way for them to employ their versatility, so they should be just as good as these specialists while remaining versatile and tough and the same points cost, despite often being only a couple points more than many, much less capable, units.
I'm sorry, but I just have a hard time taking that seriously, Tactical marines just are not that bad.
Grey Hunters are EZ-mode autopilot units, they shoot as well as any other MEQ squad, but fight better than any equivalent even when charged. Even against a CC specialist of similar cost, like Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshees, the GH's will maul that unit to half strength before being killed themselves, and that's if the SS/HB unit gets to charge and take no casualties before getting stuck in (i.e. the most favorable circumstances they could ever hope for). There's very little they can't do as well or better than anyone else, and is a reason SW's got so much derision for so long.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Yeah, they are, because they suck precious points away from the parts of your list that can actually hurt your opponent. We've explained this to the pro-tac group over and over. The sum of the whole for tac marines is less than the sum of the parts.
The whole problem is summed up with the 30 cultists + helldrake vs tac marines problem. Marine lists are paying a premium for units that in most games, are little for efficacious than cultists. And die the same to weapons like ion accelerators.
" Even against a CC specialist of similar cost, like Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshees, the GH's will maul that unit to half strength before being killed themselves,"
Umm, they actually win a lot of the time.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 16:06:40
Which means if you are leaving them embarked on vehicles you are paying for advantages you are not using, same if they are camping objectives. Just look at CSM people take cultists to camp objectives largely because they are cheap, so paying 50 points to hold an objective is better than paying 100 points.
It also means they are less effective at killing things per point then many other troops.
The same largely holds true for durability, there are lots of advantages to having say 3 Guardsman for every marine as far as durability is concerned.
Martel732 wrote: " Whichever way you cut it, the marines have access to firepower which is at least comparable to the riptide's once you factor in cost."
You forgot range. And move shoot move. And the fact that the riptide's firepower doesn't degrade as it takes damage. And the fact that small arms are much, much worse and putting wounds on a Riptide. Shall I go on?
Range and MSM can be relevant. So can many other factors, some of which favour infantry, some of which favour jump monstrous creatures.
Marines often don't need to engage at long range, because they can bunker up, using fortifications and land raiders to deny the enemy anything to shoot at that isn't AV 14. If the enemy stay at long range, they stay bunkered up, taking pot-shots out of firepoints, barraging with TFC and advancing in Land Raiders or waiting for the drop-pod / storm-raven strike. If the enemy close to melta / flamer the buildings, attack the guys behind LOS-blocking terrain, engage the transports, etc. then the marines can emerge and engage.
Marines keep most of their serious firepower until the last few men are removed. A bit irrelevant anyway, since apparently units tend to get annihilated in a single turn these days. Forty lascannon / plasma / autocannon / sniper / vanquisher shots from an Astra Militarum gunline with prescience don't care that you could have fired back if you were still alive. Or is that not the kind of threat we should be prepared for? Because that's the kind of firepower that it takes to remove a squad and a half of marines in one turn. You know, 'wound spam'.
Suddenly small arms are relevant when it comes to the riptide, but marines are over-costed because their resistance to small arms is irrelevant? Or are you saying that the marine's bolters are irrelevant against the riptide? 15 marines out-shoot a riptide's main gun with just their special and heavy weapons anyway. The bolters are just icing that allow them to engage lighter infantry more effectively.
In a direct fight between a riptide and a tactical squad, I'll bet on the riptide. But that's because the riptide is the scissors to the marines' paper. Marines kill everything except monstrous creatures pretty well and the riptide kills everything except marines pretty inefficiently.
I do NOT want to turn this into another GH thread. But GH are an example of what tactical marines should be more like, for sure. But they aren't. Only the SW get true tactical marines, evidently.
"Suddenly small arms are relevant when it comes to the riptide, but marines are over-costed because their resistance to small arms is irrelevant?"
Yes, because the Riptide is a true threat, and tac marines can be safely ignored. They are overcosted because tac marines firepower is abysmal, and consequently can't reduce the amount of incoming fire from their opponents.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 16:45:47
Yeah, they are, because they suck precious points away from the parts of your list that can actually hurt your opponent. We've explained this to the pro-tac group over and over. The sum of the whole for tac marines is less than the sum of the parts.
And it's largely justified by comparing then to purpose built units that do one thing only or against things that everyone has a problem with, neither of which should be surprising nor unique to this edition.
The whole problem is summed up with the 30 cultists + helldrake vs tac marines problem. Marine lists are paying a premium for units that in most games, are little for efficacious than cultists. And die the same to weapons like ion accelerators.
Yes, specialized anti-MEQ weapons are very good at killing MEQ's. Such weapons are typically equally effective against other marine units that people don't seem to have problems with, like White Scars bikers and the like. That said, not every weapon in the game is an AP3, wounds T4 on 2's, ignores cover weapon however. They're not even a majority of weapons that Marines will face. They're just very effective when they do face them against marines. Think about how much scarier it is for units like Dire Avengers or Tempestus Scions which aren't appreciably cheaper but are just as easily killed by far more commonly available and cheaper weaponry. A 13pt CSM or 14pt Tac marine gets vaped by a 170pt Heldrake easily, but the commonly available Heavy Flamer vapes 12 and 13pt Scion and Dire Avengers just as easily. How much better and/or cheaper are you going to make the SM's in such a context?
" Even against a CC specialist of similar cost, like Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshees, the GH's will maul that unit to half strength before being killed themselves,"
Umm, they actually win a lot of the time.
I didn't say the CC unit wouldn't win, but that the GH's would cripple them before going down even under the best of circumstances for their opponents.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
"I didn't say the CC unit wouldn't win, but that the GH's would cripple them before going down even under the best of circumstances for their opponents."
No, I meant the GH would win that a lot of the time. That's how boss GH are in CC. Which, again, doesn't matter against Tau/Eldar, etc.
"Think about how much scarier it is for units like Dire Avengers"
Always in WS. The flamers will never touch them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 16:57:52
Anpu42 wrote: Also remember it also comes down to your local Meta a lot of time. In some Meta’s Marines are king, in some Meta’s Marines don’t stand a chance.
That discrepancy should not exist. That's my whole point in a nutshell. The meta should NOT be able to vary that much. That means some units are completely insane and others are for paste-eaters.
Anpu42 wrote: Also remember it also comes down to your local Meta a lot of time. In some Meta’s Marines are king, in some Meta’s Marines don’t stand a chance.
That discrepancy should not exist. That's my whole point in a nutshell. The meta should NOT be able to vary that much. That means some units are completely insane and others are for paste-eaters.
Sometimes Rules can not change that.
If your Meta is filled with 90% Marines, there is not an issue, that same if it is the reverse.
If the Meta is where 90% of the armies are Tau, Eldar or a mix of them, well then both the Meta and the Marine Player suffers.
If the Meta is a mix where TAC List must contend with everything the Marine should do well.
Martel732 wrote: "I didn't say the CC unit wouldn't win, but that the GH's would cripple them before going down even under the best of circumstances for their opponents."
No, I meant the GH would win that a lot of the time. That's how boss GH are in CC. Which, again, doesn't matter against Tau/Eldar, etc.
In which case, no, they certainly shouldn't be that good and Tac's certainly shouldn't be upgraded to that level, because they shouldn't be capable of beating similarly costed CC specialists on the CC specialists terms, and simultaneously tougher, and simultaneously way better at shooting.
"Think about how much scarier it is for units like Dire Avengers"
Always in WS. The flamers will never touch them.
Unless the WS gets popped, they have to take an objective, there's something they need to hop out and shoot, etc. Meanwhile, other units like Scions don't have that luxury.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
"In which case, no, they certainly shouldn't be that good and Tac's certainly shouldn't be upgraded to that level, because they shouldn't be capable of beating similarly costed CC specialists on the CC specialists terms, and simultaneously tougher, and simultaneously way better at shooting. "
SW players claim there is nothing wrong with this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 17:34:00
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
If I trot BA out against your SW, it's not even a game, really. Part of this is because the tac marine is a dumpster fire. Among other things.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 17:38:01
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
Yes I do When I run Space Marines or my Dark Angels, I normaly run 3 Tactical Squads with Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon.
I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks, so I know what it feels like, but I don't blame my Tactical Squads.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
Yes I do When I run Space Marines or my Dark Angels, I normaly run 3 Tactical Squads with Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon.
I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks, so I know what it feels like, but I don't blame my Tactical Squads.
I blame the tactical squads for not being able to kill the stuff killing them.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
Yes I do When I run Space Marines or my Dark Angels, I normaly run 3 Tactical Squads with Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon.
I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks, so I know what it feels like, but I don't blame my Tactical Squads.
I blame the tactical squads for not being able to kill the stuff killing them.
Waaaghpower wrote: So what you're saying is, you're better off paying for a bunch of things you'll never use, just in case it comes up as important, than only paying for things that you *know* will be used?
The main thing you pay for with tactical marines is survivability. You are pretty much guaranteed to use that.
People are saying that T 4 and a 3+ save aren't worth much because there are weapons which ignore them. What that doesn't account for is the cost of those weapons compared to alternatives which work better against weaker targets. If you force your opponent to spend 70% more to get something which is optimised against marines rather than fire warriors, you've already made up the cost difference in those two units. A couple of Wyverns or Thunderfire Cannons will chew through fire warriors, guardsmen, kroot and any other light infantry unit much faster than a buffed riptide will take out marines, for fewer points.
Plus, marines can take two of the best transports in the game: Land Raiders and Storm Ravens. What transport can a 40-man combined infantry squad take? They can't even fit in a building, so they are going to be taking casualties right from the start of the game. With fortifications and tough transports available, there's absolutely no need for a tactical squad to worry about taking casualties before they have a chance to do anything.
For strictly sitting in a bunker, fire warriors and kroot may seem more efficient, but bunkers don't last forever and when they start taking damage, 3+ armour saves are very good to have. Marines take an average of 1.94 casualties from a collapsing building, 4+ save models take an average of 2.92. Marines take about two thirds as many casualties, and cost about 50% more than Fire Warriors. Compared to Kroot, they take 40% of the casualties for twice the cost. Only Imperial Guard veterans in carapace armour are significantly more survivable against that kind of 'wound spam' point-for-point. Same situation when getting hit by a serpent shield, or a wyvern, or a TFC. That's without the benefit of the Iron Hands chapter tactics, by the way. Add that into the equation and the marines get about 17% tougher... which brings them to within 7% of the point-per-point survivability of carapace veterans.
BS 4 on emplaced weapons is nice too. Five marines in a bastion is 145 points. Eight fire warriors in a bastion is 147 points. Assuming two sides of the building are facing the enemy and each side has one heavy bolter and two fire points which can draw LOS, the marines can fire two HB and 3 bolters, the FW can fire two HB and 4 pulse rifles. Let's say they are shooting at orks in 5+ cover 20" away. Marines kill 2.44 orks, FW kill 2.22. Kroot do no better than FW. Give the marines a Heavy Weapon and things turn even more in their favour. Again, only one common troop unit in the game seems to do this job better than marines; the guard veteran squad.
In short, the numbers do not support the idea that marines are paying significantly more points for 'unusable' abilities. Their price is consistent with most other troops units in terms of anti-infantry shooting capability and survivability. In a straight fire-fight, they should do well against any other common infantry unit from the standard troops selection except imperial guard veterans. Specialist weapons which kill them more efficiently are priced significantly higher than ones which kill cheaper troops just as effectively. In many cases it's a bit more points efficient to slaughter cheaper troops.
I believe that the problems marines really face are these:
Few people take hordes of cheap troops. They are expensive, take more time to build and paint and are less fun to play with than marines. Therefore people place less value in weapons optimised against them. Because few people play large numbers of poor-save units, they often take people by surprise and perform well because they aren't facing forces designed to kill them.
Some of the best units in the game at the moment are monstrous creatures (like the riptide), or other good-save, high-toughness models, such as eldar jetbikes, marine bikes, plague marines, battlesuits and so on. People have to take weapons which can deal with those threats. Such weapons are pretty much universally great at killing marines too. Note that many of those units are considered good despite being more expensive than marines and being just as vulnerable to getting wiped-out by anti-marine weapons. If that level of vulnerability was really such a problem, why would people take those units? They might have more firepower and maneuverability than tactical squads, but what good does that do them if they don't survive to use it?
Eldar jetbikes are T 4, 3+ save guys who cost more than marines and only have a cover save to make them any tougher... but everyone seems to think that cover saves are useless now. They are great for last-minute objective claiming, but everyone seems to be saying that such a unit will never survive until the end of the game. Marine bikes are praised for being T 5, but T 5 is just as useless as T 4 against S 7, which is apparently what does most of the damage these days.
A 10-man squad of Iron Hands takes 21 plasma hits to wipe off the board (assuming 5+ cover). A basic riptide takes just 12. The riptide can increase it's survivability with a stimulant injector, but it's still only taking 18 plasma hits to kill and it now costs much more than the marines. The Nova Reactor has a two-third chance of doubling the riptide's survivability (but a one-third chance of damaging it). Even then, it's 'only' going to take 30 plasma hits to wipe it off the board on average. For a unit which costs 215 point minimum. For that cost, you can buy fifteen marines, who take 32 plasma hits to kill. Marines are basically just as tough as riptides point-per-point against plasma. They benefit more from defensive buffs and hiding in terrain or transports too. The riptide does better against small-arms of course, but they don't do much to either unit.
But surely the riptide has more firepower? An anti-marine riptide can inflict two or three casualties a turn on a marine squad. Meanwhile 10 marines with a lascannon and plasma gun will inflict about two thirds that damage for about two thirds the cost. The riptide is better, but not much better (it's impossible to quantify exactly how good the RT is unfortunately, because there is no easy way to calculate the average hits from a large blast... but against small units which can spread out in line formation, it isn't that many). Against a unit of guard veterans with camo-gear, the riptide does significantly worse than marines. You can boost the riptide's performance by buffing it with ignores cover, but when you factor in the cost of ignoring cover (about 50 points per unit using markerlights), the riptide is approaching the cost of two whole squads of marines. Whichever way you cut it, the marines have access to firepower which is at least comparable to the riptide's once you factor in cost. The riptide kills marines and bikes better, the marines handle vehicles and light infantry better. Both do about the same against monstrous creatures. The riptide may work out a little more efficient overall, but it's close. The riptide is mostly just more impressive, because slapping down a big blast and then removing several models without a save is a more intimidating effect than plinking away with a couple of squads even though on average, they cause the same casualties.
So, when it comes to the basic jobs of killing stuff and not dying, marines don't look too bad when compared to the riptide, generally considered one of the best units in the game.
But surely the riptide has many other advantages, such as being able to jump and smash? Well, marines have other minor advantages too, but we dismissed them as useless already, because the game now comes down to shooting the other guy until he is dead. Which marines do just as well as pretty much everyone else, according to my math-hammer.
1. The issue is that the weapons being used to kill Marines are not specialist weapons, they are (or have become) standard because they are good at killing everything. Wave Serpents aren't just bringing Scatter Lasers because they are good at killing Marines. Same with Riptides and Ion Accelerators. This was an issue in prior editions as well with Plasma weapons, since their relatively high strength and range (compared to other specials) meant they could threaten anything bolters would shoot at as well as most targets their heavy weapon would be firing at too.
But more to this point, TFCs see use in a TAC list due to their types of shots (one of which is a nice Str 6 shot). I'm not so sure a Wyvern battery will (especially given how much of a headache figuring out wounding currently works with one, let alone multiples). Neither of these are likely to do anything to troops in ruins, as smart players will keep their vulnerable units off the top floor but both are certainly usable against Marines.
2. Both have hard counters in the current meta, and both take up a significant number of points. If you are using them to transport assault units, those units are very much unlikely to be Tactical Marines. In both cases these vehicles are likely taking up HS slots, as they are not dedicated transports for troops selections (at least, for the vanilla Marine armies). Land Raider Spam has certainly been seen as a dark horse army in some events, however certain popular builds (Screamerstar comes to mind) act as an extreme hard counter.
3. All I can say on this one is that I rarely see Tacticals sitting in bunkers, as it means they are probably further away from the battle than they can contribute. I guess if you put an objective next to the bunker that'd work.
4. Your selection of range on the emplaced weapons is biased. At 30-25" the Fire Warriors are killing 2.22 Orks to the Marines' 1.8, and at 15" - 13" the Fire Warriors are killing 3.15 to the Marines' 2.44. Certainly adding a heavy weapon (I'm guessing a heavy bolter) to the marines changes things to their benefit as the Tau can't benefit from additional troops (or marker drones) as they've run out of fire points, so that couldn't be argued unless you wanted to allow the Tau player to use their synergies with outside units.
5. The cheap troops issue is dependent on meta. Competitive CSM lists, Orks, and Tyranids generally have to rely on cheap troops. Tau certainly rely on them as well, but don't need to spam them.
6. Bingo
7. Eldar Jetbikes are actually fine. They have the same T and Sv of Marines, but while ignore cover is prevalent they can and do rely on the fact that they are exceptionally fast and have access to a psychic power that lets them reroll their armor saves (or cover saves if they get them). They can easily last turn objective grab/deny from well outside of enemy range/LOS.
8. The problem of the analysis comparing Marines to Riptides is that you are looking at them in a vacuum. Riptides will almost always have access to a buffcommander or markerlights that will help them strip cover and shoot better. Marines can only rely on additional units to add shooting or act as distractions (unless they bring in something with Divination). A 10 man Tac Squad trying to hug cover in LoS of a Riptide is likely perfectly bunched up for that template to remove them (or reduce them to the point where FW shooting can clear them out). The argument of cost is silly, because a Riptide with buffcommander is likely to more than make back its point cost over the course of the game. Certainly, it's way over the point value to kill one full squad, but how about two? Three?
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
"In which case, no, they certainly shouldn't be that good and Tac's certainly shouldn't be upgraded to that level, because they shouldn't be capable of beating similarly costed CC specialists on the CC specialists terms, and simultaneously tougher, and simultaneously way better at shooting. "
SW players claim there is nothing wrong with this.
I'm sure they do.
Some IG players probably thought the Vendetta was perfectly fine as well at 130pts for 3 TL lascannons on an AV12 transport flyer in an FoC slot with zero competition too.
There's a reason SW's were *the* bandwagon "counts-as" army of 5th edition, with the 2011 adepticon having more SW armies than any other army, and all but 3 were just re-branded Codex marines or Chaos marine armies.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
Yes I do When I run Space Marines or my Dark Angels, I normaly run 3 Tactical Squads with Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon.
I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks, so I know what it feels like, but I don't blame my Tactical Squads.
I blame the tactical squads for not being able to kill the stuff killing them.
I have never had that problem myself.
"I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks"
So how did this happen, then? Also, that's a LOT of 6's coming from the melee guys.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 17:57:07
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
Yes I do When I run Space Marines or my Dark Angels, I normaly run 3 Tactical Squads with Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon.
I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks, so I know what it feels like, but I don't blame my Tactical Squads.
I blame the tactical squads for not being able to kill the stuff killing them.
I have never had that problem myself.
"I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks"
So how did this happen, then?
Well Game one was a horror fest involving Gard, 9 Artillary peices, Melta-Vets in Ventetas and Dvevile Dog out of reserve. Everything that could go wrong for me did.
Thar Second was a Genestaler Army suported by the DoM.
Now this was back in 5th.
You can still win a game with tac marines on your side of the table. They just don't make it any easier for you. If you only take a minimum 2 squads of 5 guys, you're spending 140 for maybe 120ish points of actual table value.
Table value can change based on what you're facing, but my general personal experience of 50-60 games since 6th that actually involve tacticals leads me to believe that they're just a couple points too expensive per model.
For comparison, I'd value an ion tide on the table at around 100 points HIGHER than what it actually costs, so when you take three of them, you're adding about 900 points of value to your list for only 600 points.
If you actually go nuts with tac marines, like say 4 full squads with rhinos, you could end up paying 740 + any special/heavy weapon selections, for a total of about 580ish of actual table effectiveness. If your opponent is the aforementioned triptide player, before your other list selections, you're already down almost 500 points in actual army effectiveness.
Can you win given such a handicap? Yes! Sometimes the opponent makes shoddy decisions like actually attacking the tac marines first instead of something that can actually affect the battle. And sometimes the dice love you and even the match up for you.
A good example of this phenomenon is: When I tried out grey knights with divination, I wrote a 2k list that I considered to be actually worth about 2700 or so, so I challenged a friend to 2k vs. 2500 to test it. I ended up tabling him with my dead pile at just 4 models. One razorback and 3 marines.
Same list played against 2k triptide tau. Both estimated table values (according to me) were in the 2500-2700 range. Game result? I won off one objective, but both forces were heavily damaged. And I had intentionally offed his two minimum fire warrior squads as soon as I could. Swingy dice, as well as my opponent realizing that his troops needed to stay alive, could have sent it the other way.
The moral here is that there ARE units that aren't priced correctly, such as previous edition SM bikes or riptides. The more you can identify and load up on units that are undercosted, the bigger of an advantage you have. (That's not the only factor of course, synergy of units can increase table value immensely, see Baron in a jetseer council for example.)
This all sums up to: tac marines cost too much, but it's not crippling, just "kinda bad."
Hardly noticeable as long as you don't take a ton of them.
20000+ points