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.

I see a lot of people on dakkadakka saying that marines are a pretty terrible deal for their price and quite frankly, I don't see why.

OK, they die pretty nastily to AP 3, Ignores Cover weapons, but those aren't that easy to come by and kill everything else just as effectively as they kill marines. You can buy a larger number of cheaper troops, but then you have to choose between not fitting into cover and being clumped up for blast weapons to get more hits. Meanwhile, anything with AP 4 and above is ineffective against marines but pretty damn good against everyone else. Unexceptional units like Hellhounds and Burna Bommas can wipe out AM Veterans, Dire Avengers and Fire Warriors by the dozen, but only a handful can do the same to marines.

Tau are often cited as an army which simply ignores cover saves, but they need to invest around 50 points to get that ability for one unit per turn (or significantly more if they want to keep their markerlights alive). Stack that onto a riptide and you get something which will kill maybe three or four marines a turn on average for land raider prices. Around twice the cost of a unit which can do the same thing to 4+ save units. Only the Heldrake really offers a truly efficient method of slaughtering marines.

In short, marines are one of the most survivable units for their points cost. In addition, they have ATSKNF, which means they will keep fighting after taking much heavier casualties than most other units. In my opinion, keeping your units fighting longer than they would otherwise is almost as good as them not dying at all, making models with ATSNKF worth at least 10% more than they would be otherwise. I'd say it's better than FNP (6+) or a 6+ Invulnerable save. Of course, you can get FNP (6+) on your marines as well if you take the right chapter tactics.

Their killing power is admittedly a bit lacking for their points cost, but hardly appalling. They have a decent basic weapon and good BS, allowing them to rack up a couple of casualties per squad every turn when facing moderately tough enemies. Under ideal conditions (i.e. at 13-18"), Fire Warriors or Dire Avengers can inflict maybe twice a many casualties against similar targets for the same points, but they also die twice as quickly.

And those troops have to worry about staying close enough to get the most out of their weapons while keeping far enough away not to get charged. Meanwhile, marines are a lot less concerned with being attacked in close combat by average troops and can hold position or advance and try to charge themselves. If a dozen ork shoota boys get to within 6" of a Tau or Eldar gunline there isn't much they can do about it other than hope to inflict a few casualties with shooting before they get overrun. Marines can draw their bolt pistols, charge and wipe the orks off the board. That freedom to get as close as you like to the enemy makes marines a lot better at holding mid-field positions.

Basically, I think that tactical marines are actually some of the best troops in the game and I'm baffled as to why so many other posters don't seem to value them. The only troops which seem clearly better are marine bikes and eldar jetbikes, both of which are good because they offer similar capabilities to tactical marines in a more mobile unit.

Tactical marines are one of the worst troops in the game because of the decline of power armor and because their firepower is a joke. Their killing power IS appalling for their cost. Their durability is a joke in a world of cheap AP 2 and things like ion accelerators and Eldar laying down 50+ wounds a turn with S6/7 fire.

Compare to sniper kroot who can threaten MCs.

Compare to Orks that have a 18" assault gun, can still get cover, and are fearless and dirt cheap.

Compare to dire avengers, that unlock the mighty wave serpent. And have battle focus. And pseudo rending.

ATSKNF is almost worthless against good lists, and they will murder your meqs down to the last man fairly easily.

Tactical marines are also miserable in CC on a per-point basis. Tactical marines aren't wiping any Orks off any boards I'm aware of. They are far too outnumbered. CC-wise, I point to the Grey Hunter to show you how crappy tac marines are.

In short, tac marines are fighting it out as one of the worst troops in the game because of their total lack of efficacy for the points.

I really dont see how dire avengers are that much better considering shorter range and lower T.

pm713 wrote:
I really dont see how dire avengers are that much better considering shorter range and lower T.

The thing that makes them better is really down to three minor factors and one big reason. One, they are cheaper. Two, battlefocus can do some pretty tricky things. Three, pseudo-rending means that they can be scary to all armor saves. The biggest reason though, isn't them in and of themselves but instead due to what they can come with. BEHOLD! The Waveserpent. That's really what makes DA so good.

They bring a Wave Serpent. And have their max firepower 6" further out AND can run after the fact to keep tacs at 18' bracket. AND have pseudo rending. How is that even a debate?

To get to Dire Avenger toughness you have to get past the WS. Good luck with that chief. Especially playing marines, who have crap firepower in general because the whole list overpays for stats that don't matter.

So as usual its just the wave serpent. The rending doesnt help much against the cover saves people seem to live in.

pm713 wrote:
So as usual its just the wave serpent. The rending doesnt help much against the cover saves people seem to live in.

Let me come eat all your loser tac marines with MCs and see how much you like the pseudo rending then. You aren't thinking big picture. Tac marines suck because they don't threaten anything I care about. MCs, heavy tanks, elite infantry, etc. All of them can safely ignore tac marines. You know what? I can get troops that don't do anything a lot cheaper in other codices. Even my suck-out-loud BA don't give a feth about your tac marines. The more you bring, the fewer of my models you can engage effectively and it increases my chances of winning/tabling you. I've tabled a couple of tac heavy 6th ed marines with BA. They can't hurt me, which means I shoot and fight at full capacity much longer than they can stand up to. 40K is a game of taking away your opponent's capabilities, since there is no list durable enough to stand up to 5 turn of Eldar shooting if they don't hurt the Eldar in return. Which tac marines don't.

Marines are priced like they're still amazing. But the problem is, they're not amazing. They're mediocre. Stats wise, they aint bad at all. But they're priced too high for what they do. Ten bolters is pretty underwhelming. Special weapons make them "not lame."
Basically its GW believing their own propaganda on how great Marines are.

I'd argue they're not even mediocre given how the game has shifted to mass offense and deathstars.

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So as usual its just the wave serpent. The rending doesnt help much against the cover saves people seem to live in.

Let me come eat all your loser tac marines with MCs and see how much you like the pseudo rending then. You aren't thinking big picture. Tac marines suck because they don't threaten anything I care about. MCs, heavy tanks, elite infantry, etc. All of them can safely ignore tac marines. You know what? I can get troops that don't do anything a lot cheaper in other codices. Even my suck-out-loud BA don't give a feth about your tac marines. The more you bring, the fewer of my models you can engage effectively and it increases my chances of winning/tabling you. I've tabled a couple of tac heavy 6th ed marines with BA. They can't hurt me, which means I shoot and fight at full capacity much longer than they can stand up to. 40K is a game of taking away your opponent's capabilities, since there is no list durable enough to stand up to 5 turn of Eldar shooting if they don't hurt the Eldar in return. Which tac marines don't.

So low T and a 4+ save makes you immune to boltguns now? Do remember I asked about dire avengers alone.

They're cheaper and have better offense. Tac marines have no way to close and so are only getting half as many shots in return at the 18" bracket. Even if DA and tac marines had the same transport options, I'd still take DA because of their overall better efficacy in the meta of offense.

Tac marines can take a single heavy, but this is a horrible choice usually, as all other weapons in the squad are rapid fire. And costly now in 6th ed.

Tac marines aren't bad. They can usually outfight what they can't outshoot for equivalent points, and outshoot what they can't oufight for equivalent points typically (granted there are exceptions, but not many). They're very good troops. The problem is that their mechanisms for delivery to engage that flexibility are somewhat naff in 6E with the massive nerfs to vehicles and transports, and several of the loyalist Sub-chapter books like to make them look bad by comparison because GW likes to make them "Space Marines +1" as a way of making them different.

Many of the problems people are bringing up with Tac's either aren't new or they apply to a whole lot of other units as well. Masses of AP2 fire have been available forever, Tac's have never really been that much of a scary threat to MC's in CC. These are things that have been largely constant in every edition. meanwhile, Tac's have never been better equipped for the points they pay than they are now, they're certainly better than a lot of other units in that pricerange.

pm713 wrote:
I really dont see how dire avengers are that much better considering shorter range and lower T.

Lower T, lower S, shorter range, worse save, no ATSKNF. They're not better. They're better at engaging in short range firefights against other infantry in the open at 12-18", and have some means of keeping that distance constant. Outside of that, they're inferior. The bigger thing is that the DA's dedicated transport is a ridiculous main battle tank.

pm713 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

pm713 wrote:
So as usual its just the wave serpent. The rending doesnt help much against the cover saves people seem to live in.

Let me come eat all your loser tac marines with MCs and see how much you like the pseudo rending then. You aren't thinking big picture. Tac marines suck because they don't threaten anything I care about. MCs, heavy tanks, elite infantry, etc. All of them can safely ignore tac marines. You know what? I can get troops that don't do anything a lot cheaper in other codices. Even my suck-out-loud BA don't give a feth about your tac marines. The more you bring, the fewer of my models you can engage effectively and it increases my chances of winning/tabling you. I've tabled a couple of tac heavy 6th ed marines with BA. They can't hurt me, which means I shoot and fight at full capacity much longer than they can stand up to. 40K is a game of taking away your opponent's capabilities, since there is no list durable enough to stand up to 5 turn of Eldar shooting if they don't hurt the Eldar in return. Which tac marines don't.

So low T and a 4+ save makes you immune to boltguns now? Do remember I asked about dire avengers alone.

If you were to play a game of just Tac marines versus Dire Avengers the Marines would probably seem quite solid. It's the armies and options around them where the comparison is decided.

Thank you Vaktathi.

pm713 wrote:
Thank you Vaktathi.

I agree with what he says, but to me, that makes them bad. Results matter. Tac marines don't provide any.

Here's the thing: while Tactical Marines have a decent gun and good armor in theory, they simply cannot match the damage output of other armies. A 3+ save means little when you're having to roll 30+ saves in one turn. And every marine you lose, reduces your overall firepower, leaving your opponent with the advantage.

I blame the Heldrake. Was the start of the 6th edition arms race.

Yep. They need a either a way to buff themselves a la the "dakka" banner or the rules need to be altered. As in, less AP 2/3 and buff vehicles. Tactical Marines are good where they are.

Or they could revamp the army as a small, elite strike force like they are meant to be.

They really are not that bad, combat squad ability allows you to park a heavy weapon (LC or ML for me) at the back on an objective to take pot shots at tanks or infantry blobs while the other half trek up the table with a flamer or melta.

ATSKNF is also a great rule, your tacticals will fight till they are all gone.

The bolter is a decent weapon and a cheapish combi weapon on the sgt is a decent addition if you have 10pts

In a small 1k pts list I tend to run 20 tacticals combat squaded into 5's, two teams with heavys holding back two with assault weapons moving up in rhinos or razorbacks.

And don't even get me started on scouts, most serious players don't rate them a jot (snipers maybe excepted) but I have so much fun (and a decent hit rate to boot) with shotgun scouts in a landspeeder they are the first unit on my army list every single game.

 Murdius Maximus wrote:

Ignore everything that punk says. He bases everything off extreme high level tournament play. In heavy competitive environments tac marines are very subpar. It is true they cost a lot for the little they do. But I play them casual (Martel's loathed BA no less) and they've been pretty solid.

In casual play, every unit is solid. So why is that even worth discussing? I can make (and have made) a Rough Riders army work and do well in a casual environment, playing against casual players. That doesn't mean that rough riders aren't a broken, gakky unit.

Tactical marines are bad. That's not their fault though, it's the games' fault. 40K doesn't reward jack-of-all-trades units, for one. Almost any dedicated shooting unit will hand a tac squad its ass in shooting, any dedicated assault unit will hand a tac squad its ass in assault. So what are tactical squads good at fighting? They're a bully unit, essentially. But bully units have no place in this game without an effective means of transportation to get them around the units that will beat them and into the face of those soft squishy units they can beat. That's problem #1.

Problem #2 is the rising proliferation of AP3 and below. Pie-plates, Death Stars that gak out AP2/3 and eat bolter fire for breakfast, FMC's (an abomination of a unit type, AP2 should never be on a 24'' moving chassis that can only be hit on 6's with standard weapons), mass rending (both Eldar and Slaaneshi daemons), the list goes on. It's way too much, and it's not even just AP3 and better, it's just the number of attacks both melee and shooting in general. Every codex that's been released so far has put price drops on almost everything that was in it, which means more models on the table. In addition to that, weapons are getting higher and higher rates of fire. The result of this is that there's moar dakka on the field than ever before, and the moar dakka there is, the less a 3+ save matters. For 300 points, a single platoon in my guard army can put out 72 las shots, 4 Str9AP2 shots and 6Str7AP2 shots, that all ignore cover and re-roll failed to-hits. What the feth is a 10 man squad of tactical marines supposed to do against that? Nothing, it's erased from the board. 2 Tactical squads? 2 Tactical squads both armed with heavy bolters in 4+ cover? Erased from the board, one after another. If you want to go smaller than that, a single squad of triple-plasma vets under FRFSRF will kill 5 tacs in a single round of shooting. What are tacs supposed to do against that?

So it's kind of a tri-fold problem. In a nut-shell, the other faction's have been getting exponentially more deadly over the editions while tactical squads have more or less stayed the same.

The 6E game has made it so big guns doesn't really mean a win, but more guns and more special rules is the win. When you have characters that now dispense twin-linking, ignores cover, tank hunter, monster hunter, etc. etc. for free, and make them battle brother with other strong armies, you get this mixture of rules that makes something like a TAC marine impotent.

The current game favors highly elite units that are buffed into god-tier status or lots of cheap chaff as bullet catchers. A good list probably involves both.

They just don't work as they used. I'm sure a points efficiency analysis would do better. My Battle Sisters suffer from this and only make up for it with having two special weapons at 5 girls and using their lower points cost to spam rhinos. 115pts for 5 bodies, flamer, heavy flamer, Rhino is a pretty solid unit and the Rhino for SoB is just a smidge tougher with a 6++ save. The comparison TAC squad is 5 marines, tougher and better in close combat, but only have one flamer and their Rhino has no save.

^ i pretty much got ninjad twice saying the same thing. Good job evreyone!

The way I see it they suffer from being a "solid generalist" choice in a game that is increasingly rewarding specialization. The average tactical marine pays a lot of points for things they don't need in a lot of areas because they try to be average in durability, shooting, and close combat all at the same time.

Basicly what I'm trying to say is that they are the perfect example of "opportunity cost". They take their points and spread them around in the above three areas instead of doing any one thing very well. This results in a troop unit that isn't durable enough to be incredibly tanky (they have good armor and above average toughness, but they're far from the most durable thing out there, even in troops, and they don't come in numbers you need for staying power), isn't shooty enough to be incredibly killy at range, and not good enough in close combat to murder opponents up close (ignoring any other problems with 6th edition and close combat).

This results in them pretty much never being the best choice for their points. You can either get something that's more tanky, more shooty, or more choppy, and as such is capable of dealing with them relatively easily for equivalent points costs (either up close, from range, or just by being too tough for them to kill).

There's really nothing wrong with the tactical marine squad, it's just that there is always something better than them at (insert what you want done) for an equivalent points cost. They would actually be pretty good if you could get them for less points.

Tac marines fall prey to the same thing jack-of-all-trades units do in almost every game I can think of. Because the tac is okay at everything, they get their point cost jacked way up. However, a unit like the Fire Warrior or Dire Avenger, which is only good at one thing but kind of stinks at everything else, only gets points tacked on for that one thing.

Think about this: A tac marine is paying to be half decent at shooting, half decent at close combat, and have this pretty solid armor save. Except, you can only shoot OR close combat one at a time, even though you're always paying for both. Even then, that Dire Avenger is cheaper and, 10 marines v 10 DAs, the Dire Avengers win. Same with, say, hormagaunts in close combat. Plus, what good is the decent armor save when everything is AP2-3, or has rending, and you're relying on a cover save anyway? You're forced to pay points for abilities that just won't get used.

So, look, if you like tac marines, use them. I REALLY like tac marines. My Ultramarine army pretty much always runs four full tac squads in rhinos; they are FUN. However, I realize that this army is only okay, at best, and it's ability to win against Eldar or Tau (or Guard now, I assume) will always be capped by the fact that I am grossly overpaying for the backbone of my army.

Perfect Organism wrote:Basically, I think that tactical marines are actually some of the best troops in the game and I'm baffled as to why so many other posters don't seem to value them.

I agree, except about the bafflement part.

Most people see 40k as a fight between HS slots, and a single marine isn't as good as a riptide, therefore they must be awful. Most people also don't understand the basics of fighting with infantry in this game. Using small arms and Sv is somewhat subtle (especially if you think it's a game about HS slots).

Also, versatility is a more advanced concept. Most people seem to only learn to not mix special weapons and to give everything a role, and to just stop there. While this brings a lot of people from noob to proficient, it ignores the fact that sometimes when things have mandatory upgrades that do different things, they're still worth taking.

It's like how people are always hating on 1ksons. They are really expensive, but they get a TON of upgrades. Just because a person can't figure out how to make use of all those upgrades doesn't make them not worth taking. But that's a bit too nuanced for people rabidly looking for easy, black and white answers in order to win games easiest.

 Ailaros wrote:

Perfect Organism wrote:Basically, I think that tactical marines are actually some of the best troops in the game and I'm baffled as to why so many other posters don't seem to value them.

I agree, except about the bafflement part.

Most people see 40k as a fight between HS slots, and a single marine isn't as good as a riptide, therefore they must be awful. Most people also don't understand the basics of fighting with infantry in this game. Using small arms and Sv is somewhat subtle (especially if you think it's a game about HS slots).

Also, versatility is a more advanced concept. Most people seem to only learn to not mix special weapons and to give everything a role, and to just stop there. While this brings a lot of people from noob to proficient, it ignores the fact that sometimes when things have mandatory upgrades that do different things, they're still worth taking.

It's like how people are always hating on 1ksons. They are really expensive, but they get a TON of upgrades. Just because a person can't figure out how to make use of all those upgrades doesn't make them not worth taking. But that's a bit too nuanced for people rabidly looking for easy, black and white answers in order to win games easiest.

I thought Tactical marines were bad because if you run up 300 points of infantry up against 1500 points of your opponent's army they die horribly. I mean, if they can't take on an entire army with just 20 guys and APCs they must totally suck.

 Ailaros wrote:

It's like how people are always hating on 1ksons. They are really expensive, but they get a TON of upgrades. Just because a person can't figure out how to make use of all those upgrades doesn't make them not worth taking. But that's a bit too nuanced for people rabidly looking for easy, black and white answers in order to win games easiest.

So basically nobody has bothered playing with Thousand Sons at all? Or just not enough?
It couldn't be that they've tried and tested multiple times and the consensus is that there are few situations in which they are adequate and many more in which they fail to perform?

Making a claim like this is open for discussion provided there is evidence to support it. Suggesting that people don't understand the game because they consider a unit is bad is a tad insulting. Lets say I have a bike. My friends and I all try to ride it and the thing is so bad that none of us can stay on it for more than 10 seconds before falling off. You can't say that I'm not using the bicycle right unless you can show that you can ride it for more than ten seconds.

If you want to say Thousand Sons are good, then you have to give the example with credible evidence.

I just don't think Tac marines put out enough damage to account for their points. A 3+ save doesn't win games if you can't also output enough damage to actually beat your opponent. That's true of a lot of troops choices, but due to their cost it makes tac marines worse. 300-350pts will get you two tac squads which really don't do a lot compared to what most other armies can take in their troops slots for the same points.

I'm actually wondering how you should point cost Tactical Marine squads now. It's kind of bothering me. I'm not a game designer, but I enjoy trying to puzzle out mechanics and create interesting ones, so it's a subject that has captured my interest.

I guess you have to cost models based on the best thing they can do, then add a very small additional cost if they can do something else as well. I think GW is applying an "additive capability" mindset to their costing where the ability to do multiple things adequately is costed like the sum of all their abilities.

What's wrong with you? You've stated, three times now, that Martel "has nothing constructive to say", but what have you contributed to this thread topic? Nothing at all. You've yet to make a single on-topic post in here with the exception of "well Space Marines are fine in a casual environment!"

Seriously. Get the hell out of the thread if you have nothing to offer to it. I'm not saying that some of the criticisms of Martel's posts aren't warranted sometimes, but if you have a personal problem with the man, take it to fething PM's. No one here is interested in watching you guys' argue like an old couple.

Martel732 wrote:
Tactical marines are one of the worst troops in the game because of the decline of power armor and because their firepower is a joke. Their killing power IS appalling for their cost. Their durability is a joke in a world of cheap AP 2 and things like ion accelerators and Eldar laying down 50+ wounds a turn with S6/7 fire.

Cheap AP 2? For every AP 2 weapon, I'm pretty sure that you can find a far cheaper AP 4 weapon. I just showed that for the cost of one riptide with basic support elements you can get two or three vehicles which can do worse to 4+ armour. The only reason you see lots of stuff that can kill marines is because marines are so good that everyone buys stuff to kill them.

Martel732 wrote:
Compare to sniper kroot who can threaten MCs.

Marines can take special weapons to deal with MCs, plus a load of things that kroot can't handle. Against their optimal target, kroot are better than marines. Against something else, like guardsmen for example, marines will be better. And kroot are hilariously easy to deal with; any pinning weapon will shut them down and a decent round of shooting will have them running for the hills.

Martel732 wrote:
Compare to Orks that have a 18" assault gun, can still get cover, and are fearless and dirt cheap.

I'm guessing you don't play orks, because you either pay for your cover with a KFF or have to cram into limited space (which means you have to take a unit too small to be useful and make yourself vulnerable to blasts). Wouldn't really say that 18" Assault 2 is any better than 24" rapid fire. The fearless isn't too helpful either, since it only lasts until you take serious casualties.

Martel732 wrote:
Compare to dire avengers, that unlock the mighty wave serpent. And have battle focus. And pseudo rending.

Battle focus just makes up for the fact they have a very narrow range band where they can outshoot marines. Bladestorm is part of their superior firepower, but as I said they die so much faster that it's pretty much a wash. The wave serpent is really good, but that doesn't make what is inside it great.

Martel732 wrote:
ATSKNF is almost worthless against good lists, and they will murder your meqs down to the last man fairly easily.

Forcing the enemy to finish off every single model is worth something.

Martel732 wrote:
Tactical marines are also miserable in CC on a per-point basis. Tactical marines aren't wiping any Orks off any boards I'm aware of. They are far too outnumbered. CC-wise, I point to the Grey Hunter to show you how crappy tac marines are.

Marines can take twice their number in orks easily if they get the charge, more if they have a flamer. Yeah, orks are cheap, but marines are at least twice as good as them at pretty much everything.

Martel732 wrote:
In short, tac marines are fighting it out as one of the worst troops in the game because of their total lack of efficacy for the points.

Dire Avengers are one point less, shoot a little better, die a lot easier, don't stay in the fight and are weak in CC. I wouldn't say they are any better than marines.
Chaos Marines are one point cheaper, but don't get ANSKNF or chapter tactics.
Grey Hunters trade Chapter Tactics for a boost in CC ability. I'd rather have chapter tactics.
Guardsmen and orks are less than half the cost of a marine, but generally achieve less than half as much. Their main advantage is that they die to anti-marine shooting at the same rate as marines, but that's only an advantage because people choose to focus on anti-marine shooting. If ork boys were the default troop choice for most players, everyone would take whirlwinds and wyverns and marines would be fine.
Fire Warriors are two thirds the cost of marines, shoot about as well as DA, die like DA, but are more likely to run away and utterly hopeless in CC. They will beat marines in a simple shooting match, but not by that much and they lack a lot of flexibility.

Let's crunch some numbers. Assume a firefight at 12", with 5+ cover.

A marine scores 0.44 wounds against a dire avenger, ork or fire warrior with 2 shots, on average. 0.59 against guardsmen, guardians or pathfinders. 0.22 against a marine (0.19 if the marine has CT:IH).
A Fire Warrior scores 0.42 wounds against a DA or fellow FW, 0.44 against an ork, 0.56 against guardsmen, etc. 0.22 against a marine (0.19 if he's an Iron Hand).
So, the FW has roughly the same damage output as the marine, but about half the survivability. Multiply those factors together, take the square root and it looks like the FW is about 10% better than the marine point-for-point at this one thing. He's also got slightly better range and can threaten a slightly wider variety of targets. On the other hand, the marine has ATSKNF, chapter tactics and better close combat ability. I'd say that's worth a point or two.
An ork shoota boy has around half the damage output as the marine and half the survivability. He's a little better than half as good in close combat and a little worse when it comes to morale. Based on that, he's under-costed by around one point compared to the marine. But you could argue that packing more power into a single model has some advantage of it's own - specifically, it lets you minimise exposure to blasts and templates while still benefiting from cover.
I shan't crunch the numbers for every unit in the game, but I think it's fairly clear that marines are not drastically overpriced compared to other troops.