Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Advert
|
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. |
|
|
2014/12/16 23:11:14
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Killer Klaivex
The dark behind the eyes.
|
Basically the title.
I hear in a lot of threads that tactical marines are absolutely terrible, and I'm curious to hear what makes them so bad?
Especially since they got a pretty big buff in the 6th edition book.
|
blood reaper wrote:I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote:Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote:GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
Andilus Greatsword wrote:
"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"
Akiasura wrote:I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.
insaniak wrote:
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet. |
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:13:47
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
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
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:19:37
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend
Maine
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:20:23
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
The Internet is wrong. It's pretty cut and dry.
Tactical Marines are pretty fantastic. Anyone who does not think so has either not seen them in sufficient numbers or in appropriate play.
Look at many big tournaments and you'll find lists that include Tactical Marine focused lists ranking highly. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melevolence wrote:
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/16 23:22:27
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. |
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:27:47
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:30:53
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend
Maine
|
DarknessEternal wrote:The Internet is wrong. It's pretty cut and dry.
Tactical Marines are pretty fantastic. Anyone who does not think so has either not seen them in sufficient numbers or in appropriate play.
Look at many big tournaments and you'll find lists that include Tactical Marine focused lists ranking highly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melevolence wrote:
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.
|
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:32:42
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Hellish Haemonculus
|
Properly fielded, Tac Squads can be the workhorse of a SM army. They have a tactical flexibility that many other troops lack.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:37:47
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
It's mostly idle complaining.
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.
|
"Bringer of death, speak your name, For you are my life, and the foe's death." - Litany of the Lasgun
2500 points
1500 points
1250 points
1000 points |
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:41:30
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
DarknessEternal wrote:The Internet is wrong. It's pretty cut and dry.
Tactical Marines are pretty fantastic. Anyone who does not think so has either not seen them in sufficient numbers or in appropriate play.
Look at many big tournaments and you'll find lists that include Tactical Marine focused lists ranking highly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melevolence wrote:
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.
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:41:37
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:43:04
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
TheSilo wrote:It's mostly idle complaining.
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
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:45:23
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?
|
jreilly89 wrote:ATSKNF is a start. Marines aren't completey underpowered, but they aren't OP
Which can only be a good thing. I imagine most would rather have 'average' than OP units if they have any interest in balance.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:46:49
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Executing Exarch
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:48:58
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Mutilatin' Mad Dok
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/12/16 23:50:12
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
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.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:00:04
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot
|
DarknessEternal wrote:The Internet is wrong. It's pretty cut and dry.
Tactical Marines are pretty fantastic. Anyone who does not think so has either not seen them in sufficient numbers or in appropriate play.
Look at many big tournaments and you'll find lists that include Tactical Marine focused lists ranking highly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melevolence wrote:
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/17 00:02:05
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:00:21
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Fixture of Dakka
|
jreilly89 wrote:
So, you post a thread asking what's wrong with them, then flat out refuse the answers. Classy.
Snuh? The OP and I are not the same person.
|
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. |
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:04:12
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
jreilly89 wrote: TheSilo wrote:It's mostly idle complaining.
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.
|
"Bringer of death, speak your name, For you are my life, and the foe's death." - Litany of the Lasgun
2500 points
1500 points
1250 points
1000 points |
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:06:37
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Is 'Eavy Metal Calling?
|
Mr.Omega wrote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:07:29
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight
|
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.
|
SHUPPET wrote:
wtf is this buddhist monk ascendant martial dice arts crap lol
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:15:30
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot
|
Paradigm wrote: Mr.Omega wrote:
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.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/17 00:16:46
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:24:19
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:24:41
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Depraved Slaanesh Chaos Lord
Inside Yvraine
|
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 message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/12/17 00:34:04
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:40:40
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
Bah, profile pics be damned! Automatically Appended Next Post: TheSilo wrote: jreilly89 wrote: TheSilo wrote:It's mostly idle complaining.
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
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 00:41:29
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:50:17
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:54:16
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
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. Automatically Appended Next Post: DarknessEternal wrote:The Internet is wrong. It's pretty cut and dry.
Tactical Marines are pretty fantastic. Anyone who does not think so has either not seen them in sufficient numbers or in appropriate play.
Look at many big tournaments and you'll find lists that include Tactical Marine focused lists ranking highly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melevolence wrote:
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.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 00:57:27
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 00:59:43
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
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.
Or to simplify all that: Overexposure.
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 01:01:54
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Dour Wolf Priest with Iron Wolf Amulet
|
BlaxicanX wrote: 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).
|
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 01:03:49
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Regular Dakkanaut
|
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.
|
|
|
|
2014/12/17 01:07:50
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
|
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|