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.

Ansel Darach wrote:
Some information I think some of you will find interesting.

Just for fun I compiled a list of the average units statline based on the total points available in it and the units cost.

These numbers are based on total sum of the statline divided by point cost. (I added the chance of a successful save against a wound instead of the actual armor save number, so a +3 save added 4 to the sum total and a - adds 0 for example, special rules were ignored)

Chaos Cultist:--------------------6.25
Termagant Brood:---------------6.25
Gretchin:---------------------------6
Hormagaunt Brood:------------5.4
IG Infantryman:-------------------5.2
IG Veteran:------------------------4.5
Kroot:-------------------------------4.3
Ork Boyz:--------------------------4.3
Storm Guardians:---------------3.4444
Kabalite Warriors:--------------3.4444
Daemonette of Slaanesh:----3.3333
Bloodletters of Khorne:--------3.1
Wyches:----------------------------3.1
Space Marine Scout:-----------2.9
Plaguebearer:-------------------2.7777
Fire Warrior:-----------------------2.7777
Pink Horrors of Tzeentch:-----2.6
Ranger:----------------------------2.5833
Necron Warrior:------------------2.5384
Dire Avengers:-------------------2.5384
Space Marine:--------------------2.4285
Necron Immortal:----------------2
Nurglings:-------------------------2
Windrider Jetbike:---------------2
Ripper Swarm Brood:----------1.9230

3.4042 is the average number of "statpoints" in the statline per 1 point of the cost of a model. This isn't a complete list so I am sure that this number isn't 100% accurate, and I did not factor in units that can be used as troops outside of their regular force-org slots.

The average statline based on this falls between the Storm Guardians/Kabalite Warriors and Daemonettes of Slaanesh. For the statline of a space marine to get close to the average "point cost per statpoint" listed it would need to total out at ~47 points (+13 from what it is now), that would increase the statline to something like (Ws:5 Bs:5 S:5 T:5 W:3 I:5 A:3 Ld:10 Sv:3+) if you were not going to improve the armor save beyond a 3+. Keep in mind that the statline I just posted is what it would take to be close to but not above the average at it's current points cost.

The only issue I personally see with Space Marines as they are now is a low number of wounds for the cost of the unit, if they had 2 wounds per model I believe they would be quite good, even a borderline exceptional troops choice.

This is the same problem I have with terminators at the moment, the point costs are very high, and because they have a low wound and model count they are very squishy, even if you use T5 3++ DA termies, as they just don't have the ability to shrug off a small number of unsaved wounds without losing bodies.

Interesting.

I fear though, that it ignores one important thing: some stats are far more important than others.

That why, for example, why Elves are so expensive in Blood Bowl - that agility stat counts for a lot. In the same way, I would suggest that toughness and save is worth a lot in 40K compared to, for example, leadership which is ignored by a plethora of fearless units. Likewise, strength isn't nearly as important to shooty units as it is to assault troops and initiative is quite important to assault troops whereas it's nearly worthless to shooty units.

I'm generalizing a lot, of course, but the point is that it's not as easy simply taking the average of a stat-line.

In addition, you also have to look at how the unit fits into the army at large and what equipment is available to it. A unit might, for example, have rubbish stats, but if it's the only unit in the army that has a particular weapon available to it, it would be worth more than it's stat-line would suggest.

OK, so if Tac Marines are so terribly overpriced, which troops are actually good value?

And if the answer is something with a 4+ or worse armour save, why are units which can kill them efficiently not considered great? Because nobody seems to think that a Leman Russ Eradicator is better than a Heldrake, despite killing Fire Warriors far more efficiently for it's cost.

Troops that have better firepower/pt and cost less in an absolute sense so that ion accelerators aren't blasting off triple digit chunks of your list. Sniper kroot come to mind.

@f2k, yes weighting some stats would be nice to do, problem is you would need a general consensus on just how much weight specific stats would need, and we all know how much fun getting people to agree on the internet is . Although I will say that the GW writers tend to weight the number of wounds and armor saves too highly.

@Perfect Organism, I would say they are very slightly overpriced. Even then I don't think it's the price of the model but that they have a mediocre gun and have lost a lot of resiliency that was needed for a low model count unit to work properly.

Don't think of them as overcosted, think of them as just too fragile to make use of the points, if that makes sense.

The word you are looking for is underpowered. Which is usually synonymous with overcosted, but maybe in this case, underpowered is more appropriate.

 Perfect Organism wrote:
OK, so if Tac Marines are so terribly overpriced, which troops are actually good value?

And if the answer is something with a 4+ or worse armour save, why are units which can kill them efficiently not considered great? Because nobody seems to think that a Leman Russ Eradicator is better than a Heldrake, despite killing Fire Warriors far more efficiently for it's cost.

It's basicly a catch 22. So many armies in 40k use 3+ armor saves as their basis. (of the top of my head, Space Marines, Chaos Marines. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, SoBs, Grey Knights to a degree) as a result people plan around the +3 armor save, thus a good unit is one that defeats it. but because people plan around a 3+, that armor score is considered "Average" and not exceptional.

Really I doubt that'll ever change barring a sudden nose dive in SM popularity. but for now and the forseeable future SMs are the most common foe because everyone has it. it's a good starter army and is 40ks most iconic army as well. I suspect if you did a poll most people started with Marines of some sort

Also realize any S6 gun with high ROF kills marines easily through the 6+ by ignoring the T4. Wound spam is crazy strong.

Because in 3rd they were equal to everyones elite choice and spacemarines were the strongest army so noone was buying anything else. So gw boosted every other army up to encourage people to buy them. Now even kabalite warriors have poisoned, guardians have rending, orks have (easy to obtain) ld 10, necrons and tau have insane guns and everyone else is half the points. That was one of the reasons i went to chaos as you have more variety for troops, with cultists and cult squads as well as tac marines that can be customised up the wazoo.

I haven't read all four pages, but Tactical Marines fail because they pay for their utterly terrible Close Combat ability (On the charge you're lucky to get 6 dead Guardsmen,) mediocre shooting, (Maybe 7 dead Guardsmen from a full volley,) and durability which means jack-all in this edition of mass Ap2/3. Their special weapons generally target different units than their boltguns, meaning you're wasting *someone's* firepower every time you bring one, and they will generally never use 2/3rds of what they pay for. T4 3+ means nothing against a huge number of weapons in this edition, making them hardly more durable than Ork Boys, Fire Warriors, or even Guardsmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

f2k wrote:

Ansel Darach wrote:
Some information I think some of you will find interesting.

Just for fun I compiled a list of the average units statline based on the total points available in it and the units cost.

These numbers are based on total sum of the statline divided by point cost. (I added the chance of a successful save against a wound instead of the actual armor save number, so a +3 save added 4 to the sum total and a - adds 0 for example, special rules were ignored)

Chaos Cultist:--------------------6.25
Termagant Brood:---------------6.25
Gretchin:---------------------------6
Hormagaunt Brood:------------5.4
IG Infantryman:-------------------5.2
IG Veteran:------------------------4.5
Kroot:-------------------------------4.3
Ork Boyz:--------------------------4.3
Storm Guardians:---------------3.4444
Kabalite Warriors:--------------3.4444
Daemonette of Slaanesh:----3.3333
Bloodletters of Khorne:--------3.1
Wyches:----------------------------3.1
Space Marine Scout:-----------2.9
Plaguebearer:-------------------2.7777
Fire Warrior:-----------------------2.7777
Pink Horrors of Tzeentch:-----2.6
Ranger:----------------------------2.5833
Necron Warrior:------------------2.5384
Dire Avengers:-------------------2.5384
Space Marine:--------------------2.4285
Necron Immortal:----------------2
Nurglings:-------------------------2
Windrider Jetbike:---------------2
Ripper Swarm Brood:----------1.9230

3.4042 is the average number of "statpoints" in the statline per 1 point of the cost of a model. This isn't a complete list so I am sure that this number isn't 100% accurate, and I did not factor in units that can be used as troops outside of their regular force-org slots.

The average statline based on this falls between the Storm Guardians/Kabalite Warriors and Daemonettes of Slaanesh. For the statline of a space marine to get close to the average "point cost per statpoint" listed it would need to total out at ~47 points (+13 from what it is now), that would increase the statline to something like (Ws:5 Bs:5 S:5 T:5 W:3 I:5 A:3 Ld:10 Sv:3+) if you were not going to improve the armor save beyond a 3+. Keep in mind that the statline I just posted is what it would take to be close to but not above the average at it's current points cost.

The only issue I personally see with Space Marines as they are now is a low number of wounds for the cost of the unit, if they had 2 wounds per model I believe they would be quite good, even a borderline exceptional troops choice.

This is the same problem I have with terminators at the moment, the point costs are very high, and because they have a low wound and model count they are very squishy, even if you use T5 3++ DA termies, as they just don't have the ability to shrug off a small number of unsaved wounds without losing bodies.

Interesting.

I fear though, that it ignores one important thing: some stats are far more important than others.

That why, for example, why Elves are so expensive in Blood Bowl - that agility stat counts for a lot. In the same way, I would suggest that toughness and save is worth a lot in 40K compared to, for example, leadership which is ignored by a plethora of fearless units. Likewise, strength isn't nearly as important to shooty units as it is to assault troops and initiative is quite important to assault troops whereas it's nearly worthless to shooty units.

I'm generalizing a lot, of course, but the point is that it's not as easy simply taking the average of a stat-line.

In addition, you also have to look at how the unit fits into the army at large and what equipment is available to it. A unit might, for example, have rubbish stats, but if it's the only unit in the army that has a particular weapon available to it, it would be worth more than it's stat-line would suggest.

Another problem is that while not all stats are equal, it's also true that not all stat *increases* are equal. Having 10 wounds doesn't matter on a T1 model, for example. The value of wounds goes up in relation to the model's toughness. Similarly, certain WS adjustments matter far less than others. Going from 8 to 9, for example, is huge against WS4 models. (See: over half the models in the game.) Going from 9 to 10, however, only matters against other WS 9/10 models. (Like half a dozen, tops.) In the same way, S9 is rarely better than S8 except with vehicles, but S10 is far better than S9.

My problem with Tactical Squads is that they don't have the tools to match their fluff or fulfill their tabletop roles, being less "jack of all trades" and more "master of none".

Problems in Melee
--Weaker enemies will obviously never charge them, barring denial or tarpitting, and tend to be shooting oriented
--No reliable and affordable way to close with weaker enemies without taking serious casualties
--Enemy dedicated CC units are not afraid of Tactical Squads

Since fixing their offensive melee problems is a much more complex goal to meet, give them Counter-Attack to buff their defensive CC abilities to workable levels. They still wont be a powerhouse, but doing a bit more damage and surviving a bit longer will help them actually fulfill the role of "competent at CC".

Problems with Shooting
--Boltgun damage output is unimpressive for the points cost
--Difficulty maximizing wargear usage

Buffing the boltgun isn't really an option since they are so widespread, so let's make sure they can actually make full use of their heavy weapon selection by giving them Split-Fire.

There is something to be said about their current level of versatility, but often it seems to come down to deciding to waste either my boltgun attacks or my heavy weapon attacks, with combat squads only somewhat mitigating these problems, as I still have 4 expensive boltguns keeping that heavy weapon company and playing bullet catcher

As the average game length is 6 turns, sacrificing 1/6 of my squads total damage potential to gain the minimal amount of versatility granted by the heavy weapon just doesn't cut it. I'm still paying for those boltgun attacks, even if i can't use them, and i'm still paying for that Lascannon or Plasma-Cannon, even if its only shooting at a gaunt.

This is compounded by the fact that the inherent cost for getting these weapons is often far higher for marines than for others. I can get 2 heavy weapon choices and 2 special weapon choices using guardsmen squads for about the same price as a full Tactical Squad, and while they are wielded by less effective models, I have more (and cheaper) shield wounds and more shots.

So far as making them more interesting to use, not that i want to further abuse CSM or DA, but I could see something along the lines of Marks or Banners for Tactical Marines based on the sergeants personal heraldry, probably as a one use item that does something like allow a second shot, grant pinning, or let Tactical Marines treat boltguns as assault weapons for a turn or something. The box already has this item in it for aesthetic purposes, so lets get some mechanics to go with it.

Grey Hunters are a good example of how Tactical Marines should be. I firmly insist that they are not overpowered. However, their versatility is massively boosted by the fact that they cause a reasonable amount of damage in Close Combat, can double down on Special Weapons, and have unique wargear options. Having 2 of the same special weapon vastly cuts down on target confusion, they are not utterly worthless in H2H, and their rules match their fluff rather nicely. They don't have as many build options as Tacticals, but the builds which they do have are more rounded and effective in-game.

A lot of these things seem to be basing the SM tac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.

Does anyone expect that they should be able to keep on par in a shooting war with an army that specializes in shooting and lacks CC ability almost entirely? I'd say expecting that is rather silly. Expecting tac marines to be able to match shooting with an IG platoon or a grip of Fire Warriors, while simultaneously also being able to massively outfight them, is somewhat silly.

Yes, a tac marine squad isn't putting out as much firepower as 2 kitted IG squads. That said, those IG squads are easier to break, easier to kill, and have a lot more trouble adapting to different targets and situations.

Much is made of Tac marines apparently meager CC abilities, yet generally dedicated CC units are typically required to defeat tac marines. Dire Avengers, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, Termagants, Sisters of Battle, Necron Warriors, DE Warriors, etc aren't going to win combat with Space Marines on equal terms. Such armies generally require either a killy HQ or CC specialist units to engage marines in CC with any degree of success.

As someone who plays CSM's, and who has enough stuff to run probably about 3k of loyalist marines, and as an IG player, I just don't see enough appreciation of the humble basic marine here.

For instance, when I'm playing an IG army and I see a tac squad, that unit is a threat to everything. No unit in my army is safe from a Tac squad. From my small 5man command squads to my heavy Leman Russ tanks, the tac squad can kill them all fairly effectively, even if not purpose fit to do so, it just has to get close. Even just a few marines surviving a hurricane of firepower can shove krak grenades into the AV10 rear of a Russ tank, wipe full strength heavy weapons units through assault, etc. Tac marines aren't a unit I ever see and think "oh I'm not worried about that".

Honestly, the big problem really isn't with tac squads, it's with the limited methods through which they can employ their versatility, with assault delivery being so punitive in this edition. In 5th edition, a tac squad split assaulting into a building held by 30 guardsmen was getting its full complement of attacks and likely clearing all 30, but in 6th this is a disordered charge and thus the Tac's have trouble with generating enough wounds to force sufficently punitive break tests. Additionally, transports add an extra turn to any assault operation, whereas in 5th at least if the transport didn't move (i.e. it got into position the turn before) the squad could still hop out and assault (and the transport was much more likely to survive).

That said, these problems aren't exactly unique to the Tac Squad either, ask any Eldar player how much use they're getting out of Howling Banshees this edition.

*With Craig Tucker's voice*: If my Chaos Space Marines could have the rules and points cost of Tactical Space Marines, I would be sooo happy.

 Vaktathi wrote:
A lot of these things seem to be basing the SM tac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.

Does anyone expect that they should be able to keep on par in a shooting war with an army that specializes in shooting and lacks CC ability almost entirely? I'd say expecting that is rather silly. Expecting tac marines to be able to match shooting with an IG platoon or a grip of Fire Warriors, while simultaneously also being able to massively outfight them, is somewhat silly.

Yes, a tac marine squad isn't putting out as much firepower as 2 kitted IG squads. That said, those IG squads are easier to break, easier to kill, and have a lot more trouble adapting to different targets and situations.

Much is made of Tac marines apparently meager CC abilities, yet generally dedicated CC units are typically required to defeat tac marines. Dire Avengers, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, Termagants, Sisters of Battle, Necron Warriors, DE Warriors, etc aren't going to win combat with Space Marines on equal terms. Such armies generally require either a killy HQ or CC specialist units to engage marines in CC with any degree of success.

As someone who plays CSM's, and who has enough stuff to run probably about 3k of loyalist marines, and as an IG player, I just don't see enough appreciation of the humble basic marine here.

For instance, when I'm playing an IG army and I see a tac squad, that unit is a threat to everything. No unit in my army is safe from a Tac squad. From my small 5man command squads to my heavy Leman Russ tanks, the tac squad can kill them all fairly effectively, even if not purpose fit to do so, it just has to get close. Even just a few marines surviving a hurricane of firepower can shove krak grenades into the AV10 rear of a Russ tank, wipe full strength heavy weapons units through assault, etc. Tac marines aren't a unit I ever see and think "oh I'm not worried about that".

Honestly, the big problem really isn't with tac squads, it's with the limited methods through which they can employ their versatility, with assault delivery being so punitive in this edition. In 5th edition, a tac squad split assaulting into a building held by 30 guardsmen was getting its full complement of attacks and likely clearing all 30, but in 6th this is a disordered charge and thus the Tac's have trouble with generating enough wounds to force sufficently punitive break tests. Additionally, transports add an extra turn to any assault operation, whereas in 5th at least if the transport didn't move (i.e. it got into position the turn before) the squad could still hop out and assault (and the transport was much more likely to survive).

That said, these problems aren't exactly unique to the Tac Squad either, ask any Eldar player how much use they're getting out of Howling Banshees this edition.

Howling Banshees aren't troops, and so just never see the light of day.

Even if they were troops they'd never see the light of day. Their problem isn't FoC related, it's that they have no reliable delivery method to engage the opponent. Likewise, Tac marines problem isn't that they're inherently bad, but don't have a functional method of utilizing their versatility for largely the same reasons.

Ansel Darach wrote:
Some information I think some of you will find interesting.

Just for fun I compiled a list of the average units statline based on the total points available in it and the units cost.

These numbers are based on total sum of the statline divided by point cost. (I added the chance of a successful save against a wound instead of the actual armor save number, so a +3 save added 4 to the sum total and a - adds 0 for example, special rules were ignored)

Chaos Cultist:--------------------6.25
Termagant Brood:---------------6.25
Gretchin:---------------------------6
Hormagaunt Brood:------------5.4
IG Infantryman:-------------------5.2
IG Veteran:------------------------4.5
Kroot:-------------------------------4.3
Ork Boyz:--------------------------4.3
Storm Guardians:---------------3.4444
Kabalite Warriors:--------------3.4444
Daemonette of Slaanesh:----3.3333
Bloodletters of Khorne:--------3.1
Wyches:----------------------------3.1
Space Marine Scout:-----------2.9
Plaguebearer:-------------------2.7777
Fire Warrior:-----------------------2.7777
Pink Horrors of Tzeentch:-----2.6
Ranger:----------------------------2.5833
Necron Warrior:------------------2.5384
Dire Avengers:-------------------2.5384
Space Marine:--------------------2.4285
Necron Immortal:----------------2
Nurglings:-------------------------2
Windrider Jetbike:---------------2
Ripper Swarm Brood:----------1.9230

3.4042 is the average number of "statpoints" in the statline per 1 point of the cost of a model. This isn't a complete list so I am sure that this number isn't 100% accurate, and I did not factor in units that can be used as troops outside of their regular force-org slots.

The average statline based on this falls between the Storm Guardians/Kabalite Warriors and Daemonettes of Slaanesh. For the statline of a space marine to get close to the average "point cost per statpoint" listed it would need to total out at ~47 points (+13 from what it is now), that would increase the statline to something like (Ws:5 Bs:5 S:5 T:5 W:3 I:5 A:3 Ld:10 Sv:3+) if you were not going to improve the armor save beyond a 3+. Keep in mind that the statline I just posted is what it would take to be close to but not above the average at it's current points cost.

The only issue I personally see with Space Marines as they are now is a low number of wounds for the cost of the unit, if they had 2 wounds per model I believe they would be quite good, even a borderline exceptional troops choice.

This is the same problem I have with terminators at the moment, the point costs are very high, and because they have a low wound and model count they are very squishy, even if you use T5 3++ DA termies, as they just don't have the ability to shrug off a small number of unsaved wounds without losing bodies.

It also ignores the weapon that the troop has (range, strength and ap are all pretty important) and special rules are also very important and need to be quantified if you want your chart to be an accurate depiction of which troop is best. The most glaring example that I can see is the difference between immortals and grots. Immortals being arguably one of the best troops in the game and grots being middle of the road. That is of course we are ignoring transport options that I assume that we have established we should. Immortals reanimation protocols is way better than the grots ability to clear minefields. Very rarely have I seen anyone use minefields, Actually I have never seen anyone use minefields ever... None of you have and don't lie about it. Also think about the weapons that they use. The immortals have double the range, almost double the shots (no matter which weapon that they take) 2 points more in strength and an average of 2 more points of ap. In reality Grots belong in the middle of the pack and immortals somewhere tword the top of the list but this chart has immortals on the bottom and grots way up on top. If you can somehow quantify special rules and the weapons that they use I Think that you may have a workable quantification of what a unit is "Worth" and perhaps a way to balance the game all together.

they arent and they are they are good at holding objectives but they are too versatile so to speak if you give them a rocket launcher?lascannon they cant fire and move and only one marine in the squad can take it its better to take a dev squad kitted the way you want or take smaller more specialized squads.

 Vaktathi wrote:
A lot of these things seem to be basing the SM tac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.

Does anyone expect that they should be able to keep on par in a shooting war with an army that specializes in shooting and lacks CC ability almost entirely?

No, people expect a decent, usable unit with a plug in for a role that is feasible. Firewarriors are excellent because they effectively hold objectives and pump out fire, whilst not having to worry about melee 90% of the time because of the bull that is Supporting Fire and the fact that melee units generally never reach the Tau anyway.

I'd say expecting that is rather silly. Expecting tac marines to be able to match shooting with an IG platoon or a grip of Fire Warriors, while simultaneously also being able to massively outfight them, is somewhat silly.

As above. An IG Platoon can take 6 freaking special weapons in slots, at the barebones level at 130. A Tactical Squad can get maximum 1.5 specials from a squad SW and a combi-weapon. Similar logic applies on Heavy Weapons. 1 For Tacs, 4 slots for the platoon at base. So IG Platoons can actually get decent supporting fire to tackle a specific threat - several meltaguns/autocannons/lascannons for tank hunting/mc hunting, for example.

Plus, they get a transport that doesn't suck, can feasibly objective sit efficiently, and can run across the board feasibly.

An IG platoon is made to get mullered by pie plates. A Tactical Squad gets invalidated by AP3+ pie plates. The only difference between a Battle Cannon shot hitting an IG blob and a Tactical Squad is that the former will lose far less points and effectiveness once the dust clears.

Yes, a tac marine squad isn't putting out as much firepower as 2 kitted IG squads. That said, those IG squads are easier to break,

Yet for an insanely low cost can buy fearless/LD10/LD9. The IG can easily mitigate leadership issues.

easier to kill,

The only real thing that separates them in the competitive meta is toughness against small arms and against infantry. I would take 30 Guardsmen with their LD buffer in CC over a reasonably kitted out Tactical Squad anyday of the week.

As above, many of the dedicated infantry killers most often are no better at killing Guardsmen than Marines, especially once cover comes in to play.

and have a lot more trouble adapting to different targets and situations.

This isn't true. A Tactical Squad is basically screwed if an MEQ killer vehicle/shooting unit they can't reach/feasibly damage gets in optimum range. At best, for AT, they have a melta/combi-melta and a multi-melta, if your opponent is a complete twit and rushed within 6'' of you. Against MC's and heavy infantry you may as well remove the entire unit. Enemy defences too strong for a direct attack? Too bad.

Meanwhile, an IG platoon has the bodies to absorb guns of similar killing power, they can take multiple meltaguns and AT heavy weapons, and their Codex inherently has great long ranged AT, while against MC's you can get Krak Grenades on every man, melta bombs on several Sergeants, and if they're T6 with a Priest's re-rolls to hit and wound you don't even really need any of these - if nothing else, they will tarpit the MC for a long, long time with fearless/LD9/LD10 stubborn.

Where a Marine mechanised assault would be screwed, an IG mechanised assault can still prosper by using Leman Russes as cover, or if non-mechanised infantry, you can move on foot very fast with MMM! issued every turn.

Much is made of Tac marines apparently meager CC abilities, yet generally dedicated CC units are typically required to defeat tac marines. Dire Avengers, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, Termagants, Sisters of Battle, Necron Warriors, DE Warriors, etc aren't going to win combat with Space Marines on equal terms.

Except you will never fight any of these in CC unless your opponent is incompetent or has made a mistake. The only exception here is Necron Warriors.

Because they'll either tarpit you into the ground, or beat you in CC regardless. With reanimation protocols they're harder to kill than Marines, and they hit just as hard back.

And the fact is, its not just dedicated CC units. Its any unit with above average melee ability by this point.

Such armies generally require either a killy HQ or CC specialist units to engage marines in CC with any degree of success.

Those armies just shoot them to death instead and never let the Marines get close unless luck rues their day.

As someone who plays CSM's, and who has enough stuff to run probably about 3k of loyalist marines, and as an IG player, I just don't see enough appreciation of the humble basic marine here.

"Humble" here sucks. People want raw effectiveness, none of which Tacticals have. There's nothing to truly, greatly appreciate when building a competitive list.

For instance, when I'm playing an IG army and I see a tac squad, that unit is a threat to everything. No unit in my army is safe from a Tac squad.

Do you drive your Leman Russes full throttle at the Tactical Squad to give the poor guy a fighting chance? Because my Russes generally pie plate Tactical Squads into oblivion, once I've decimated the transports all of them are in with laughable ease.

A Tactical Squad will get ripped to pieces by a 30-50 man IG platoon, or will at least face serious trouble. Against a Veteran Squad you can reduce their effectiveness to nothing in a single volley.

From my small 5man command squads to my heavy Leman Russ tanks, the tac squad can kill them all fairly effectively,

As above.

even if not purpose fit to do so, it just has to get close.

If this happens, you've made a massive mistake.

Even just a few marines surviving a hurricane of firepower can shove krak grenades into the AV10 rear of a Russ tank,

One pie plate can severely reduce the already garbage effectiveness of a Tactical Squad, and from half the board away.

wipe full strength heavy weapons units through assault,

This is kind of expected for anything, though, isn't it?

etc. Tac marines aren't a unit I ever see and think "oh I'm not worried about that".

On the contrary....

Honestly, the big problem really isn't with tac squads, it's with the limited methods through which they can employ their versatility, with assault delivery being so punitive in this edition.

I agree fully.

In 5th edition, a tac squad split assaulting into a building held by 30 guardsmen was getting its full complement of attacks and likely clearing all 30, but in 6th this is a disordered charge and thus the Tac's have trouble with generating enough wounds to force sufficently punitive break tests. Additionally, transports add an extra turn to any assault operation, whereas in 5th at least if the transport didn't move (i.e. it got into position the turn before) the squad could still hop out and assault (and the transport was much more likely to survive).

That said, these problems aren't exactly unique to the Tac Squad either, ask any Eldar player how much use they're getting out of Howling Banshees this edition.

The big problem is that the Eldar are getting great mileage out of those shooty units.

 Ailaros wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Ailaros wrote:You see that, though? You just had to compare it to three different units to make that statement. That's what versatility is about. It can't do krak grenades as cheaply as guard, but they do everything else better than guard. They don't score as cheaply as termagaunts, but they do everything else better. They don't shoot bolters as well, but do everything else better.

...yes, what you are calling a strength I am calling a weakness.

So a unit can do one thing better than another. Does that make the other unit bad? Are dire avengers bad because they're not good against vehicles? Are firewarriors bad because there is something else in the game that's better in close combat?

Of course not. That's just silly. If it's not an uber god of death that beats everything else it's not worth it? Pish tosh.

And that's really the point. Tervigons score cheaper, firewarriors bolter better, and guard krak grenade more cheaply, but until you show me a single unit that does all three of them better than marines, then the fact that some things are better at certain things than others doesn't make tac marines bad.

It all comes down to the cost of them. You conveniently left of the next sentence in your quote. "Being able to do everything AND paying the points for being able to do everything is not an advantage."

If you took a hypothetical unit that did everything ever other infantry troop model in the game could do better than they could do it but they cost 100pts each, they would suck.

Being able to do everything only counts for anything when doing so allows you to do better than a similarly costed amount of troops from other armies.

Because units pay the points for their abilities, I almost always prefer units that are specialist and cheaper thus performing the task I want with more bodies or fewer points and allowing a more significant amount of points spent on the other parts of my army, the parts that CAN actually kill a lot of troops and be more imposing.

You might have missed the part where I said I like GH... because they have a much more favourable points balance for their abilities. They only pay 1pt more to be much more effective in CC and the fact they can take 2 special weapons makes them more specialised.

Comparing them directly against other armies' troop options, Tactical Marines are better than average in their point-for-point value.

The problem lies in the context of 40k as a whole right now. In the non-troop, non-infantry spots, the most prevalent armies can bring an overwhelming amount of firepower that kills 10 Tacs almost as easily as 10 Gretchin. At that point, the optimal strategy changes to one where people want to spend most of their points on things that have the most efficient killing power while the troops are literally just place-holders for their most important function: scoring. And since a 4 point troop model scores just as effectively as a 13 point one, it is clearly superior in that role.

An illustrative theoretical, in-a-vacuum example: 220 points of Tactical Marines could stomp 220 points of Chaos Cultists. However, they in turn will get stomped by 50 points of Cultists and a Baledrake. It's having access to cheaper per-model troops that allow you to maximise your killing power in other areas.

 TutorialBoss wrote:
Comparing them directly against other armies' troop options, Tactical Marines are better than average in their point-for-point value.

The problem lies in the context of 40k as a whole right now. In the non-troop, non-infantry spots, the most prevalent armies can bring an overwhelming amount of firepower that kills 10 Tacs almost as easily as 10 Gretchin. At that point, the optimal strategy changes to one where people want to spend most of their points on things that have the most efficient killing power while the troops are literally just place-holders for their most important function: scoring. And since a 4 point troop model scores just as effectively as a 13 point one, it is clearly superior in that role.

An illustrative theoretical, in-a-vacuum example: 220 points of Tactical Marines could stomp 220 points of Chaos Cultists. However, they in turn will get stomped by 50 points of Cultists and a Baledrake. It's having access to cheaper per-model troops that allow you to maximise your killing power in other areas.

I can mostly agree with this. It's a different phrasing of my complaint that tac marines don't influence the game enough for their cost.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
stuff

Please just use the normal quote functionality, it can't be more effort than color coding everything.

No, people expect a decent, usable unit with a plug in for a role that is feasible. Firewarriors are excellent because they effectively hold objectives and pump out fire

They don't hold objectives with any degree of amazingness, they're T3 4+sv Ld8 units. Yes they pump out fire. However they're T3 4+sv Ld8 (meaning they're relatively easy to shift off objectives) and can't do squat to most vehicles and are relatively ineffective against most Monstrous Creatures.

whilst not having to worry about melee 90% of the time because of the bull that is Supporting Fire

Well, yes, supporting fire is rather silly, but that's not a Fire Warrior or Tac Squad specific thing, that's applies to all Tau units and many other armies have to deal with that as well.

and the fact that melee units generally never reach the Tau anyway.

There's all sorts of units that won't have a problem closing the range, the bigger issue for Tac squads is that they have to spend a turn sitting there after hopping out of a transport no matter what. Drop Pods usually work rather well, as even though they have the same problem, positioning is far easier and you can't shoot a pod from across the board before it gets to where it wants to be.

As above. An IG Platoon can take 6 freaking special weapons in slots, at the barebones level at 130.

And it's not going to cost 130pts either at that point, it's going to be 160 minimum with flamers or grenade launchers, 190 with meltaguns, or 220 with plasma guns. Most of those are also concentrated on a 5 man T3 5+sv Ld8 unit. Kill/break that and they're down to 2 special weapons. The rest of the guns however are S3 nerf guns. Meanwhile the SM's kill guardsmen with their basic gun at the same rate 2 guardsmen with meltaguns kill Marines. Actually the bolters are slightly more effective than that. And each guardsmen with a Meltagun is 15pts.

Regardless, that's nothing new, they've been able to take that many guns in a barebones platoon since at least 3rd edition if not 2nd. Why is this suddenly an issue?

Tactical Squad can get maximum 1.5 specials from a squad SW and a combi-weapon.

Yes, however, as above, the SM's basic weaponry is notably more effective and each gun the SM's have is more capable.

Similar logic applies on Heavy Weapons. 1 For Tacs, 4 slots for the platoon at base.

3 slots, the command squad cannot take 2 heavy weapons, and they're all at a less capable ballistic skill.

So IG Platoons can actually get decent supporting fire to tackle a specific threat - several meltaguns/autocannons/lascannons for tank hunting/mc hunting, for example.

Yes, and that's largely the entirety of their value of those units, the guns. If you want as many guns as the IG...play IG? SM's have never been about achieving firepower parity with the shootiest army in the game. That would be absurd.

Plus, they get a transport that doesn't suck, can feasibly objective sit efficiently, and can run across the board feasibly.

SM's have an APC, it's a cheap box to get Supersoldiers from point A to point B so they can do their Supersoldier thing. Guardsmen have an IFV, to shelter and support weeny infantry. The SM transport has better side armor and has side hatch, the IG transport must put its one good armor facing away from the enemy to get the maximum disembark distance and has worse side armor. Different tools for different purposes.

An IG platoon is made to get mullered by pie plates. A Tactical Squad gets invalidated by AP3+ pie plates.

Meanwhile a flamer is going to utterly screw an IG squad while doing nothing to the SM's. Some weapons will naturally be more effective. Use the right tool for the job. AP3 pieplates are also generally the realm of heavy support battletanks (Fire Prism, Leman Russ, etc) so you're usually not facing a wall of them.

That said, there's also a huge number of ways to mitigate battlecannon fire. I stopped running normal Russ's in most games for precisly because they're so easy to mitigate. A modicum of spread and any amount of cover drastically reduces the effectiveness of a battlecannon. Unless you catch a clumped up squad in the open with a hit, a battle cannon is probably only killing 2-3 marines. They're great psychological threats, but not as capable as many fear them to be. Landing shot on a unit of moderately spread marines in 5+ cover, say it hits 5, between wounding on 2's and 5+ cover, that fearsome pieplate might kill 3 guys.

Yet for an insanely low cost can buy fearless/LD10/LD9. The IG can easily mitigate leadership issues.

They can take Commissars at 25pts per unit...on 50-60pt units. That's..not particularly cheap. They can take Lord Commissars for a minimum price nearly that of two rhinos and give a Regimental Standard to a CCS, but neither of those units are particularly hardy. A command squad can be targeted separately and destroyed on its own, while an LC's Ld radius is very limited forcing large numbers of units to cluster up, making them great targets for blasts and templates and giving you greater board control as those units basically can't move to respond to changing board situations very well. Meanwhile there isn't really too many terribly viable Ld boosters for Mechanized IG forces.

The only super cheap Ld booster, especially one that can't be relatively easily removed, is a Commissar for a conscript squad or a Combined Infantry Squad.

The only real thing that separates them in the competitive meta is toughness against small arms and against infantry. I would take 30 Guardsmen with their LD buffer in CC over a reasonably kitted out Tactical Squad anyday of the week.

That all depends on what you're throwing at them. If we're talking about a pitched heavy weapons battle, well surprise surprise, the army specializing in attritional pitched battles is going to win (until it has to start taking Ld tests or suffer a tankshock or whatnot, if we're assuming it has Ld reinforcement then the cost of the Ld reinforcement will need to be factored in and it's not going to be cheaper than the tac squad). If we're talking about an objective in the open (often happens) at close range, or one that has to be *taken*? That's a different story.

As above, many of the dedicated infantry killers most often are no better at killing Guardsmen than Marines, especially once cover comes in to play.

For some weapons in some cases this is true. But in most it isn't, and most of those are a whole lot cheaper than ones that are good at killing marines. Marines have a whole lot less cover save ignoring weaponry to fear, and there are no commonly available secondary weapons systems for tanks which do so, unlike say, Heavy Flamers that are available on each and every IG tank, or Smart Missile Systems available on anything Tau with an AV value plus their big scary robot guys (yeah we're twin linked, wound you on 2's, ignore your armor and cover, oh and we don't need line of sight).

This isn't true. A Tactical Squad is basically screwed if an MEQ killer vehicle/shooting unit they can't reach/feasibly damage gets in optimum range.

Surprise, if a unit designed to kill them gets in optimal range, they die. How's this different than anything else in the game?

At best, for AT, they have a melta/combi-melta and a multi-melta,

the option to take a missile launcher or lascannon no longer exists? They have no krak grenades anymore?

if your opponent is a complete twit and rushed within 6'' of you.

Marines don't have ways of getting themselves within 6" of enemy units?

Against MC's and heavy infantry you may as well remove the entire unit.

They can't take powerfists anymore? I've seen many an MC taken down by a powerfist. Now, the unit isn't always in great shape after that, but they're certainly not defenseless. A marine unit should on average kill something like a Carnifex in two rounds between a powerfist and their grenades. One will also note that the MC's that are best at engaging Marines are usually the ones that cost a ton of points and can't offer much besides marine killing and tank smashing, many of which also basically have to slog into CC on foot. For instance, yeah, an Eldar Avatar is *real* rough on a unit of Marines in CC, but he's also not good at really anything else but that and has to footslog his way there.

Enemy defences too strong for a direct attack? Too bad.

Again, how's that different than for any other unit in the game?

Meanwhile, an IG platoon has the bodies to absorb guns of similar killing power, they can take multiple meltaguns and AT heavy weapons, and their Codex inherently has great long ranged AT, while against MC's you can get Krak Grenades on every man, melta bombs on several Sergeants, and if they're T6 with a Priest's re-rolls to hit and wound you don't even really need any of these - if nothing else, they will tarpit the MC for a long, long time with fearless/LD9/LD10 stubborn.

And how much is this platoon costing at this point? That certainly looks nothing like anything that might be made to resemble "cheap".

Lets use the previous example of 30 dudes, so 150pts. Now kraks and meltas, that's 185. Meltaguns and Lascannons? 275. Commissar for Ld9 and pseudo-fearless? 300. Priest? 325.

Meanwhile, 10man tac squad with a fist, Lascannon, and Meltagun? 205pts.

Lets not even get into potential transport costs.

Now, the Marine unit is 47% cheaper. It's also wasting a whole lot less when in CC.

Where a Marine mechanised assault would be screwed, an IG mechanised assault can still prosper by using Leman Russes as cover

Can you not do the same by taking Predators and Land Raiders? Besides, normally the IG are going to do the opposite, the LR tanks are going to sit behind the transports (especially as they're Heavy and can only move 6", a serious slowdown for a mechanized advance) and provide fire support while the Chimeras advance, much the way most marine mechanized assaults work.

or if non-mechanised infantry, you can move on foot very fast with MMM! issued every turn.

This requires having an officer within 12", not having anything better to do with that order, and passing the order. None of which are necessarily guaranteed. You can make it very reliable with a Commissar and a Vox, but that's another 30pts to a 5ppm unit.

Except you will never fight any of these in CC unless your opponent is incompetent or has made a mistake.

Marines are completely immobile? They can't possibly ever close range? You can't engineer bad things to happen to your opponent? Objectives are always placed in hideously defensible places in cover and in the opponents deployment zone?

The only exception here is Necron Warriors.

Because they'll either tarpit you into the ground, or beat you in CC regardless. With reanimation protocols they're harder to kill than Marines, and they hit just as hard back.

They hit back only after taking casualties into account, and guys getting back up don't count towards break tests, and don't get to swing until your marines get another chance to put them back down again. Unless you're facing a huge horde of them or they've got a character in there, the marines should take them in a couple of rounds of CC.

And the fact is, its not just dedicated CC units. Its any unit with above average melee ability by this point.

What are we defining as "average"? Would it happen to be something like, oh, say, a statline of 4's?

Those armies just shoot them to death instead and never let the Marines get close unless luck rues their day.

Marines have more than enough capabilities between their numerous deployment methods and psychic abilities and other capabilities to create their own luck. At this point you're making it sound like Marine armies are mewling babes of ineptness, that simply cannot win a game on any terms unless through some stroke of extreme luck. This is not remotely true.

"Humble" here sucks. People want raw effectiveness, none of which Tacticals have. There's nothing to truly, greatly appreciate when building a competitive list.

They're supposed to be generalists. They've always been generalists. They always will beneralists. On their own, they put out more shooting hurt than most other units (in an absolute sense if not always a relative sense) and put out more CC hurt than most similar units (again, in an absolute sense if not always in a relative sense).

And I'd trade my Tempestus Scions' stats and AP3 guns for Marine guns and stats any day of the week at the drop of a hat, especially given their near-parity in points.

Do you drive your Leman Russes full throttle at the Tactical Squad to give the poor guy a fighting chance? Because my Russes generally pie plate Tactical Squads into oblivion

Do they just walk around clumped up in the open or something? Mine usually only kill 2-3 a turn if they're lucky. If I manage to land that very rare shot on the clumped up disembarked unit in the open, that's always fun as they all get scraped off the board, but I can remember the numbers of times I've gotten to do that on two hands over multiple editions of this game. Most of the time the opponent spreads them out, can get some sort of cover save, so that even if I manage to hit 5 or 6 (or more usually 2-4) I'm probably not killing more than 3, and that's assuming the scatter doesn't completely whiff.

once I've decimated the transports all of them are in with laughable ease.

The transports are pretty easy to kill, but so are Chimeras, and so is basically anything that's not a heavy tank or a "we always have a 4+ save" medium armored skimmer in 6E.

A Tactical Squad will get ripped to pieces by a 30-50 man IG platoon, or will at least face serious trouble.

For the price of such a platoon, I would hope so. A 50 man platoon, before *any* upgrades, costs more than a kitted tac squad and transport. A kitted 30man platoon? As above, easily more than 300pts.

Against a Veteran Squad you can reduce their effectiveness to nothing in a single volley.

And a half squad of marines unloading bolters at such a squad would do much the same back for roughly the same price.

If this happens, you've made a massive mistake.

Not necessarily, the squad may have podded in, taken out something with meltas on entry, lost 4 or 5 dudes the turn after, and now it can hit a tank or two with grenades in an assault on its own turn.

One pie plate can severely reduce the already garbage effectiveness of a Tactical Squad, and from half the board away.

Yes, and that's why it costs as much as that tac squad. It's also not exactly the most reliable of weapons as it scatters about and the unit spreads itself out. Meanwhile the tank can't score or contest objectives, can't move more than 6" a turn, has nothing to do in the CC phase of the game but get hit and die, and has no way to get about the board more effectively or any alternate deployment options.

This is kind of expected for anything, though, isn't it?

For some things, but not for others. I wouldn't necessarily trust a remnant group of Necron warriors to finish the job for example.

I agree fully.

CONCENSUS!!!!

The big problem is that the Eldar are getting great mileage out of those shooty units.

They've got some super busted stuff, but problems with Eldar are not unique to SM's, they apply pretty equally to most armies. Performance against Eldar heavy weapons is not a good metric by which to judge Tac marines.

Vaktathi wrote:A lot of these things seem to be basing the SM tac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.

Exactly.

Which is strange, because you should always look at it the other way around. The strength of versatility is precisely that you can always pivot on your opponent's weaknesses, not fall prey to your opponent's strengths. To anyone who can't tell the difference, of course they're going to look bad.

Sure, some strengths are a bit harder to gain leverage out of than others, but just imagine how much more difficult it is for those armies that have those things as weaknesses.

 Ailaros wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:A lot of these things seem to be basing the SM tac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.

Exactly.

Which is strange, because you should always look at it the other way around. The strength of versatility is precisely that you can always pivot on your opponent's weaknesses, not fall prey to your opponent's strengths. To anyone who can't tell the difference, of course they're going to look bad.

Sure, some strengths are a bit harder to gain leverage out of than others, but just imagine how much more difficult it is for those armies that have those things as weaknesses.

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?

 TutorialBoss wrote:
Comparing them directly against other armies' troop options, Tactical Marines are better than average in their point-for-point value.

The problem lies in the context of 40k as a whole right now. In the non-troop, non-infantry spots, the most prevalent armies can bring an overwhelming amount of firepower that kills 10 Tacs almost as easily as 10 Gretchin. At that point, the optimal strategy changes to one where people want to spend most of their points on things that have the most efficient killing power while the troops are literally just place-holders for their most important function: scoring. And since a 4 point troop model scores just as effectively as a 13 point one, it is clearly superior in that role.

An illustrative theoretical, in-a-vacuum example: 220 points of Tactical Marines could stomp 220 points of Chaos Cultists. However, they in turn will get stomped by 50 points of Cultists and a Baledrake. It's having access to cheaper per-model troops that allow you to maximise your killing power in other areas.

I definitely think that's largely true. For the most part, you just want troops that occupy a space on the battlefield. That's largely their job.

But beyond that, I think tactical marines more than other troops aren't even worth taking in large numbers. A lot of armies (not saying all) it is an effective tactic to just spam troops and then take a couple of support units for them. Space Marines, I just feel that spamming Tactical Squads will get you no where unless you can actually use everything they are capable of doing, spamming them is just going to result in you being overwhelmed by shooting against a shooty army and overwhelmed in combat against a combat army.

I think the exception is Grey Hunters, because they genuinely can fight in CC quite well. Maybe not as well as a dedicated CC army, but well enough that their shooting can weaken a CC army enough to not be overwhelmed like Tactical marines will be and against shooty armies they are good enough in CC to genuinely have the option of drop podding in to close range and trying to get in to combat to counter the shooting (though 6th has made this less viable).

 Ailaros wrote:

Vaktathi wrote:A lot of these things seem to be basing the SM tac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.

Exactly.

Which is strange, because you should always look at it the other way around. The strength of versatility is precisely that you can always pivot on your opponent's weaknesses, not fall prey to your opponent's strengths. To anyone who can't tell the difference, of course they're going to look bad.

Sure, some strengths are a bit harder to gain leverage out of than others, but just imagine how much more difficult it is for those armies that have those things as weaknesses.

But...

Tacticals can't choose to use that versatility if they get shot to bits.

Facing Tau? No problem, just assault! Uhhhh... How do you get there?

Facing a slugga boyz horde? Unless you have tailored with something like a flamer + combiflamer (Which takes the whole versatility thing out the window) they will nom your tacticals.

Versatility is useless if you can't actually make good use of it.

And tacticals can't, since it is really easy for other races to cover whatever weakness tacticals desperately would need to exploit in order to justify their price.

So, what with assault (what assault?) being dead, and shooting getting ramped (S6/7/8), the humble TAC marine is dead? Damn, I was just getting some use out of mine.

I am getting some use of my tactical Chaos Marines as well.

But everything works in a casual environment, even mutilators. It should be obvious that a casual environment is not what is being discussed for this very reason.

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).

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.