Martel732 wrote: I said AGAINST tactical marines. Marine players who use a lot of them are usually much easier to beat than biker lists. I personally don't want anything to do with them, but scouts aren't really any better for the points.
A single lascannon does squat in 6th ed. A single special weapon does squat. That's why tacs are bad. And imperial weapons are kinda crappy to begin with. That doesn't help in this whole mess. If tac marines could get scatter lasers, or poison DE weapons, that would be something.
" And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?"
If you don't know the answer to this, then I suspect that may be why you think tacs are "solid". Or did the other guy say that?
...
I don't like these kind of arguments because eventually i just leads back to "BUT TAUDAR CAN..." or "BUT BIKE LISTS CAN..." ultimately how good Tac marines are depend entirely on your own play style and not how many units it has the potential to kill. Also I've done more than just fight Battlewagons and Nob bikers with Tac marines, I've played against tac marines with Nob bikers and Battlewagons. It's all really just a matter of play style not what it is compared to X and how it isn't as good as Y.
Play style doesn't alter the math behind shooting phases. You don't like it when someone compares a unit that can do something (bikers) to the unit that I'm asserting really can't do anything (tacticals)?
Everything in this game is a comparison. Looking at a unit in a vacuum is useless because it is always up against something else on the board. If your play style does not involve minimizing the fire you take from the enemy by killing the enemy, I'm not sure what to say.
"No a single Las-Cannon will not do alot, but 2 Plasma Gun Shots, 2 Combi-Plasma Shots and a Plasma Cannon will for a Tactical Squad. "
How is your tactical squad getting this many weapons?
I'm mostly just annoyed with the constant stream of "TAC MARINES SUCK BECAUSE (insert unrelated unit here)".
Does it change the math? Of course not but if the game was all just math than what fun would that be.
In all honesty I hate bikes and have trouble with doing anything remotely useful with them. Tac marines may not be as "good" but at least I'll enjoy playing with them/
Ok, I have been playing Space Marines since 1989. That has nothing to do with it.
You are not going to convince those of us who have been using Tactical Squads for Decades that they can’t do their job. I also build my list around the Tactical Squads.
First I take one scoring unit per 500 point of the game. This is usually 3 Tactical Squads [Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma Cannon] and a Sternguard Squad [Plasma Guns and Combi-Plasmas] with Pedro [in the Storm Raven] giving me my 4 Scoring units. Then I add some Fast Attack usually 3 Land Speeders [HB Typhoons]. For my Heavy it is usually a Storm Raven and Devastators [4x Plasma Cannons]. My second HQ is usually a Libby. Then with whatever points I have leftover I buy thing like fortifications or Dreads.
The Tactical Squads are sitting on or near the objectives on my side usually supporting the Devastators. Pedro and his Sternguard then go after the objective on the far side of the board. I also have a 2 in six chance to have a second Scoring unit. The Speeders act as long range fire support or as late game Objective stealers if I get the right Mission.
They all work as a team. My Tactical Squads are being used for their job, Holding Objectives. My Sternguard are doing there job, Taking and holding an Objective or making an Assassination. The Speeders/Devastators are doing their Job, taking down threats that might threaten my Tactical Squads and Devastators at range. The Storm Raven job is three fold, taking the Sternguard to the Objective, Fire Support or Anti-Flyer.
It is about Synergy. Each unit has a job and most can do a second job. My Tactical Squads can do light Anti-Armor/MC Work or if I need to claim a mid field objective. The only thing my Devastators can’t do is Anti-Aircraft, but a Quad Gun can do that and usually I have a Tactical Squad in the ADL if I need that.
If my Tactical Squad spends the whole game and never fires a shot, but was sitting on an objective, it did it’s job because that one VP might just win the game even though it did nothing but take up space and I have won many a game that way].
If it sat there and just absorbed fire from 3 different units for 2 turns, it did it’s job because those three units were not attacking other units, I am good with that.
If that 30 model Ork mob slams into my Tactical Squad and it take 3 turns for the fight to end, even if I loose I usually have taken the Ork Mob down to 5-6 models making it an easy kill for some else, it did it’s job. That Ork Mob is now ineffective and it took it out of the fight for 3 turns.
Yes this is 6th Edition, it is usually about taking objectives not how many models you kill.
Tac marines have no rules that benefit other units. There is no "synergy". Tac marines score and do precious little else. If I want something to just camp objectives, I'd use something much cheaper if I could.
What you said about 6th was true before Tau/Eldar. You won't live to the end of the if you don't significantly diminish their capabilities.
Given the list outline you gave me, I don't consider that a very strong list at all. In my experiences, your list would not make it to the end of a game. Not enough capability to diminish enemy capability.
Anpu42 wrote: Ok, I have been playing Space Marines since 1989. That has nothing to do with it.
You are not going to convince those of us who have been using Tactical Squads for Decades that they can’t do their job. I also build my list around the Tactical Squads.
First I take one scoring unit per 500 point of the game. This is usually 3 Tactical Squads [Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma Cannon] and a Sternguard Squad [Plasma Guns and Combi-Plasmas] with Pedro [in the Storm Raven] giving me my 4 Scoring units. Then I add some Fast Attack usually 3 Land Speeders [HB Typhoons]. For my Heavy it is usually a Storm Raven and Devastators [4x Plasma Cannons]. My second HQ is usually a Libby. Then with whatever points I have leftover I buy thing like fortifications or Dreads.
The Tactical Squads are sitting on or near the objectives on my side usually supporting the Devastators. Pedro and his Sternguard then go after the objective on the far side of the board. I also have a 2 in six chance to have a second Scoring unit. The Speeders act as long range fire support or as late game Objective stealers if I get the right Mission.
They all work as a team. My Tactical Squads are being used for their job, Holding Objectives. My Sternguard are doing there job, Taking and holding an Objective or making an Assassination. The Speeders/Devastators are doing their Job, taking down threats that might threaten my Tactical Squads and Devastators at range. The Storm Raven job is three fold, taking the Sternguard to the Objective, Fire Support or Anti-Flyer.
It is about Synergy. Each unit has a job and most can do a second job. My Tactical Squads can do light Anti-Armor/MC Work or if I need to claim a mid field objective. The only thing my Devastators can’t do is Anti-Aircraft, but a Quad Gun can do that and usually I have a Tactical Squad in the ADL if I need that.
If my Tactical Squad spends the whole game and never fires a shot, but was sitting on an objective, it did it’s job because that one VP might just win the game even though it did nothing but take up space and I have won many a game that way].
If it sat there and just absorbed fire from 3 different units for 2 turns, it did it’s job because those three units were not attacking other units, I am good with that.
If that 30 model Ork mob slams into my Tactical Squad and it take 3 turns for the fight to end, even if I loose I usually have taken the Ork Mob down to 5-6 models making it an easy kill for some else, it did it’s job. That Ork Mob is now ineffective and it took it out of the fight for 3 turns.
Yes this is 6th Edition, it is usually about taking objectives not how many models you kill.
I run 3 tac squads 2 in Rhino and 1 in Stormraven. It works quite well.
Martel732 wrote: Tac marines have no rules that benefit other units. There is no "synergy". Tac marines score and do precious little else. If I want something to just camp objectives, I'd use something much cheaper if I could.
What you said about 6th was true before Tau/Eldar. You won't live to the end of the if you don't significantly diminish their capabilities.
Given the list outline you gave me, I don't consider that a very strong list at all. In my experiences, your list would not make it to the end of a game. Not enough capability to diminish enemy capability.
First I will use the word you declaird evil.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
Synergy does go both ways. With the right combination of Chapter Tactics, Wargear and Psycic Powers you can realy buff them up.
Well here is a recent one I have been working on. The only real change is the Centurions.
Martel732 wrote: Tac marines have no rules that benefit other units. There is no "synergy". Tac marines score and do precious little else. If I want something to just camp objectives, I'd use something much cheaper if I could.
What you said about 6th was true before Tau/Eldar. You won't live to the end of the if you don't significantly diminish their capabilities.
Given the list outline you gave me, I don't consider that a very strong list at all. In my experiences, your list would not make it to the end of a game. Not enough capability to diminish enemy capability.
First I will use the word you declaird evil.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
Synergy does go both ways. With the right combination of Chapter Tactics, Wargear and Psycic Powers you can realy buff them up.
Well here is a recent one I have been working on. The only real change is the Centurions.
Okay Martel now your just insulting people for having lists that work for them but not you. If every list was just bikes or just Taudar or whatever it is their would be no 40k. 40k gives us the freedom to build these armies how we see fit and use what works for us and our surroundings not have some cookie cutter list. I see why you don't like tac marines but not everyone shares that opinion.
"In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent. "
And that is why your view of tactical squads means very little to me. I see an endless stream of helldrakes, jetseers, and Riptides. You can talk about "play style" all you like but opposition matters. A lot.
Your local meta is not the overall meta. So let me rephrase.
Revised thesis: In the OVERALL meta, taking in to account competitive builds and competitive players, tactical squads are garbage.
Forget your local meta. Argue against the above thesis.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches. I could win every game by pulling out 3 Land Raiders vs Orks, or S10 AP2 Pie Guard vs Marines.
We are having very competative games by taking what we want.
We are about the enjoyment of creating "Difrent List" usaly around a basic core. I don't need to take a Triple Riptide Taudar list. We know it will win, I like to chalange myself with what we call "Normal Games" not "Super Campetive" list.
Also nobody have given an exaple other than TauDar that can show me Tactical Squads Suck.
Your list probably can't stop a BA ASM rush list, either. Not enough throw weight. BA ASM halve the firepower from plasma and then will eat everything in this list.
I don't use BA ASM because FMCs, Tau, Eldar, Necrons, and now Nids will wreck me. Your list can't wreck me because it is pretty lame in HTH and doesn't have enough firepower to stop BA ASM.
There. There's another example *From the worst codex in the game*. Because tacticals are among the worst troops in the game. That's what makes my victory possible against your list. The fact that you have so many tacticals.
Martel732 wrote: Your list probably can't stop a BA ASM rush list, either. Not enough throw weight. BA ASM halve the firepower from plasma and then will eat everything in this list.
I don't use BA ASM because FMCs, Tau, Eldar, Necrons, and now Nids will wreck me. Your list can't wreck me because it is pretty lame in HTH and doesn't have enough firepower to stop BA ASM.
There. There's another example *From the worst codex in the game*. Because tacticals are among the worst troops in the game. That's what makes my victory possible against your list. The fact that you have so many tacticals.
Heheh. BA players think that codex BA is bad. Codex Orks is a shining beacon of uselessness.
Martel732 wrote: Your list probably can't stop a BA ASM rush list, either. Not enough throw weight. BA ASM halve the firepower from plasma and then will eat everything in this list.
I don't use BA ASM because FMCs, Tau, Eldar, Necrons, and now Nids will wreck me. Your list can't wreck me because it is pretty lame in HTH and doesn't have enough firepower to stop BA ASM.
There. There's another example *From the worst codex in the game*. Because tacticals are among the worst troops in the game. That's what makes my victory possible against your list. The fact that you have so many tacticals.
Heheh. BA players think that codex BA is bad. Codex Orks is a shining beacon of uselessness.
I could take Orks and destroy BA. I've done it twice, actually. I'd much rather have Orks in 6th than BA.
Orks are a barely functional mono list right now. not sure what is worse than that...
duo list we got wagonz with shootaboyz/nobz/meganobz and nob bikers core that can be backed up with literally anything from footslogga boyz and grots to lootas and lobbas. Or all at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also i manage to beat taudar with orkses from time to time. U just got to be very cunning! Distraction upon distraction and false-offence charges.
Also nobody have given an exaple other than TauDar that can show me Tactical Squads Suck.
I don't generally have problems vs marines as an ork outside of multiple tfc with mass-melta drop. Yep, when a marine player can get da boyz out in the open and then shoot this totally optfc - it's a free win there. However, melta-drop falls apart the moment it meets nob bikers. And lucky telepathy librarians are annoying.
Btw someone said krak nades are bad?
When i play platoon ig i alwayz take a bunch of krak nades. With the addition of inquisitors it's even deadlier. I had a few games where MC charged a platoon with nades and died before striking. But guards win cause of masses. Still, you can throw a krak nade! Additional 8' s6 ap4 shot is vital when u've fropped behind a tank. For just 1 pt per krak nade - they're totally worth it. Maybe, not on all the models, for guards i take it just on 30 out of 50.
What i feel when meet current tactical marines with boyz.
1. They're rather tough with that t4 and 3+ but not tough enough to compete with the weight of fire i have with those massed shootaboyz. And orkses are far from the shootiest army avaliable there. When i met a forgeworld chapter with a 5+ fnp - they still died to shooting but made those few extra saves which were handy. Actually, fnp for a 3+ save is like 11% better so it's more to save them from massed ap2-3 fire.
2. They can't do enough damage both at range and in mellee.
Probably, mellee damage should come with a possibility of purchasing an extra ccw for 1 pt per model. And it should be optional.
Range damage...bolters at their current state lack firepower. They do kill boyz but never enough of them. That can be fixed by changing a bolter profile or by giving some special rule to it. For increased cost ofcourse. I think the test with rapid fire 2 for bolters made by Brother Marcus really shows how it can be fixed. Though, i think that 4 shots is a bit too much. 2/3 seem better.
3. ATSKNF is very-very powerful. Auto-regroups with a free move + acting normally, no sweeping advances. That's huge.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Any mc spam list ain't afraid of tacticals at all. But i don't know how to fix it yet. Probably, tacticals ain't supposed to be good vs mc at all. U need hammernators for mc hunting. Unfortunately, most mc-s are unreachable by termies cause they're either flying or jump.
Martel732 wrote: Your local meta is not the overall meta. So let me rephrase.
Revised thesis: In the OVERALL meta, taking in to account competitive builds and competitive players, tactical squads are garbage.
Forget your local meta. Argue against the above thesis.
That street goes both ways, neither is *your* meta, "tourney" play is not the be all and end all of 40k, in fact it seems to be the last playstyle on the developers minds.
I don't have exact numbers so lets assume 50% of games are played with the "tourney" meta and 50% in the "casual" meta.
In 50% of games tactical marines are absolutely fine. More even if you concede they are worthless against Tau-dar (Which lets leave that argument for another day) but they can hold their own against other races.
Martel732 wrote: I really don't care how much Grey Knights get stepped on. Their codex is practically Xeno anyway. Also, compared to the capabilities of tac marines, Grey Knight troops are incredibly undercosted. Even compared to the new marine codex.
And there shows your bias. Rather than rebalance down a handful of "too good" units you'd rather make the marines the first generation of OP codicies, other armies be damned and at best enjoy a period where your army of choice gets to be king of the hill while others catch up. That is not the way to balance a game system. If 90% of units are balanced and 10% not then you rework the 10% to the 90%, not the other way round.
Martel732 wrote: For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in the game
I think we all know that's hyperbole, off the top of my head Wyches and CSM troopers say hi, given your own feelings on terminators one could easily add Deathwing to that list. Many would even suggest Tyranid Warriors, Rippers, Bloodletters, the list is quite substantial. The humble Eldar Guardian is only saved from the list by the inclusion of the Wave Serpent.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches.
Sorry, but that's the very definition of pulling punches. People aren't taking the strongest lists possible. Have you considered that the reason it's not enjoyable is because other lists lack something? Say, something in the Troops slot that's not rubbish?
Martel732 wrote: Your local meta is not the overall meta. So let me rephrase.
Revised thesis: In the OVERALL meta, taking in to account competitive builds and competitive players, tactical squads are garbage.
Forget your local meta. Argue against the above thesis.
That street goes both ways, neither is *your* meta, "tourney" play is not the be all and end all of 40k, in fact it seems to be the last playstyle on the developers minds.
I don't have exact numbers so lets assume 50% of games are played with the "tourney" meta and 50% in the "casual" meta.
In 50% of games tactical marines are absolutely fine. More even if you concede they are worthless against Tau-dar (Which lets leave that argument for another day) but they can hold their own against other races.
Martel732 wrote: I really don't care how much Grey Knights get stepped on. Their codex is practically Xeno anyway. Also, compared to the capabilities of tac marines, Grey Knight troops are incredibly undercosted. Even compared to the new marine codex.
And there shows your bias. Rather than rebalance down a handful of "too good" units you'd rather make the marines the first generation of OP codicies, other armies be damned and at best enjoy a period where your army of choice gets to be king of the hill while others catch up. That is not the way to balance a game system.
If 90% of units are balanced and 10% not then you rework the 10% to the 90%, not the other way round.
Martel732 wrote: For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in the game
I think we all know that's hyperbole, off the top of my head Wyches and CSM troopers say hi, given your own feelings on terminators one could easily add Deathwing to that list. Many would even suggest Tyranid Warriors, Rippers, Bloodletters, the list is quite substantial. The humble Eldar Guardian is only saved from the list by the inclusion of the Wave Serpent.
Edit: I had more to say.
I'm not really biased. I want all lists to be equally good. I don't think messing with the boltgun is the way to make that happen. That being said, compared to other meqs, GK are horrible cheese. GK book is still better than even the new C:SM book, I think. I just want marines to be as good as Eldar and vice versa. Nothing more. And sisters to be as good as both. Nothing more. I will never understand the desire to have some OP lists, and everyone else can just suck it, because trying to balance things out is just impossible. News flash: lots of other games are capable of this more or less. GW doesn't even try or care.
I don't know what the new tyranids warriors look like, but I'll probably grant you the rest of those troops. But I'd say the tactical marine isn't too far above the lot you listed off. Contributing nothing means a lot of units will be tied down at the bottom.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "That is not pulling puches"
Yes, that is indeed pulling punches. If you played against those kinds of lists, you'd understand exactly how poor tactical marines are.
You have a very skewed view of the overall game because your group chooses to omit a large part of the game. In effect, we aren't playing the same game.
I'm not really biased. I want all lists to be equally good. I don't think messing with the boltgun is the way to make that happen. That being said, compared to other meqs, GK are horrible cheese. GK book is still better than even the new C:SM book, I think. I just want marines to be as good as Eldar and vice versa. Nothing more. And sisters to be as good as both. Nothing more. I will never understand the desire to have some OP lists, and everyone else can just suck it, because trying to balance things out is just impossible. News flash: lots of other games are capable of this more or less. GW doesn't even try or care.
I don't know what the new tyranids warriors look like, but I'll probably grant you the rest of those troops. But I'd say the tactical marine isn't too far above the lot you listed off. Contributing nothing means a lot of units will be tied down at the bottom.
In that case I'd say watch out for the "Screw GK what about my guys" type posts as they give the wrong impression. If you say WS and Riptides are OP but that's how you want tactical's balanced you are asking for OP tactical's any way you look at it.
People aren't asking for OP lists, but we have to be realistic about balance, we're talking about a handful of units. Take WS's, Riptides and The Grimoire out of the game (Not my suggestion by the way they just need nerfing to some degree) and suddenly the playing field is a lot more even. Bringing that handful of units down a peg or playing as part of a group that realizes spamming them creates an imbalance is a lot easier than calling for a rewrite of the other 99% of units to bring them up to Riptide levels.
Look at the latest White Dwarf battle report, the writers put a 6 Riptide list up and were all "lets break the force org chart to have this many, it'll look epic" probably without even realizing 3-4 of them are a common sight in an army. They play a different game to you, it has the same name but it is very different.
I'm curious now since I've got you to admit there are worse units out there, which do you think are the best troop choices that you'd like Tac marines to be comparable to?
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches.
Sorry, but that's the very definition of pulling punches. People aren't taking the strongest lists possible. Have you considered that the reason it's not enjoyable is because other lists lack something? Say, something in the Troops slot that's not rubbish?
So what are saying unless we are taking "Top Teir", "Ultra-Competative" or "WAAC" List we are "Pulling Punches"?
The most obvious and glaring comparison are grey hunters. Now I admit that this wouldn't help in any way against being shot to death against Eldar/Tau, but it WOULD be a good hedge against shooty/CC hybrid lists like GK discussed in another thread. Whatever the GK troops call themselves are also a glaringly obvious upgrade as well.
Other obvious selections that do their job better are dire avengers, fire warriors and Kroot. I realize it's hard to directly compare, but these choices all have much better outcomes per point than tactical marines.
In a world of Tau pie plate death and hell drakes, I'd have to put Ork boyz and IG guardsmen well ahead of tac marines. The old Lenin quote about a certain quality to quantity comes to mind here.
I haven't seen the new Nid troops yet. Sounds like they didn't change much. Maybe put termagants in the list above: cheaper = better.
The problem with the tac marine is multi-fold and that's why it is a hard problem to fix. The facets to this I see are:
1) Rise of Xeno firepower that makes meqs die just as fast as Orks; no armor save, no cover save mechanics. This makes ATSKNF MUCH less useful, despite what Xeno players want to claim. I've voluntarily pretended the rule didn't exist for games and notice no difference because my marines are DYING not running away.
2) Crappy marine transports. Dire Avengers bring a WS. Tac marines bring a Rhino.
3) Crappy Imperial weapons. I'm sure a balancing factor for the tac squad is supposed to be the special and heavy weapon. The problem is that Imperial heavy weapons kinda suck.
4) Tac marines fold in CC like cheap deck chairs. Especially on a per point basis. This is anti-fluff and really diminishes their "tactical" ability.
5) The bolter's maximum firepower zone leads to item 4 which gets the squad killed. Also, can't assault after using the bolter, which leads to item 4.
6) Point sink. They are STILL more expensive than most other troops, so marines have more invested in a unit that basically does nothing for the reasons listed above. Marines can't afford dead weight.
I don't expect gamers to self nerf. I expect the rules to not contain items like the Wave Serpent and Jetseer council. Yeah, it would be great to take them down a peg, but those codices are already written. So the best we can hope for are codices on the same level as Tau/Eldar to give them a run for their money. C:SM and Tyranids have already failed in this. GK are still apparently better at addressing Xenos than the new marine book.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches.
Sorry, but that's the very definition of pulling punches. People aren't taking the strongest lists possible. Have you considered that the reason it's not enjoyable is because other lists lack something? Say, something in the Troops slot that's not rubbish?
So what are saying unless we are taking "Top Teir", "Ultra-Competative" or "WAAC" List we are "Pulling Punches"?
Yes. Because you do not get an accurate view of what other players have to go up against on a consistent basis at tourneys and competitive metas. It's like putting the Cleveland Browns in the NCAA and claiming they are a fine team.
Martel732 wrote: The most obvious and glaring comparison are grey hunters. Now I admit that this wouldn't help in any way against being shot to death against Eldar/Tau, but it WOULD be a good hedge against shooty/CC hybrid lists like GK discussed in another thread. Whatever the GK troops call themselves are also a glaringly obvious upgrade as well.
Other obvious selections that do their job better are dire avengers, fire warriors and Kroot. I realize it's hard to directly compare, but these choices all have much better outcomes per point than tactical marines.
In a world of Tau pie plate death and hell drakes, I'd have to put Ork boyz and IG guardsmen well ahead of tac marines. The old Lenin quote about a certain quality to quantity comes to mind here.
I haven't seen the new Nid troops yet. Sounds like they didn't change much. Maybe put termagants in the list above: cheaper = better.
The problem with the tac marine is multi-fold and that's why it is a hard problem to fix. The facets to this I see are:
1) Rise of Xeno firepower that makes meqs die just as fast as Orks; no armor save, no cover save mechanics. This makes ATSKNF MUCH less useful, despite what Xeno players want to claim. I've voluntarily pretended the rule didn't exist for games and notice no difference because my marines are DYING not running away.
2) Crappy marine transports. Dire Avengers bring a WS. Tac marines bring a Rhino.
3) Crappy Imperial weapons. I'm sure a balancing factor for the tac squad is supposed to be the special and heavy weapon. The problem is that Imperial heavy weapons kinda suck.
4) Tac marines fold in CC like cheap deck chairs. Especially on a per point basis. This is anti-fluff and really diminishes their "tactical" ability.
5) The bolter's maximum firepower zone leads to item 4 which gets the squad killed. Also, can't assault after using the bolter, which leads to item 4.
6) Point sink. They are STILL more expensive than most other troops, so marines have more invested in a unit that basically does nothing for the reasons listed above. Marines can't afford dead weight.
I don't expect gamers to self nerf. I expect the rules to not contain items like the Wave Serpent and Jetseer council. Yeah, it would be great to take them down a peg, but those codices are already written. So the best we can hope for are codices on the same level as Tau/Eldar to give them a run for their money. C:SM and Tyranids have already failed in this. GK are still apparently better at addressing Xenos than the new marine book.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches.
Sorry, but that's the very definition of pulling punches. People aren't taking the strongest lists possible. Have you considered that the reason it's not enjoyable is because other lists lack something? Say, something in the Troops slot that's not rubbish?
So what are saying unless we are taking "Top Teir", "Ultra-Competative" or "WAAC" List we are "Pulling Punches"?
Yes. Because you do not get an accurate view of what other players have to go up against on a consistent basis at tourneys and competitive metas. It's like putting the Cleveland Browns in the NCAA and claiming they are a fine team.
You've just circled back to "Marines can't kill stuff Riptides can" Killing things is nice and all but this is a scoring unit whose main purpose is scoring They don't have to fire pie plates they just need to get on the objective and stay on it! If they do that (Which they almost always do for me) then they are worth taking IMO.
Martel732 wrote: No. Marines can't kill what *sniper kroot* can. I'm not comparing their killing power to Riptides. I've never done that.
Although Riptides reduce their defenses to that of a grot. That's a problem. I addressed all this above.
No but ultimately you keep complaining about how "Marines can't kill things x unit can". Not everyone plays against some of these jerkbag stupidly overpowered lists where everything dies unless you take a jerkbag stupidly overpowered list. Some of us play games for fun and when we play games for fun were not concerned with the math behind our units as long as they do something!
Martel732 wrote: No. Marines can't kill what *sniper kroot* can. I'm not comparing their killing power to Riptides. I've never done that.
Although Riptides reduce their defenses to that of a grot. That's a problem. I addressed all this above.
No but ultimately you keep complaining about how "Marines can't kill things x unit can". Not everyone plays against some of these jerkbag stupidly overpowered lists where everything dies unless you take a jerkbag stupidly overpowered list. Some of us play games for fun and when we play games for fun were not concerned with the math behind our units as long as they do something!
If you don't care about the strength of your list, why do you care about the power level of tactical marines?
Martel732 wrote: No. Marines can't kill what *sniper kroot* can. I'm not comparing their killing power to Riptides. I've never done that.
Although Riptides reduce their defenses to that of a grot. That's a problem. I addressed all this above.
No but ultimately you keep complaining about how "Marines can't kill things x unit can". Not everyone plays against some of these jerkbag stupidly overpowered lists where everything dies unless you take a jerkbag stupidly overpowered list. Some of us play games for fun and when we play games for fun were not concerned with the math behind our units as long as they do something!
If you don't care about the strength of your list, why do you care about the power level of tactical marines?
Because they do have some flaws and they could be better. But that doesn't mean I think they are terrible right now. And what definition of "Strength" are we using. I use what I think work and what I enjoy using.
Martel732 wrote: The most obvious and glaring comparison are grey hunters. Now I admit that this wouldn't help in any way against being shot to death against Eldar/Tau, but it WOULD be a good hedge against shooty/CC hybrid lists like GK discussed in another thread. Whatever the GK troops call themselves are also a glaringly obvious upgrade as well.
Other obvious selections that do their job better are dire avengers, fire warriors and Kroot. I realize it's hard to directly compare, but these choices all have much better outcomes per point than tactical marines.
In a world of Tau pie plate death and hell drakes, I'd have to put Ork boyz and IG guardsmen well ahead of tac marines. The old Lenin quote about a certain quality to quantity comes to mind here.
I haven't seen the new Nid troops yet. Sounds like they didn't change much. Maybe put termagants in the list above: cheaper = better.
The problem with the tac marine is multi-fold and that's why it is a hard problem to fix. The facets to this I see are:
1) Rise of Xeno firepower that makes meqs die just as fast as Orks; no armor save, no cover save mechanics. This makes ATSKNF MUCH less useful, despite what Xeno players want to claim. I've voluntarily pretended the rule didn't exist for games and notice no difference because my marines are DYING not running away.
2) Crappy marine transports. Dire Avengers bring a WS. Tac marines bring a Rhino.
3) Crappy Imperial weapons. I'm sure a balancing factor for the tac squad is supposed to be the special and heavy weapon. The problem is that Imperial heavy weapons kinda suck.
4) Tac marines fold in CC like cheap deck chairs. Especially on a per point basis. This is anti-fluff and really diminishes their "tactical" ability.
5) The bolter's maximum firepower zone leads to item 4 which gets the squad killed. Also, can't assault after using the bolter, which leads to item 4.
6) Point sink. They are STILL more expensive than most other troops, so marines have more invested in a unit that basically does nothing for the reasons listed above. Marines can't afford dead weight.
I don't expect gamers to self nerf. I expect the rules to not contain items like the Wave Serpent and Jetseer council. Yeah, it would be great to take them down a peg, but those codices are already written. So the best we can hope for are codices on the same level as Tau/Eldar to give them a run for their money. C:SM and Tyranids have already failed in this. GK are still apparently better at addressing Xenos than the new marine book.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches.
Sorry, but that's the very definition of pulling punches. People aren't taking the strongest lists possible. Have you considered that the reason it's not enjoyable is because other lists lack something? Say, something in the Troops slot that's not rubbish?
So what are saying unless we are taking "Top Teir", "Ultra-Competative" or "WAAC" List we are "Pulling Punches"?
Yes. Because you do not get an accurate view of what other players have to go up against on a consistent basis at tourneys and competitive metas. It's like putting the Cleveland Browns in the NCAA and claiming they are a fine team.
True we are not playing in thoise enviroments, and from what I am seeing I don't want to. I don't want to HAVE toplay Taudar to be competitive.
Since we don't have Taudar in our current Meta we dont have to optimise every sinlge point.
That does not make me Invalaid for most armies.
If you have noticed I stoped Defending Marines vs Taudar. If we got a Taudar or even a good Tau or Eldar player in our local Meta I would be going back to back to my Dark Angels Power Feild SPAM and to be honest probably stop having fun.
Martel732 wrote: No. Marines can't kill what *sniper kroot* can. I'm not comparing their killing power to Riptides. I've never done that.
Although Riptides reduce their defenses to that of a grot. That's a problem. I addressed all this above.
No but ultimately you keep complaining about how "Marines can't kill things x unit can". Not everyone plays against some of these jerkbag stupidly overpowered lists where everything dies unless you take a jerkbag stupidly overpowered list. Some of us play games for fun and when we play games for fun were not concerned with the math behind our units as long as they do something!
I guess this summarizes why I hate tactical squads and you don't care. If you are going to take units for fun or looks, and nothing else, then the rules behind them don't matter to you at all.
Players, by the way, are not "jerkbags" for making a strong list. It's GW's fault that the units aren't balanced.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "True we are not playing in thoise enviroments, and from what I am seeing I don't want to. I don't want to HAVE toplay Taudar to be competitive.
Since we don't have Taudar in our current Meta we dont have to optimise every sinlge point.
That does not make me Invalaid for most armies.
If you have noticed I stoped Defending Marines vs Taudar. If we got a Taudar or even a good Tau or Eldar player in our local Meta I would be going back to back to my Dark Angels Power Feild SPAM and to be honest probably stop having fun."
Now we are getting some where. If tactical squads were balanced against other troop choices and other units in general, you wouldn't have to stop having fun if someone decided to play Eldar.
On the flip side, it's bad for Eldar players to have to worry about pissing off groups like yours. Any given list should have options to take on anything another list might field. That is not the case, and so we have disconnects like the one in this thread.
My tac marines are being turned into road pizza by Xeno firepower. In my return shooting phase, the tac marines basically are shooting back spitballs in comparison. This is not the case in your meta, but legally someone could come in and start doing just this. Then, for th sake of your fun, you'll be wishing tac marines could gun down MCs like sniper Kroot. Or do SOMETHING against those kinds of lists other than die.
Personally I'd want to be able to take both a heavy AND a special at just 5 men, and have the option of swapping the heavy for a second special at increased price (say flamer at price of MM, melta somewhere above that, and plasma at cost of lascannon would be fine).
The rest of the issue lies with specific units that need to be toned down in other books.
nobody wrote: Personally I'd want to be able to take both a heavy AND a special at just 5 men, and have the option of swapping the heavy for a second special at increased price (say flamer at price of MM, melta somewhere above that, and plasma at cost of lascannon would be fine).
The rest of the issue lies with specific units that need to be toned down in other books.
That would be decent. Although the heavy weapon really encourages static play. I like the double special because I think Imperial special weapons are better than Imperial heavy weapons. I think Imperial heavy weapons pretty much suck.
Also, the folding in CC issue must be addressed in order to fulfill the fluff.
nobody wrote: Personally I'd want to be able to take both a heavy AND a special at just 5 men, and have the option of swapping the heavy for a second special at increased price (say flamer at price of MM, melta somewhere above that, and plasma at cost of lascannon would be fine).
The rest of the issue lies with specific units that need to be toned down in other books.
That would be decent. Although the heavy weapon really encourages static play. I like the double special because I think Imperial special weapons are better than Imperial heavy weapons. I think Imperial heavy weapons pretty much suck.
Also, the folding in CC issue must be addressed in order to fulfill the fluff.
Oh I know, but MSU for Marines is pretty dead at the moment, so I doubt you're going to see the return of the ultra-mauleen style army (4-6 5 man las/plas squads. It really doesn't worry me too much.
As to the second concern, while adding combat knives (the CCW) may help out, really the problem is that your opponent can challenge out the sergeant who was armed with a power fist/weapon. I can't think of an easy answer to this because changing a sergeant to a non-character infantry model who can take weapons as though they were a character just doesn't feel right to me.
Could always put in a rule that any marine in a tactical squad can accept a challenge (or attempt Heroic Intervention) as though they WERE a character, that'd be hilarious.
Nah, CCW would do fine. Just don't arm sergeants with power weapons because you can't protect them. I just want to cause some casualties on hit back, instead of doing nothing.
I don't HATE Tau or Eldar per se, I hate their codices as GW as implemented them.
But forget them a minute. Compare the tactical marine to the standard GK troop. It's a joke.
Tac marines were totally outclassed in 5th as well. I saw a guy lose 52 tac marines to IG in two turns back in 5th. Leafblower was just the proto Riptide spam.
Martel732 wrote: I don't HATE Tau or Eldar per se, I hate their codices as GW as implemented them.
But forget them a minute. Compare the tactical marine to the standard GK troop. It's a joke.
Tac marines were totally outclassed in 5th as well. I saw a guy lose 52 tac marines to IG in two turns back in 5th. Leafblower was just the proto Riptide spam.
Yes, but when was the las time you saw a leafblower or normal Grey Knight Troops Choices.
As far as The Guard, I saw a 50 man guard blob vanish to one Lone Wolf in one assualt phase.
Martel732 wrote: No. Marines can't kill what *sniper kroot* can. I'm not comparing their killing power to Riptides. I've never done that.
Although Riptides reduce their defenses to that of a grot. That's a problem. I addressed all this above.
No but ultimately you keep complaining about how "Marines can't kill things x unit can". Not everyone plays against some of these jerkbag stupidly overpowered lists where everything dies unless you take a jerkbag stupidly overpowered list. Some of us play games for fun and when we play games for fun were not concerned with the math behind our units as long as they do something!
I guess this summarizes why I hate tactical squads and you don't care. If you are going to take units for fun or looks, and nothing else, then the rules behind them don't matter to you at all.
Players, by the way, are not "jerkbags" for making a strong list. It's GW's fault that the units aren't balanced.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "True we are not playing in thoise enviroments, and from what I am seeing I don't want to. I don't want to HAVE toplay Taudar to be competitive.
Since we don't have Taudar in our current Meta we dont have to optimise every sinlge point.
That does not make me Invalaid for most armies.
If you have noticed I stoped Defending Marines vs Taudar. If we got a Taudar or even a good Tau or Eldar player in our local Meta I would be going back to back to my Dark Angels Power Feild SPAM and to be honest probably stop having fun."
Now we are getting some where. If tactical squads were balanced against other troop choices and other units in general, you wouldn't have to stop having fun if someone decided to play Eldar.
On the flip side, it's bad for Eldar players to have to worry about pissing off groups like yours. Any given list should have options to take on anything another list might field. That is not the case, and so we have disconnects like the one in this thread.
My tac marines are being turned into road pizza by Xeno firepower. In my return shooting phase, the tac marines basically are shooting back spitballs in comparison. This is not the case in your meta, but legally someone could come in and start doing just this. Then, for th sake of your fun, you'll be wishing tac marines could gun down MCs like sniper Kroot. Or do SOMETHING against those kinds of lists other than die.
First off I said "Fun" as in they work well but I enjoy fielding them. And exploiting the hell out of Lists flaw is GW'S FAULT!?
If you are running an OP insta-kill TM list than it's not so much GWs fault as much as it's yours. And we have 2 Eldar players at my FLGS who run lists that are not OP as crap.
Martel732 wrote: I don't HATE Tau or Eldar per se, I hate their codices as GW as implemented them.
But forget them a minute. Compare the tactical marine to the standard GK troop. It's a joke.
Tac marines were totally outclassed in 5th as well. I saw a guy lose 52 tac marines to IG in two turns back in 5th. Leafblower was just the proto Riptide spam.
Yes, but when was the las time you saw a leafblower or normal Grey Knight Troops Choices.
As far as The Guard, I saw a 50 man guard blob vanish to one Lone Wolf in one assualt phase.
I still see IG leafblower lists. They just have a few less blowers and more Vendettas. And I've seen GK troops in GK lists.
It's hard for the Lone Wolf to kill 50 guardmen when he's shot dead.
And as far ast the Guard taking out a list in 2 two turns, take that barrage and aply it to any other army.
Since the barrages had high ST and AP 3 or better, other armies would lose the same amount *models* but less over all *points*. This is why meq are absolutely terrible against lists that can kill them quickly through the 3+ save.
And as far ast the Guard taking out a list in 2 two turns, take that barrage and aply it to any other army.
Since the barrages had high ST and AP 3 or better, other armies would lose the same amount *models* but less over all *points*. This is why meq are absolutely terrible against lists that can kill them quickly through the 3+ save.
I have agread that they could be cheeper, but points don't make them Bad, just overcost.
"Unless you clasify all overcost units as "Sucky""
I do. That is the very definition of a sucky unit. Bad point/efficacy ratio. In fact, this is what I've been claiming all along. Tactical marines don't PLAY or FEEL like 14 pt models. They get picked wholesale like 6 pt models now. And shoot back worse because they have less than half the shots. The difference between BS 3 and BS 4 is not that big, especially when you are looking at models that cost as much as marines. Maybe we should be looking at BS 5 for marines in the new reality of 40K.
Similarly, OP units are by definition undercosted, because they bring more to the table than their points would suggest.
Martel732 wrote: "Unless you clasify all overcost units as "Sucky""
I do. That is the very definition of a sucky unit. Bad point/efficacy ratio.
Similarly, OP units are by definition undercosted, because they bring more to the table than their points would suggest.
Then I will restate that this thread is named wrong.
You could also opend up with
Tactical Marines Suck becouse they are overcost instead of they can't do thier job.
But making them cheaper just lets you bring more models that lack efficacy. A better solution is to bring their efficacy up to 14 pts/model. They need to legitimately be worth 3 guardmen or 3 boyz. And they just aren't. They're just packages that make it easier for the Tau to take your points away, because you give up 3X the points when they pie plate you. If the marines could KILL the models killing them, the problem wouldn't be so bad. But tactical marines really can't take any dangerous unit off the board. This makes them ignorable and an army tax. Sniper Kroot, on the other hand, have a whole category they can kill. See the difference? All the fru fru grenades and crap don't matter.
Martel732 wrote: If the marines could KILL the models killing them, the problem wouldn't be so bad. But tactical marines really can't take any dangerous unit off the board.
This is what I am disgreing with, They do KILL Models, at least everything I shoot them at. So they can't kill off 30 models a turn, They have Never been able to do that.
Seriously though asides from giving marines snipers or all special weapons to deal with mega threats, they will NEVER amount to the effectiveness that is Kroot.
Edit: Hows about a Marine vs guard comparison, or even orks.
Desubot wrote: Perhaps deleting Tau would be the only way.
Seriously though asides from giving marines snipers or all special weapons to deal with mega threats, they will NEVER amount to the effectiveness that is Kroot. The fact that the elite human troops can never match the effectiveness of some slave race of an upstart empire is INSANE.
Edit: Hows about a Marine vs guard comparison, or even orks.
Why can't we compare to Kroot? Because the Tau just magically get to have troops that do something? That's why the whole system is cracked.
Martel732 wrote: If the marines could KILL the models killing them, the problem wouldn't be so bad. But tactical marines really can't take any dangerous unit off the board.
This is what I am disgreing with, They do KILL Models, at least everything I shoot them at. So they can't kill off 30 models a turn, They have Never been able to do that.
I don't want them killing 30 models. I said a dangerous UNIT. That might be a tank. That might be an MC. That might be terminators. Other lists have troops that can handle at least some of these threats. Tac marines can only shoot weak infantry at close range that has been demeched. They can't crack tanks, can't threaten MCs, aren't a threat in HTH. What kinds of units *that you expect to see* do you think tacs are a threat to? Because my BA ASM are laughing at you in a world of dire avengers and sniper Kroot.
Desubot wrote: No im saying kroot are retardedly broken and should be nerfed. but comparing ANYTHING to kroot will look awful.
Im fairly sure half the complaints would go away if kroot returned to no sniper rounds. (as to compare kill power vs)
But they exist, and they are the new bar for troop comparison. Once a unit has been broken, rebalancing must take place across the game. That is what balanced games do. Or remove the broken unit, but there are too many offenders. Helldrake. Jetseer. Riptide. Kroot. Wave Serpent.
1) Rise of Xeno firepower that makes meqs die just as fast as Orks; no armor save, no cover save mechanics. This makes ATSKNF MUCH less useful, despite what Xeno players want to claim. I've voluntarily pretended the rule didn't exist for games and notice no difference because my marines are DYING not running away.
2) Crappy marine transports. Dire Avengers bring a WS. Tac marines bring a Rhino.
3) Crappy Imperial weapons. I'm sure a balancing factor for the tac squad is supposed to be the special and heavy weapon. The problem is that Imperial heavy weapons kinda suck.
4) Tac marines fold in CC like cheap deck chairs. Especially on a per point basis. This is anti-fluff and really diminishes their "tactical" ability.
5) The bolter's maximum firepower zone leads to item 4 which gets the squad killed. Also, can't assault after using the bolter, which leads to item 4.
6) Point sink. They are STILL more expensive than most other troops, so marines have more invested in a unit that basically does nothing for the reasons listed above. Marines can't afford dead weight.
Okay cool, thanks, so I want to give my opinion on each in order.
1) S6 AP3 pie plates yeah, that's for killing marines, some weapons are designed to kill specific troops the Riptides main gun is bad news for elite troops. However against the volume of fire units you mention it takes 3 wounds to 1 to kill a marine over an ork which currently is 18pts of Ork or 12-15pts of gaunt/guardsman type trooper. I'm gonna talk about ATSKNF lower.
I think marines are victims of their own success. GW flooded the market with so many marine lists that killing a 3+ save is something you need in spades, add in that the tourney meta is biased toward small elite armies because of restrictive time limits and army transportation. As such you want units that can kill small elite forces so people spam Riptides, Plasma Hell-turkeys etc over anything else because it's what they need.
This is why I say the tourney meta is not a good source for balance. If I play a green tide, a table covered in boyz of all flavours I can't slow play him and win on turn 3 because he never got close. I have to beat him over 5-7 turns and he will get to close and i need to be able to weather the tide. As such the tourney meta skews what units are good and which are poor.
2) The Serpent is better, it's one of those over line line units that needs bringing down so i'll give you that, however, 10 troopers in a rhino is a lot cheaper than 10 troopers in a WS. They each have their uses, one just has more.
3) Not sure I agree on this Lascannon is better than Bright Lance, H. Bolter is about even with Shuriken cannon (longer ranger, better base AP, lower strength, no rend) I think Imperial heavy weapons keep pace with Eldar. The Eldar do have more fancy toy guns however this is true. The Tau core stuff too, Autocannon is a better Missile pod (I think it has longer range) Plasma Gun overheats but is stronger than a Plasma Rifle, once again the toys change it.
4)Ooooh, okay so here I have to disagree. Marines are more durable even by point than any of those units outside of AP2/3 melee (which is most of it) *and* ATSKNF that you feel is so worthless means no marine has ever been run down in combat. Marines will never lose a combat to an MC, fail their morale and lose the other 75% of their squad. The enemy has to kill you to the last man, that's huge doubly so now No Retreat! no longer exists. It's even stronger here than against shooting.
5) The bolter, I did already talk about this but only compared to Eldar weapons where it has range at the price of killing power. Against Tau and Kroot snipers it is worse but the trooper holding the gun is more durable, more skilled, more likely to hold in melee, has arguably better transport options (I like the Devilfish personally) it's very hard to say and put a price on those things.
6)Hmmm, they are 1 pt more than Avengers, a point cheaper than Grey Hunters (I believe). Fire Warriors and Kroot are tricky as you say, they are such different model base stats and costs it's hard to tell. A Fire Warrior is his gun, without that he has poor morale, moderate durability, terrible CC potential and not flexible due to the absence of specials and heavies.
Huge post, stopping now but the crux of the point is that outside of AP3/2 weapons a marines durability is envious the problem is the frequency at which you are hit by them which is a tourney play thing more than anything else as only a small selection of armies will ever show up there so everyone can focus on elite killing. The Wave Serpent is the save spammer but that hits everyone just as hard, it's part of the reason it's too good as we already discussed however.
1) Orks can get cover for free. You can have so many Orks that they can't ignore cover against all of them.
2) Rhinos seem good at giving up first blood. Little else. I guess it saves you from one volley from one Eldar unit. Yay.
3) Imperial heavy weapons suffer from cost and from platform as well. Especially in marine lists. Most of the platforms for say the assault cannon become incredibly overcosted once you pay for the assault cannon.
4) ATSKNF has never saved me from MCs. It just makes take a bit longer to kill me to the man. Of course, this works out perfectly, because I have less to kill. Tac marines do fold in CC like little punks. I've been watching it happen since 2nd edition. This never changes.
5) The bolter sucks because it can't engage MCs like the Tau or Eldar weapons. And it's an assault weapon for a list that's try to do shooting and assault. Fail.
6) The dire avenger can deliver maximum payload for 6" further away, and still move after that? And rend. Yeah, that troop should SO totally be cheaper than a tac marine. Again, the fact that Xenos have made ATSKNF basically useless through mass fire and/or AP 2 tricks really makes the tac marine look bad compared to more lightly armored troops. Krak grandes? Can't live to use em. Frag grenades? Can't live to use them. Bolt pistol? Can't beat anything in HTH and can't live to get there anyway.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: Yep, they get that for 1 ppm. Dire Avengers still utterly outclass tacticals even with that, since they unlock Wave Serpents.
You need to look at everything a unit does.
Plus, battle focus + 2 shots at 18" is very very very powerful.
Next time, just remove Serpent Shield. Not replace or decrease it, just remove it. Completely. You'll need to play a few games to wrap your heads around it and sort target priorities and planned volumes of fire, etc.
Rhinos are great. Just don't put them in the open - they're not so hard to hide. Every tac squad that's not using drop pods should ride a rhino or razorback. It's not only protection, but also mobility which is even more important. Also, it's a moving blos with 11-11-10, 5+ cover when needed and just 35 pts cost.
I don't feel bikes being overcosted for gravguns platforms. Devastators are also good. Predators...well, i use them but they can't compete with the new fancy flyers and skimmers that everyone gets. Combat-squaded marines with a heavy weapon seem not bad and quite reliable backfield point-holders.
From what some of you write about atsknf, just try taking marines for 1 pt less and no atsknf if you think it's a pointsink. U'll see the difference.
Tactical marines ain't supposed to take down MCs. While i agree that bolters lack some killing power, i don't really know how to improve it not making it over-the top. I've suggested rapid fire 2/3 for +2 pts. That's a solid increase.
Regular tacticals are mediocre in cc. They're tough but can't deal enough damage. Adding a possibility to get a cc weapon for +1 pts like chaos marines have can be an answer. So you can get cc weapons on something that you think might need it.
A cool idea would be Bolter variants that perform differently from each other and could be exchanged with the standard model for free or for a slight upgrade. Could also lead to some nice differentiation between chapters, as maybe BA and SW get access to more assault oriented boltguns, whereas others would have access to salvo Bolters as have been so often suggested.
I don't support special ammunition though, that's a deathwatch thing.
Martel732 wrote: 1) Orks can get cover for free. You can have so many Orks that they can't ignore cover against all of them.
2) Rhinos seem good at giving up first blood. Little else. I guess it saves you from one volley from one Eldar unit. Yay.
3) Imperial heavy weapons suffer from cost and from platform as well. Especially in marine lists. Most of the platforms for say the assault cannon become incredibly overcosted once you pay for the assault cannon.
4) ATSKNF has never saved me from MCs. It just makes take a bit longer to kill me to the man. Of course, this works out perfectly, because I have less to kill. Tac marines do fold in CC like little punks. I've been watching it happen since 2nd edition. This never changes.
5) The bolter sucks because it can't engage MCs like the Tau or Eldar weapons. And it's an assault weapon for a list that's try to do shooting and assault. Fail.
6) The dire avenger can deliver maximum payload for 6" further away, and still move after that? And rend. Yeah, that troop should SO totally be cheaper than a tac marine. Again, the fact that Xenos have made ATSKNF basically useless through mass fire and/or AP 2 tricks really makes the tac marine look bad compared to more lightly armored troops. Krak grandes? Can't live to use em. Frag grenades? Can't live to use them. Bolt pistol? Can't beat anything in HTH and can't live to get there anyway.
1) Orks can get cover this is true but as has been pointed out repeatedly in Nid and Tau bashing threads theres a lots of ignores cover out there for people who want it. If you assumed permenant 5+ cover it's still 12pts of Orks for the same kill, not far from a tac marine.
2) One volley of fire assuming it destroys the rhino instantly, gives the squad mobility, blocks LOS as mentioned, which is something the Wave Serpent can't do as you can see under them.
3) Fair enough, I don't remember the points costs that well but in terms of effectiveness they compete. Platform is subjective though a guardian weapon requires 1 of 2 T3 5+ save models...
4) Come now, less to kill? Compared to Avengers you are talking about maybe 11 guys versus 10. If the MC wins by 3 the Marines take a 5-6 LD check, the Avengers a 6, if the marines fail they could care less they either regroup in combat or regroup just outside, those 7 guys are safe. The Eldar is an opposed Initiative test from losing the other 8 guys. ATSKNF is a huge buff. Maybe it's a meta thing, if all you are seeing is massed shooting then it's just a failed LD check auto rally (though not snap shotting is pretty cool) round my way where melee is a problem immunity to sweeping can save your life and tie up an MC for some time while they finish the job.
5) It's not an assault weapon any more than the Pulse Rifle. +1S doesn't magically make them able to engage MC's (apart from T8 obviously) and the marines access to special and heavy weapons over the Fire Warrior gives them far more MC killing potential in fact. Avengers are a bit different, the pseudo rend does give them more punch but at a shorter range on a less durable platform and they still lack AT options, swings and roundabouts. Both those units are dedicated infantry killers, Tac marines can choose weapons to engage a wider variety of targets.
6)Maximum payload maybe but the marine always gets first shot because he has a superior maximum range, hell he could easily get the first 2 shots if the Eldar can't summon a 6 on battle focus, the platform is less durable, has a more limited target selection and has to get closer, that's why they are cheaper. AP2 kills an Avenger too and there is much more AP4 or less than AP3 or less so everything you say allies to them too at 1pt less.
The issue falls if "cheaper is better" because universally true, it sounds like it may be in your meta but how many flamers do you see in the average opponents army compared to plasm/grav type options?
How is this possible in 6th? I can't hardly get into CC to take advantage of marine stats.
ATSKNF isn't even always desirable in CC, either. If an MC sweeps me in one turn, then I can finish it off with shooting. Maybe that's a Xeno philosophy, but it's not like marines are going to take them out in HTH anyway.
I've played a few games without using ATSKNF as a test and never really missed it. Again, my units are getting LD tests, they are getting put back in the model box. I play against a lot of tier 1 lists.
ATSKNF was a big thing for a long time, but now the firepower exists to make this rule almost irrelevant. I'll voluntarily play without it any time. I don't think it helps marine lists that much in an era where tabling is a serious concern. I mean, ATSKNF says "I"ll make you kill me to the last marine!" Opponents are like "I was going to do that anyway."
The only time you don't get to shoot it is if it finishes you off in an even number of turns, holding up a unit is a valuable thing. Even losing by a single point can cause an entire unit to be run down, not so for a space marine. You say you'd happily not have it while there are many armies that would kill for it.
Marines are S6 AP4 against MC's, they have one of the best chances among basic troopers to take them down. Against many Nids they will hit on 3's wound on 4's and against against daemons while they may hit on 5's often the GD types have weak saves.
Every squad that breaks off the table or is run down is one your opponent doesn't have to kill. I think many marines take for granted that if they stay more than one fall back move from the board edge they are guaranteed to rally and get back in the fight, other non-fearless troops cannot make such a claim and once they are under 25% their odds of coming back are very small indeed.
D-Scythe is a template but not a flamer, I'll take that as a no then on the flamers. That's a product of your meta, it is skewed toward marine murder that no-doubt sucks for you as a marine player but its also the reason I would hesitate to use it as an anecdote for balance requirements. If your meta had more pyromaniac players throwing down several units with cover ignoring AP4/5 flamer weapons (something my Guardians and Gaunts do suffer from) instead of plasma your marines durability would seemingly rise.
Tourney lists tend to be spam driven (You can use redundancy if you find spam offensive), they know their target due to the very limited pool from which these tourney draw their lists from and proceed to spam the unit the most efficiently murders them. Hence the 6-7 Wave Serpents, 3-4 Riptides etc's. In this meta elite troops take it in the teeth, that sucks but it's the way it is in competitive play. If your group are happy playing like that it there's nothing that can be done, are you absolutely positive there aren't more people sick of all lists being Tau/Eldar/Daemons you can't pull aside for games?
Why should people want to play inferior lists? I only play marines because that's the army I own. If this were Starcraft, and they nerfed a unit like the BA got nerfed, I just *wouldn't build it anymore*. But magically, all units in Starcraft actually have legitimate uses.
As I've said, I've voluntarily played several games w/o ATSKNF on my guys and it doesn't make a spit's worth of difference.
Why would Eldar/Tau bother with flamers? Tau can ignore cover with large blasts of death, and the Eldar simply use serpent shields or spam S6 unit armor or cover fails.
No, it's lists like my marines that have to pack in flamers. *I* use flamers, but Xenos usually don't care. Sure, I can do the suicide pod thing with flamers, but that's just more dead marines at the end of the day. Besides, flamers do nothing to Jetseer councils or Wave Serpents.
Tourney lists tend to be spam driven (You can use redundancy if you find spam offensive), they know their target due to the very limited pool from which these tourney draw their lists from and proceed to spam the unit the most efficiently murders them. Hence the 6-7 Wave Serpents, 3-4 Riptides etc's. In this meta elite troops take it in the teeth, that sucks but it's the way it is in competitive play. If your group are happy playing like that it there's nothing that can be done, are you absolutely positive there aren't more people sick of all lists being Tau/Eldar/Daemons you can't pull aside for games?
"The best lists murder Marines, the solution is to not play against the best lists."
Tourney lists tend to be spam driven (You can use redundancy if you find spam offensive), they know their target due to the very limited pool from which these tourney draw their lists from and proceed to spam the unit the most efficiently murders them. Hence the 6-7 Wave Serpents, 3-4 Riptides etc's. In this meta elite troops take it in the teeth, that sucks but it's the way it is in competitive play. If your group are happy playing like that it there's nothing that can be done, are you absolutely positive there aren't more people sick of all lists being Tau/Eldar/Daemons you can't pull aside for games?
"The best lists murder Marines, the solution is to not play against the best lists."
Really?
All the GW apologists come up with this eventually in my experience. And people pimping the tactical marine. Which is still a bad troop. Maybe it's impossible to understand unless you actually try to use tactical marines and realize the futility.
Becouse I just like the Models and the fluff behined the Unit/List.
I would rather have a Army on the table that looks good together and has varietly than a Cookie Cutter/Net-List/SPAM Army List.
Becouse I just like the Models and the fluff behined the Unit/List.
I would rather have a Army on the table that looks good together and has varietly than a Cookie Cutter/Net-List/SPAM Army List.
So then why are you fighting so hard against people who want to improve the units in question? Nothing would force you to use the upgraded weapon options, or any possible wargear or psychic powers or whatnot that'd make them more survivable.
nobody wrote: So then why are you fighting so hard against people who want to improve the units in question? Nothing would force you to use the upgraded weapon options, or any possible wargear or psychic powers or whatnot that'd make them more survivable.
What I am fighting is the Blacket Statement "Tactical Squads Suck!"
They Don't Suck, I even early on stated some ways to make them work.
This does not mean if the rules changed and they got better I would not use them. Heck if they got worse I would still use them.
nobody wrote: So then why are you fighting so hard against people who want to improve the units in question? Nothing would force you to use the upgraded weapon options, or any possible wargear or psychic powers or whatnot that'd make them more survivable.
What I am fighting is the Blacket Statement "Tactical Squads Suck!"
They Don't Suck, I even early on stated some ways to make them work.
This does not mean if the rules changed and they got better I would not use them. Heck if they got worse I would still use them.
If the Xenos don't voluntarily move within your 12" sweet spot, I still don't understand how they work. Of course, we already determined that your group pulls punches and so you are not fully cogniscient of the suckitude of tacticals. Play with the gloves off sometime and see how well they do. Eldar can incinerate them about a rate of ~2 full squads per turn from outside bolter range. Have fun with that. Because you can not hit back hard enough to survive with tacticals.
Becouse I just like the Models and the fluff behined the Unit/List.
I would rather have a Army on the table that looks good together and has varietly than a Cookie Cutter/Net-List/SPAM Army List.
Evidently, you don't about winning, either. So of course tactical marines look good.
Look we are going in circles.
There are those of us who say they suck form their experiances.
There are a few of us who say they don't from their experiances.
Anpu42 wrote: Look we are going in circles.
There are those of us who say they suck form their experiances.
There are a few of us who say they don't from their experiances.
I can get into hardcore math, if you like.
What I really want to know is how you are getting your tacticals to within 12" without them getting butchered. Because, mathematically, they don't "work" outside 12" very well. And your experiences can't trump the math.
Dunkelzahn has at least given some evidence for why he believes they are not utter garbage. You just proclaim "they work!". How? Under what circumstances? What exactly are you getting done with them? Assaulting? Shooting? How? Which weapons for them "work"?
Using them:
>I run Gunlines so my opponent has to dig me out of my cover. Some times this lets me shoot them at 12”, sometimes 24”, sometimes I get Assaulted ad in sometimes my Plasma Cannon is the only weapon I fire.
>If my opponent has something that will causes me to take AP3 no cover fire it usually gets taken out by my Sternguard early on.
Well 80% of the games I have playing usually against MEQs, Guard, Tyranids, Orks and occasionally Eldar.
In most games my Tactical Squads are usually what I have left standing at the end of the game and are scoring me VPs. That is usually how I win my games, by Playing the Mission and Scoring VPs not Tabling my opponent so I don’t need to use my Tacticals as my attack force.
Vs. other Marines it is the Tactical Squads that I need to take down because if don’t, I loose the game.
Don’t know how to explain it more without getting into Battle Reports, this is just what is happening with my Meta.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I was thinking about it, it might be tha fact that we [my local group] tend to put between 3-6 Tactical Squads in a Typical 2,000 point game. Sometimes they make up almost 50% of our points.
I'm not suggesting by any means that marines need to be tabling. What I'm suggesting is that tacticals put marines in danger of BEING tabled.
It sounds like you have a very good grasp of how things should be working, and in general, I agree that you plan should work in a balanced game.
But what happens when there's too many priority targets for the Sternguard? The Sternguard used in this manner usually only gets to fire once. And after they dead, your opponent can go back to vaporizing your scoring units.
If your opponent can force huge amounts of saves, they make cover irrelevant. It's not about AP 3 no cover (although it can be) it's about your tacticals having dozens of saves forced every turn by Xeno firepower. If this isn't happening to you, you don't know if your list really works or not.
Your list sounds just like the kind of list my BA can steamroll. The sternguards will come down, do an ineffectual amount of damage, and then we're off to the races. Tacticals don't have even close to enough fire power to stop BA ASM. Contrast this to Tau or Eldar, where I'm lucky to get a squad into HTH. The difference couldn't be more stark. Disclaimer: TFCs can barrage snipe out my sanguinary priests, but that's the TFC being awesome, not the tacticals.
Martel732 wrote: If your opponent can force huge amounts of saves, they make cover irrelevant. It's not about AP 3 no cover (although it can be) it's about your tacticals having dozens of saves forced every turn by Xeno firepower. If this isn't happening to you, you don't know if your list really works or not.
But this is not happening to my {and my group}.
In fact my Rolling Save Sucks so bad when making one or two I would rather make 20-30, I make mosty of mine in large numbers, but ask me to roll one I usaly fail.
Martel732 wrote: If your opponent can force huge amounts of saves, they make cover irrelevant. It's not about AP 3 no cover (although it can be) it's about your tacticals having dozens of saves forced every turn by Xeno firepower. If this isn't happening to you, you don't know if your list really works or not.
But this is not happening to my {and my group}.
In fact my Rolling Save Sucks so bad when making one or two I would rather make 20-30, I make mosty of mine in large numbers, but ask me to roll one I usaly fail.
Over, many many rolls, you will make EXACTLY 66% of your armor saves. This is true for everyone, including those who claim to have good dice or bad dice. They are simply misremembering.
The effect you describe is indeed the rule of large numbers. IF you make 20-30 rolls of 3+ armor, you heavily weighted towards making 14-20 of them. However, when called upon to make one or two, the likelihood of weird dice results becomes much more likely.
I guarantee you if an Eldar player forced your list to make 50 saves a turn, by the end, you will have no marines left. You MUST reduce the incoming fire and tacticals are miserable at that. If older editions, the tacticals could take the heat all game, but now they can't. Especially since AV 11 tanks suck up way less fire as well.
Martel732 wrote: If your opponent can force huge amounts of saves, they make cover irrelevant. It's not about AP 3 no cover (although it can be) it's about your tacticals having dozens of saves forced every turn by Xeno firepower. If this isn't happening to you, you don't know if your list really works or not.
But this is not happening to my {and my group}.
In fact my Rolling Save Sucks so bad when making one or two I would rather make 20-30, I make mosty of mine in large numbers, but ask me to roll one I usaly fail.
Over, many many rolls, you will make EXACTLY 66% of your armor saves. This is true for everyone, including those who claim to have good dice or bad dice. They are simply misremembering.
The effect you describe is indeed the rule of large numbers. IF you make 20-30 rolls of 3+ armor, you heavily weighted towards making 14-20 of them. However, when called upon to make one or two, the likelihood of weird dice results becomes much more likely.
I guarantee you if an Eldar player forced your list to make 50 saves a turn, by the end, you will have no marines left. You MUST reduce the incoming fire and tacticals are miserable at that. If older editions, the tacticals could take the heat all game, but now they can't. Especially since AV 11 tanks suck up way less fire as well.
I have seen the math on all of that, but more times than not you make me roll 20 saves and I will loose one or two models. You make me roll 10 saves 2 from 5 difrent units I will fail 8 of them more times than not. The most samve we have ever seen in our group is 30 and I lost like 5 models.
"I have seen the math on all of that, but more times than not you make me roll 20 saves and I will loose one or two models. You make me roll 10 saves 2 from 5 difrent units I will fail 8 of them more times than not. The most samve we have ever seen in our group is 30 and I lost like 5 models."
You're just misremembering the times where the reverse happened. You can't consistently stand up to mass wound spam with even a 2+ save. Maybe a game here or there, but over the long haul, the Xenos will win far more games. You make 66% of your 3+ saves and 83% of your 2+ saves. Period. The distribution of these percentages is what causes noticeable variation.
Martel732 wrote: Maybe a game here or there, but over the long haul, the Xenos will win far more games.
This statment I agree with, but I have not seen what you are seeing. We have never seen people have to make 50+ save for one unit in one turn.
What I have seen is entine game where the marine player never got to make a save let alone have a chance to fail one.
If older editions, the tacticals could take the heat all game, but now they can't.
Only 5th edition allowed Tactical Marines to take more punishment. In the other 4 editions, they were easier to kill than they are now.
RT-2nd had save modifiers. 3rd-4th had much more restrictive cover saves. Only the unit-wide and better covers saves of 5th edition made them tougher. And in that edition, they only shot 12" if they moved, so it wasn't all sunshine and rainbows then either.
If older editions, the tacticals could take the heat all game, but now they can't.
Only 5th edition allowed Tactical Marines to take more punishment. In the other 4 editions, they were easier to kill than they are now.
RT-2nd had save modifiers. 3rd-4th had much more restrictive cover saves. Only the unit-wide and better covers saves of 5th edition made them tougher. And in that edition, they only shot 12" if they moved, so it wasn't all sunshine and rainbows then either.
I was referring to the actual volume of fire coming in, not the rules so much.
Martel732 wrote: Maybe a game here or there, but over the long haul, the Xenos will win far more games.
This statment I agree with, but I have not seen what you are seeing. We have never seen people have to make 50+ save for one unit in one turn.
What I have seen is entine game where the marine player never got to make a save let alone have a chance to fail one.
My meta relies far more on volume of fire because armor denial schemes don't work so well against hordes. This is also why the scatter laser is almost always better than the star cannon.
"The best lists murder Marines, the solution is to not play against the best lists."
Really?
Well no, the *best* solution is to build a group of like minded players, talk to them and say "look, we all know your 4 Riptide/ WS spam list is gonna crush my army under weight of fire just like the last 10 times, what do you say you drop a couple for something else and make it a game instead of another 2 hour exercise in you putting another tick in the win column?" Whats the point in playing a game you have no chance of losing?
Also best list is in this subjective based on the meta: Plasma kills marines, 7/10 of my opponents are power armoured, Plasma is good. Flamers kill hordes, 7/10 of my opponents play 5+/6+ save units, Flamers are good.
His meta kills marines, as a marine player that must suck, if his whole group is just interesting in spamming power units rather than playing a game they *might* lose that must suck more.
If the Avenger is balanced at X then the marine with improved durability, less firepower, more range, more versatility and superior morale seems balanced at X+1. Some of us have played tactical marines and still see them played today, years ago my backup army was second hand marines (who have turned from the light of the Emperor and gone renegade just as I did Yes, I changed them for a weaker dex) and the humble tactical marine formed the backbone of my army. Durability and versatility are the watchwords that made them useful and if I ran a list of the corpse emperors chosen today it's still revolve around at least 3x 10 man squads because solid, reliable boots on the ground win objective games.
Martel732 wrote:All the GW apologists come up with this eventually in my experience.
This I object to so OT as it is I must respond, it seems very common for people who are still enjoying the game to get jumped on as GW apologists. 40k has never been a tournament game, ever. There has never been an edition without a handful of clear power lists and anyone who says otherwise is having a memory lapse. It is a social game to be played in the spirit of the game and co-operation. Some games react when people insist on pushing the game to it's competitive limit and nerf/balance probably because it's what they want to see, that's great.
The writers at GW could give a frell about that, they are getting paid to make a game they call fun (as long as the profit keeps coming in) and we should all be so lucky. Lets not hear the old "Oh but good solid and balanced rules would be good for everyone" strawman, I'm sure they would, I doubt anyone is saying different *but* GW could care less. You've seen the WD battle reports to see the games these guys want to play, lamented their list choices, and in that environment 40k is vast amounts of fun for everyone involved.
If you're playing against someone you don't know it's a bit hard to avoid Riptides and the like; sure, you can choose not to play, but that means that you, well... don't get to play. Frankly, I'm still confused that anyone could argue that Tactical Marines are fine by excluding some of the units that cause the problem. It's like arguing that Terminators are OP because one dude passed 66 armour saves.
For the record, I agree with the whole "apologist" thing; I still enjoy the game too, and think there's lots of things GW is doing right that the Internet seems to hate. This just isn't one of them.
"look, we all know your 4 Riptide/ WS spam list is gonna crush my army under weight of fire just like the last 10 times, what do you say you drop a couple for something else and make it a game instead of another 2 hour exercise in you putting another tick in the win column"
Why should they have to self-nerf? Why would they not field the best army they can and expect me to do the same? The whole point of list building is to try to get another tick in the win column so why not take a sure thing?
"Lets not hear the old "Oh but good solid and balanced rules would be good for everyone" strawman."
It's not a strawman.
"if his whole group is just interesting in spamming power units rather than playing a game they *might* lose that must suck more."
Are they supposed to spam bad units?
And I hate to point this out, but plasma is a pretty TAC choice. Most lists have a good target for plasma and it's ROF and range is the same as a boltgun.
I don't think its my meta that kills marines. It's 40K that kills marines by giving them crap offense for their points. The avenger in a vaccum MIGHT be balanced, but they unlock Wave Serpents. Even without Serpents, I'd still take the Dire Avenger. Or almost any non-meq troop at this point. (I'd keep Grey Hunters)
I'd say my BA have a pretty good chance of running your 30 tactical marine list off the able due to all those points you just wasted. Given that I can't even get to the Eldar (other than the Jetseer concil that visits ME) in most games to assault them, the difference is stark. The tac marine is dead weight in practice because of low throw weight. Marines can't afford 30 models of dead weight. Other lists can afford this, but many of them don't have to make such a choice.
You are seriously underestimating the value of taking enemy models off the board. Tactical marines are terrible at this job. That means they will have weather turn after turn of incoming fire compared to better troops. We won't get into how the Imperials have nothing as efficient as a war walker at delivering firepower. Versatility comes a price of efficacy, and that is a price 14 pt models can't pay. But it sounds like the players in your meta self-nerf. How lucky for you.
You mischaracterize the people in my group. They play to win. That's basically it. What good is a game if I have to ask people to not play to win?
Evidently, you have bought into the "forge the narrative" crap. I have never seen this done, not in nearly 20 years of playing this. I have never seen a cooperative game, ever. I've mostly seen guys trying (and usually failing) to table each other. I've gotten more cooperation from *actual* "competitive" games. GW's rules are always trying to be bent in favor of my opposition as well. I'm always part general, part barrister. Welcome to playing against war gamers.
All I want is to be able to hang with an Eldar player who is playing to win. That's all. That's not asking the moon. But evidently it is asking too much of our GW overlords.
" You've seen the WD battle reports to see the games these guys want to play,"
Why should they have to self-nerf?
Are they supposed to spam bad units?
When have any of us told you to this?
You mischaracterize the people in my group. They play to win. That's basically it. What good is a game if I have to ask people to not play to win?
When have any of us told you to this?
Have tried to use some of the suggested fixes and seen if they made a difference yet?
That's what a poster is suggesting when their solution is "don't play against top lists", "don't play against Triple Riptide", "don't play against XX", "ask your opponent not to bring XXX". And that wasn't directed at you anyway. You specifically don't play in an environment where this is even a thing. But the problem is that your experiences won't travel well. If you line up those tac marines where I play, you will mulched.
"Have tried to use some of the suggested fixes and seen if they made a difference yet? "
What fixes? The above "suggestions"? No one will agree to that where I play, nor should they have to, or even be asked.
Martel732 wrote: What fixes? The above "suggestions"? No one will agree to that where I play, nor should they have to, or even be asked.
The ones from the first page
-Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list.
-Tactical squads may gain the Slow and Purposeful rule for +1 point per model.
-The ones were Bolters gain 2 shots out to 24” or Volley 2/3?
Has anyone tried a simple points decrease? Also you could make a cheap (say 2-5 point) sergeant upgrade that allows them to fire an extra shot if they did not move last turn (essentially bolter volly-fire).
Martel732 wrote: What fixes? The above "suggestions"? No one will agree to that where I play, nor should they have to, or even be asked.
The ones from the first page
-Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list.
-Tactical squads may gain the Slow and Purposeful rule for +1 point per model.
-The ones were Bolters gain 2 shots out to 24” or Volley 2/3?
Oh that was a long time ago.
I know the first one helps a bit because that's what Grey Hunters can already do. And they are more efficacious for it.
I know the third one helps because GK already have this trick. And it's quite mean, especially on interceptors. Of course, it still fails against the best lists, or else GK would still be on top.
The second one is interesting, but then we get back to standard Imperial heavy weapons basically sucking. I like the *idea*, but tacticals aren't armed with anything that makes slow and purposeful worth having. Compare to GK that get psycannons in their infantry squads.
Sadly, no one in my play group is going to playtest anything. It's always tournament practice. It's not fair to burden the player base with this kind of problem that should have been ironed out in playtesting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Has anyone tried a simple points decrease?
Also you could make a cheap (say 2-5 point) sergeant upgrade that allows them to fire an extra shot if they did not move last turn (essentially bolter volly-fire).
This is probably the most realistic "fix". Paying less for useless units is a step in the right direction. It would be preferable and more fluffy to make them something other than scatter laser targets or Jetseer bobo dolls, but mathematically I don't see how.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Has anyone tried a simple points decrease?
Also you could make a cheap (say 2-5 point) sergeant upgrade that allows them to fire an extra shot if they did not move last turn (essentially bolter volly-fire).
This is probably the most realistic "fix". Paying less for useless units is a step in the right direction. It would be preferable and more fluffy to make them something other than scatter laser targets or Jetseer bobo dolls, but mathematically I don't see how.
Things that cost to much is the reason most things aren't used I seem to see. There are plenty of "bad" units that are still used because they don't cost to much.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Has anyone tried a simple points decrease?
Also you could make a cheap (say 2-5 point) sergeant upgrade that allows them to fire an extra shot if they did not move last turn (essentially bolter volly-fire).
This is probably the most realistic "fix". Paying less for useless units is a step in the right direction. It would be preferable and more fluffy to make them something other than scatter laser targets or Jetseer bobo dolls, but mathematically I don't see how.
Things that cost to much is the reason most things aren't used I seem to see. There are plenty of "bad" units that are still used because they don't cost to much.
I can fundamentally agree with this. By definition units that "suck" are overcosted and those that are "OP" are undercosted. No mechanic is broken as long as appropriate points are paid. Rather than changing rules, it would probably be easiest to further discount tac marines to fit in more stuff that actually does something. Of course, many posters will scream bloody murder, but whatever. Tactical marines are failures at the 14 pt/model price point coupled with the high prices and low efficacy of Imperial heavy weapons. And the utter suckitude of marine transports. Tau troops can HP out marines transports, but tac marines can't scratch a Serpent on their best day. Seems fair, sure.
Martel732 wrote: I know the first one helps a bit because that's what Grey Hunters can already do. And they are more efficacious for it.
Do they have the same problem as normal Tactical Marines in your group?
I know the third one helps because GK already have this trick. And it's quite mean, especially on interceptors. Of course, it still fails against the best lists, or else GK would still be on top.
Check
The second one is interesting, but then we get back to standard Imperial heavy weapons basically sucking. I like the *idea*, but Tacticals aren't armed with anything that makes slow and purposeful worth having. Compare to GK that get Psycannons in their infantry squads.
Heavy Bolters, I know they are not Psycannons, but vs. a lot of armies they are the same thing.
Sadly, no one in my play group is going to play test anything. It's always tournament practice. It's not fair to burden the player base with this kind of problem that should have been ironed out in play testing.
Talk to the Playes about have a “Just for Fun Night.” So they can play test stuff too.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Has anyone tried a simple points decrease?
Also you could make a cheap (say 2-5 point) sergeant upgrade that allows them to fire an extra shot if they did not move last turn (essentially bolter volley-fire).
Martel732 wrote: This is probably the most realistic "fix". Paying less for useless units is a step in the right direction. It would be preferable and more fluffy to make them something other than scatter laser targets or Jetseer bobo dolls, but mathematically I don't see how.
Yes, Grey Hunters are ironically not really any better against Tau/Eldar/Daemons even they are super good against lists they give them a chance to live and play. Which is another reason I don't blame Tau/Eldar/Daemon players, because Grey Hunters are straight up unfair if you don't shoot them to death. I used to hate Grey Hunters more than anything until we got Helldrake/Tau/Eldar/Daemons on the scene.
They are the original reason I started shooting with BA in 5th.
Martel732 wrote: Yes, Grey Hunters are ironically not really any better against Tau/Eldar/Daemons even they are super good against lists they give them a chance to live and play.
Which is another reason I don't blame Tau/Eldar/Daemon players, because Grey Hunters are straight up unfair if you don't shoot them to death. I used to hate Grey Hunters more than anything until we got Helldrake/Tau/Eldar/Daemons on the scene.
They are the original reason I started shooting with BA in 5th.
How are they unfair, because we have +1 Attack and can take a second Plasma Gun?
Both those are worth about the same as some of the Chapter Tactics Bonuses.
The only real advantage Grey Hunters have is that you can’t single out the Power Weapon in a Challenge.
Both those are worth about the same as some of the Chapter Tactics Bonuses.
Yeah no. Double specials is vastly superior to any of the Chapter Tactics, barring possibly White Scars. Counter-attack and the extra CCW means you can actually use your bolters in Rapid Fire and still fight back. Think about it, if a Grey Hunter squad is charged by anything, it'll have 300% (!!) the damage output of a Tactical Squad. Sure, the same things that kill Tacticals kill Grey Hunters, but the Grey Hunters deal more damage to it while dying.
If we then further consider the impact of having the option of taking Sergeants with Terminator Armour the survivability increases dramatically., especially in CC with a Wolf Banner.
So yeah, the only real advantage the Grey Hunters have is that they do more damage, live longer, and have access to better support options. Sounds fair for 1PPM.
Both those are worth about the same as some of the Chapter Tactics Bonuses.
Yeah no. Double specials is vastly superior to any of the Chapter Tactics, barring possibly White Scars. Counter-attack and the extra CCW means you can actually use your bolters in Rapid Fire and still fight back. Think about it, if a Grey Hunter squad is charged by anything, it'll have 300% (!!) the damage output of a Tactical Squad. Sure, the same things that kill Tacticals kill Grey Hunters, but the Grey Hunters deal more damage to it while dying.
If we then further consider the impact of having the option of taking Sergeants with Terminator Armour the survivability increases dramatically., especially in CC with a Wolf Banner.
So yeah, the only real advantage the Grey Hunters have is that they do more damage, live longer, and have access to better support options. Sounds fair for 1PPM.
Yes, but if you stay 25" away They can do nothing so I am forced to go after my opponent if they decide to Gunline like Tau. They are better in a strait out shootout, but are not as flexable and I loose my Second Special weapon if I want to go Mechanised with LD9
Both those are worth about the same as some of the Chapter Tactics Bonuses.
Yeah no. Double specials is vastly superior to any of the Chapter Tactics, barring possibly White Scars. Counter-attack and the extra CCW means you can actually use your bolters in Rapid Fire and still fight back. Think about it, if a Grey Hunter squad is charged by anything, it'll have 300% (!!) the damage output of a Tactical Squad. Sure, the same things that kill Tacticals kill Grey Hunters, but the Grey Hunters deal more damage to it while dying.
If we then further consider the impact of having the option of taking Sergeants with Terminator Armour the survivability increases dramatically., especially in CC with a Wolf Banner.
So yeah, the only real advantage the Grey Hunters have is that they do more damage, live longer, and have access to better support options. Sounds fair for 1PPM.
Yes, but if you stay 25" away They can do nothing so I am forced to go after my opponent if they decide to Gunline like Tau. They are better in a strait out shootout, but are not as flexable and I loose my Second Special weapon if I want to go Mechanised with LD9
The flexibility means squat. Having 5 Marines sit around in the Deployment zone to fire a lascannon is a waste of 90+ points for one S9 AP2 shot a turn. Yes, you're better in a shootout, which is the problem with Tacticals: they're a unit designed for shootouts at short ranges that are awful at it.
Both those are worth about the same as some of the Chapter Tactics Bonuses.
Yeah no. Double specials is vastly superior to any of the Chapter Tactics, barring possibly White Scars. Counter-attack and the extra CCW means you can actually use your bolters in Rapid Fire and still fight back. Think about it, if a Grey Hunter squad is charged by anything, it'll have 300% (!!) the damage output of a Tactical Squad. Sure, the same things that kill Tacticals kill Grey Hunters, but the Grey Hunters deal more damage to it while dying.
If we then further consider the impact of having the option of taking Sergeants with Terminator Armour the survivability increases dramatically., especially in CC with a Wolf Banner.
So yeah, the only real advantage the Grey Hunters have is that they do more damage, live longer, and have access to better support options. Sounds fair for 1PPM.
Yes, but if you stay 25" away They can do nothing so I am forced to go after my opponent if they decide to Gunline like Tau. They are better in a strait out shootout, but are not as flexable and I loose my Second Special weapon if I want to go Mechanised with LD9
The flexibility means squat. Having 5 Marines sit around in the Deployment zone to fire a lascannon is a waste of 90+ points for one S9 AP2 shot a turn. Yes, you're better in a shootout, which is the problem with Tacticals: they're a unit designed for shootouts at short ranges that are awful at it.
Well I don't fight the same as you do, so I cant say much about that.
Why should they have to self-nerf? Why would they not field the best army they can and expect me to do the same? The whole point of list building is to try to get another tick in the win column so why not take a sure thing?
Evidently, you have bought into the "forge the narrative" crap. I have never seen this done, not in nearly 20 years of playing this. I have never seen a cooperative game, ever. I've mostly seen guys trying (and usually failing) to table each other. I've gotten more cooperation from *actual* "competitive" games. GW's rules are always trying to be bent in favor of my opposition as well. I'm always part general, part barrister. Welcome to playing against war gamers.
These comments left me speechless, they really did, it's been incredibly hard to find them to reply. If you already know what the result is before the game even starts why play the game? I literally can't understand why you would bother?
You are saying that in 20 years of playing no-one *ever* talked to their opponent beforehand and said "you know what, my list is way too strong compared to yours, let me just take out a few of the top tier elements and replace them and make it a game" (or the equivalent) they always just steamrolled the other guy and called it a day? Never? That is so alien to me.
It's not buying into forging the narrative (which is the battlecry of people who want to mock 6th ed), you aren't the only one with 20+ years of play under your belt. I just cannot comprehend why you wouldn't work with your opponent to roughly even the playing field before you started then let play and the dice decide the winner.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
If you're playing against someone you don't know it's a bit hard to avoid Riptides and the like; sure, you can choose not to play, but that means that you, well... don't get to play. Frankly, I'm still confused that anyone could argue that Tactical Marines are fine by excluding some of the units that cause the problem. It's like arguing that Terminators are OP because one dude passed 66 armour saves.
That's why I said find a like minded group, then no-one has to self nerf if they don't want, the problem is you want to play a game where the designers don't want to play competitively, competitively with an army that fate has decreed doesn't quite match up. The designers have made it clear they could give two jots about that kind of play so expecting it to change to suit it is the definition of madness.
The analogy is off though, if 99% of people played WS/Riptide spam it would hold water, I even the playing field suggesting (and I personally think it's a lot lower given they are only 2 factions in one playstyle) 50% of people did. That means the units you keep calling out as the OP standard everything needs to be at are present in less than half the games played and for the rest of games tac marines are fine.
Martel732 wrote: (WD lists) They would be obliterated where I play.
No doubt, but it sounds like they have a lot more fun playing the game than you do, and really that's all that matters. They write the rules around how they play, your group plays very differently. I just always get the impression from your posts you don't enjoy the game, I'd say find a new group but if BA were ever buffed to Eldar levels you'd be the same guy you have issue with playing Eldar/Tau now, you'd be happy I guess but what if they aren't? Personally I think if the game is causing this much annoyance you should simply move on, leave it behind, 40k has never been, nor I doubt will it ever be the game you want it to be.
(Please do not take offense at that, it's my genuine observation not a STFU or GTFO type comment)
I... what? Yes, I understand that Tactical Marines work if you have a group that collectively agrees not to take things that kill them, but that means that Tau players, for example, are restricted in their choice of what units to field, essentially moving the problem to them instead. Sure, your problem is solved, but now someone else is restricted. In an ideal world, anyone ought to be able to take any unit and not have it suck at its intended role, but that's not the case with Tactical Marines.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I... what? Yes, I understand that Tactical Marines work if you have a group that collectively agrees not to take things that kill them, but that means that Tau players, for example, are restricted in their choice of what units to field, essentially moving the problem to them instead. Sure, your problem is solved, but now someone else is restricted. In an ideal world, anyone ought to be able to take any unit and not have it suck at its intended role, but that's not the case with Tactical Marines.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I... what? Yes, I understand that Tactical Marines work if you have a group that collectively agrees not to take things that kill them, but that means that Tau players, for example, are restricted in their choice of what units to field, essentially moving the problem to them instead. Sure, your problem is solved, but now someone else is restricted. In an ideal world, anyone ought to be able to take any unit and not have it suck at its intended role, but that's not the case with Tactical Marines.
So what is your salution?
Ideally, remove the Tactical Squad entry and replace it with Grey Hunters.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I... what? Yes, I understand that Tactical Marines work if you have a group that collectively agrees not to take things that kill them, but that means that Tau players, for example, are restricted in their choice of what units to field, essentially moving the problem to them instead. Sure, your problem is solved, but now someone else is restricted. In an ideal world, anyone ought to be able to take any unit and not have it suck at its intended role, but that's not the case with Tactical Marines.
So what is your salution?
Ideally, remove the Tactical Squad entry and replace it with Grey Hunters.
I don't think that would help alot with some of the core issues or are Grey Hunters that much better that if nullifies all of the other paroblems.
Here is my true responce, If you want Grey Hunters, Play Space Wolves.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I... what? Yes, I understand that Tactical Marines work if you have a group that collectively agrees not to take things that kill them, but that means that Tau players, for example, are restricted in their choice of what units to field, essentially moving the problem to them instead. Sure, your problem is solved, but now someone else is restricted. In an ideal world, anyone ought to be able to take any unit and not have it suck at its intended role, but that's not the case with Tactical Marines.
So what is your salution?
Ideally, remove the Tactical Squad entry and replace it with Grey Hunters.
I don't think that would help alot with some of the core issues or are Grey Hunters that much better that if nullifies all of the other paroblems.
Here is my true responce, If you want Grey Hunters, Play Space Wolves.
They have the same role, Grey Hunters are better. They die just as easily but can actually fight. Your response more or less equates to "yes, these are useful, but you can't have them", which doesn't solve anything.
Grey Hunters are what tactical marines should be in the first place. But at the end of the day, they die to Eldar/Tau/Daemons just the same. Their utter superiority over tactical marines is really on display in meq on meq action and now Tyranids. Go ahead, gaunts, charge those grey hunters and get CRUSHED. The same gaunts charge tac marines and wipe them up. 200% extra damage when assaulted makes the rapid fire weapons they possess no longer a death sentence at close ranges.
"You are saying that in 20 years of playing no-one *ever* talked to their opponent beforehand and said "you know what, my list is way too strong compared to yours, let me just take out a few of the top tier elements and replace them and make it a game" (or the equivalent) they always just steamrolled the other guy and called it a day? Never? That is so alien to me. "
Nope, I guess I've played at competitive FLGSs. It's not very satisfying not being able to take on a list's best build. It's not a victory if your opponent has to hold back. Also, we usually bring lists ahead of time with no prior knowledge of our opponent. There is no time or opportunity to work something like that out. It's alien to me to even consider pulling punches. I always put the most vicious list I think of together because I expect my opponent will do the same.
"you know what, my list is way too strong compared to yours"
That was the intent of the list building. To punish opponent for bad list decisions. But GW cheapens those decisions by bad balance.
" I just always get the impression from your posts you don't enjoy the game, I'd say find a new group but if BA were ever buffed to Eldar levels you'd be the same guy you have issue with playing Eldar/Tau now, you'd be happy I guess but what if they aren't? Personally I think if the game is causing this much annoyance you should simply move on, leave it behind, 40k has never been, nor I doubt will it ever be the game you want it to be. "
If BA were somehow equal to Tau/Eldar, then I could have an actual game against them. But, yes, the other lists would be bad match ups. It's not about just winning. It's about winning because I make correct decisions and my opponent does not. The crazy codex balance makes my correct decisions less valuable and their incorrect decisions less damaging. That's what's annoying. Not just the losing.
I do find myself playing 6th ed less and less. I've maybe 3 games in the last month of 40K vs hundreds of Starcraft matches.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: They have the same role, Grey Hunters are better. They die just as easily but can actually fight. Your response more or less equates to "yes, these are useful, but you can't have them", which doesn't solve anything.
Yes when it come to the FOC they fulfill the same roll, Taking up 2 Troop Choices, but they do not on the battlefield.
Tactical Squads are the core of the Space Marine army and thus are supposed to fulfill their roll of a Jack of Trades Role. They are supposed to fill all roles from Basic Battle to Anti-Swarm to Anti-Armor and if they need to take the fight to the enemy.
>I admit they are not as good as they should be. Maybe this has changed, but this is what they are supposed to be.
>In that role I think they should be able to take 2 Special Weapon or Two Heavy Weapons.
Grey Hunters are the Core of the Space Wolf Battle Doctrines. Witch is to be aggressive and take the fight to the enemy. A Heavy Weapon would slow them down so they take two special weapons and a Chain Sword because they know they are going to get close and want to.
"Grey Hunters are the Core of the Space Wolf Battle Doctrines. Witch is to be aggressive and take the fight to the enemy."
But they don't. They stand and shoot and dare chumps to assault them and make them stop.
A single heavy weapon does not really help tactical squads at all. All it does it encourage people to stand still when they might should be moving. Tactical marines at the very least should get double special weapons, no heavy and a CC weapon. I'll give Space Cheese (Wolves) their counter attack, although I think Sternguard should get counterattack as well to help with their outrageous price.
Martel732 wrote: "Grey Hunters are the Core of the Space Wolf Battle Doctrines. Witch is to be aggressive and take the fight to the enemy."
But they don't. They stand and shoot and dare chumps to assault them and make them stop.
A single heavy weapon does not really help tactical squads at all. All it does it encourage people to stand still when they might should be moving. Tactical marines at the very least should get double special weapons, no heavy and a CC weapon. I'll give Space Cheese (Wolves) their counter attack, although I think Sternguard should get counterattack as well to help with their outrageous price.
But then they would not be Tactical Marines, they would be come funny colored Space Wolves.
Giving Tactical Squads double Heavy Weapons would make a difrence, especialt to those whom Combat Squad.
Giving them Back thier Combat Blades would be nice and not be to "Wolfy" as they had them in previos editions.
Martel732 wrote: "Grey Hunters are the Core of the Space Wolf Battle Doctrines. Witch is to be aggressive and take the fight to the enemy."
But they don't. They stand and shoot and dare chumps to assault them and make them stop.
A single heavy weapon does not really help tactical squads at all. All it does it encourage people to stand still when they might should be moving. Tactical marines at the very least should get double special weapons, no heavy and a CC weapon. I'll give Space Cheese (Wolves) their counter attack, although I think Sternguard should get counterattack as well to help with their outrageous price.
But then they would not be Tactical Marines, they would be come funny colored Space Wolves.
Giving Tactical Squads double Heavy Weapons would make a difrence, especialt to those whom Combat Squad.
Giving them Back thier Combat Blades would be nice and not be to "Wolfy" as they had them in previos editions.
There never should have been such a gulf between tacs and Space Wolves to begin with. Double heavy still wouldn't mean anything, as Imperial heavy weapons are overcosted. This just makes the problem worse. I care about efficacy, not what's "Wolfy". The Space Wolves have had it too good for too long anyway. The only silver lining is that at least now they lose to the new power codices just like everyone else.
Martel732 wrote: "Grey Hunters are the Core of the Space Wolf Battle Doctrines. Witch is to be aggressive and take the fight to the enemy."
But they don't. They stand and shoot and dare chumps to assault them and make them stop.
A single heavy weapon does not really help tactical squads at all. All it does it encourage people to stand still when they might should be moving. Tactical marines at the very least should get double special weapons, no heavy and a CC weapon. I'll give Space Cheese (Wolves) their counter attack, although I think Sternguard should get counterattack as well to help with their outrageous price.
But then they would not be Tactical Marines, they would be come funny colored Space Wolves.
Giving Tactical Squads double Heavy Weapons would make a difrence, especialt to those whom Combat Squad.
Giving them Back thier Combat Blades would be nice and not be to "Wolfy" as they had them in previos editions.
There never should have been such a gulf between tacs and Space Wolves to begin with. Double heavy still wouldn't mean anything, as Imperial heavy weapons are overcosted. This just makes the problem worse. I care about efficacy, not what's "Wolfy". The Space Wolves have had it too good for too long anyway. The only silver lining is that at least now they lose to the new power codices just like everyone else.
So we have established That you want Grey Hunters.
What else would you sugest to salve the problem?
Martel732 wrote: "Grey Hunters are the Core of the Space Wolf Battle Doctrines. Witch is to be aggressive and take the fight to the enemy."
But they don't. They stand and shoot and dare chumps to assault them and make them stop.
A single heavy weapon does not really help tactical squads at all. All it does it encourage people to stand still when they might should be moving. Tactical marines at the very least should get double special weapons, no heavy and a CC weapon. I'll give Space Cheese (Wolves) their counter attack, although I think Sternguard should get counterattack as well to help with their outrageous price.
But then they would not be Tactical Marines, they would be come funny colored Space Wolves.
Giving Tactical Squads double Heavy Weapons would make a difrence, especialt to those whom Combat Squad.
Giving them Back thier Combat Blades would be nice and not be to "Wolfy" as they had them in previos editions.
There never should have been such a gulf between tacs and Space Wolves to begin with. Double heavy still wouldn't mean anything, as Imperial heavy weapons are overcosted. This just makes the problem worse. I care about efficacy, not what's "Wolfy". The Space Wolves have had it too good for too long anyway. The only silver lining is that at least now they lose to the new power codices just like everyone else.
So we have established That you want Grey Hunters.
What else would you sugest to salve the problem?
Well, Grey Hunters largely solve problems where 12" firing is feasible and the boltgun can do damage and you can expect a counter assasult. None of this is directly relevant and against Tau/Eldar and only helps a little vs Daemons.
I'm not really sure about the answer to that, to be honest. I keep coming back to "not having meqs as troops". What else do you recommend when I'm losing my ass from 30" most games? The double heavy thing is cute, but the Xenos are going to laugh it off. The tactical squad is just the poster boy for the issue. Marines are outclassed in firepower in a shooting edition.
I'm not really sure about the answer to that, to be honest. I keep coming back to "not having meqs as troops". What else do you recommend when I'm losing my ass from 30" most games? The double heavy thing is cute, but the Xenos are going to laugh it off. The tactical squad is just the poster boy for the issue. Marines are outclassed in firepower in a shooting edition.
Then what do you put there?
The real problem is not the MEQs, it is the Gaming Environment. In order to quiet down the “Marines Get Everything crowd” GW overcompensated. MEQs have been fodder since the Necron Codex Came out.
You want a simple fix, Give Marine Armor a 5++ or 6++ or FNP. That is what it will probably take to give them some survivability.
I'm not really sure about the answer to that, to be honest. I keep coming back to "not having meqs as troops". What else do you recommend when I'm losing my ass from 30" most games? The double heavy thing is cute, but the Xenos are going to laugh it off. The tactical squad is just the poster boy for the issue. Marines are outclassed in firepower in a shooting edition.
Then what do you put there?
The real problem is not the MEQs, it is the Gaming Environment. In order to quiet down the “Marines Get Everything crowd” GW overcompensated. MEQs have been fodder since the Necron Codex Came out.
You want a simple fix, Give Marine Armor a 5++ or 6++ or FNP. That is what it will probably take to give them some survivability.
BA have that, but they pay at least 50 pts for an IC that can be barrage sniped out to get it. That's not a bad idea, but doesn't change the problem of shooting back spit balls and having Sniper Kroot be a more potent troops choice.
The other way to look at it is that the gaming environment changed, but meq didn't That DOES make meq the problem unfortunately.
Martel732 wrote: BA have that, but they pay at least 50 pts for an IC that can be barrage sniped out to get it. That's not a bad idea, but doesn't change the problem of shooting back spit balls and having Sniper Kroot be a more potent troops choice.
The other way to look at it is that the gaming environment changed, but meq didn't That DOES make meq the problem unfortunately.
The Bolt Gun does it’s job, you just need a lot of them, like any Army. A single Tactical has 10 Guys. Think about a 20 or 30 model Tactical Squad.
Bolt Guns are not Spit-Wads, They are S4, that means they wound most armies on a 3+ and AP5 ignores the armor on a lot of armies. The only “Trooper Gun” out there better is the Pulse Rifle.
Fix the Bolt Gun…Give it Rending or AP4 and then it becomes Fluffy.
That is how I would fix the “Bolt Gun Problem” What would be your salution.
As a note I still don’t agree that they “SUCK”, but I do relies they have there problems.
I'll take the dire avenger catapult over the boltgun any day. And twice on Fridays.
I'll let you in on a little news flash: S4 is the new S3 or even S2. S4 hits are beneath the real lists like Tau and Eldar and even Daemons. S5 and up is where its at.
Bolters with rending would be interesting, but I doubt they would copy the Eldar's trick so closely.
It's hard to get a lot of a gun on a 14 pt model and still have points left for other part of the army. Especially given the amount of models now that either can't be hurt by bolters or are only wounded on a "6".
You talk of wounding enemies on "3"s and the AP 5, but most good players will not just offer up their troops into optimum range. Maybe after they bombard you with a few ion accelerators, and then you have quite a few fewer marines.
Martel732 wrote: I'll take the dire avenger catapult over the boltgun any day. And twice on Fridays.
I'll let you in on a little news flash: S4 is the new S3 or even S2. S4 hits are beneath the real lists like Tau and Eldar and even Daemons. S5 and up is where its at.
Bolters with rending would be interesting, but I doubt they would copy the Eldar's trick so closely.
It's hard to get a lot of a gun on a 14 pt model and still have points left for other part of the army. Especially given the amount of models now that either can't be hurt by bolters or are only wounded on a "6".
You talk of wounding enemies on "3"s and the AP 5, but most good players will not just offer up their troops into optimum range. Maybe after they bombard you with a few ion accelerators, and then you have quite a few fewer marines.
Again, those are Taudar things. Not Every Army has those...yet at the rate things are going.
Now I have have played a few games using the Standard of Deveistion and it does give you some good fire power.
How ever I see giving a Better Bolt Gun will not help at all. The moment the Marine shoots the improved bolter the guy is just going to go out and get another Riptide to counter them.
It's not my fault GW published the Riptide. It's not the fault of players for legally taking them. It IS the fault of GW by pricing them too low.
Taudar is going to come up a lot because those are the two most popular armies and I myself *can't avoid them*. And the players won't pull punches because GW hosed meqs this edition. They won't pull punches and they shouldn't have to.
Martel732 wrote: It's not my fault GW published the Riptide. It's not the fault of players for legally taking them. It IS the fault of GW by pricing them too low.
Taudar is going to come up a lot because those are the two most popular armies and I myself *can't avoid them*. And the players won't pull punches because GW hosed meqs this edition. They won't pull punches and they shouldn't have to.
I have never said anything about all of that.
I am going to come back and try to bet back On Topic.
Make them stormbolters with the option for psyammo to get access to STR 5. Ie, get GK troop weapons for all marines. Now tacticals can lay 4 ish wounds on an MC at 24" Now they have to be paid attention to.
Martel732 wrote: Make them stormbolters with the option for psyammo to get access to STR 5. Ie, get GK troop weapons for all marines. Now tacticals can lay 4 ish wounds on an MC at 24" Now they have to be paid attention to.
Well I will ask these two.
We make Tactical Squads into Grey Hunters, what do we give Grey Hunters to make them not Tactical Marines?
We give Storm Bolters and Psy Ammo to Tactical Squads, What do we give Grey Knight to make them not Tactical Marines?
Those are the things that make them [GH/GK] Different than normal Marines. I would be fine with this if GH/GK were still unique
Martel732 wrote: Make them stormbolters with the option for psyammo to get access to STR 5. Ie, get GK troop weapons for all marines. Now tacticals can lay 4 ish wounds on an MC at 24" Now they have to be paid attention to.
Well I will ask these two.
We make Tactical Squads into Grey Hunters, what do we give Grey Hunters to make them not Tactical Marines?
We give Storm Bolters and Psy Ammo to Tactical Squads, What do we give Grey Knight to make them not Tactical Marines?
Those are the things that make them [GH/GK] Different than normal Marines. I would be fine with this if GH/GK were still unique
Give them more stuff. Give Grey Hunters WS 5 for starters. Make their CC weapons AP 4.
For Grey Knights, I'd have to think harder.
But basically, the "special" meqs are where the normal meqs need to be, which means they need to be more special. Because right now, I'd pretty much take a sniper Kroot over any meq troop.
I would love for Chain Swords to be AP5 or Rending.
WS5 Grey Hunters...As a Space Wolf Player this would be great, but I don't think this is the way to go.
I am not sure myself what is needed. That I will have to say is beouse I am not having these issues you keep haiving.
Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:
" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "
Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:
" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "
Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.
Tactical squads often suck when you forget that the rest of the marine army is made up of tanks, TEQ and devestators. I often find that I use my heavy duty firepower against the more dangerous and scary Marine elements (such as a Land Raider full of termies rushing towards me), while the firepower that would be ineffective against this is targeted against the tactical squads. As such they seem fairly survivable, since most of it is low strength with a poor AP.
But sure if the entire army was tactical marines standing around, they'd be pretty poor.
But the points spent on tac marines could have been spent on the other stuff that kinda works. Marines tanks, teq, and devs are all pretty bad, though.
Tau can buy troops that can kill MCs. Marines? LOL
Martel732 wrote: But the points spent on tac marines could have been spent on the other stuff that kinda works. Marines tanks, teq, and devs are all pretty bad, though.
Tau can buy troops that can kill MCs. Marines? LOL
You realize that most MCs are not all T8. T5, T6 and T7 are far more common.
Martel732 wrote: But the points spent on tac marines could have been spent on the other stuff that kinda works. Marines tanks, teq, and devs are all pretty bad, though.
Tau can buy troops that can kill MCs. Marines? LOL
Well assuming you do *have* to take troops, the only alternative is scouts (or bikers, but that's a different topic). It may be your [i[opinion[/i] that tanks, terminators and devestator are "pretty bad", but they are all very common units and make up a good chunk of many marine players' armies. As such a tactical observance on the effectiveness of the OP when featured in a list involving them is perfectly valid. The advice itself was explicitly tailored to such lists, so where's your problem?
It's true that Tau basic weapons are a better Strength and AP, but honestly I think pretty much all of them would exchange their pulse rifles for boltguns if it meant they could get a cheap BS 4 heavy/special weapon. Fire warriors are actually a pretty poor comparison to Tactical Squads, since the former are far weaker vs virtually everything, and are a lot more fragile. They also have to pay a lot of points for a dedicated transport that is not very durable for what you pay.
MAybe you should compare tactical marines with other race's troops in a squad on squad combat without transports or stuff to find out if they're good by themselves.
Something like:
tac vs csm/firewarriors/ork boyz/necron warriors/dire avengers/imperial guardsmen/termagaunts etc.
They'll be on par or better vs most such enemies. And u'll see how huge is atsknf and how good t4 and 3+ is.
The problem lies within the ammount of fmc, riptides and other things that ignore a model having t4 and 3+.
I might do a few tests in different enviroment. The most interesting would be dire avengers and ork boyz.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:
" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "
Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.
I didn't want to reply because you previous reply made me sad. The idea that everyone in your group is scrabbling for an advantage before the game starts goes so heavily against the spirit of the game for me as to be alien. Where is the skill or joy in victory if you start the game the equivalent of 200pts up?
For us 40k is not a sport, it is a game to be enjoyed by both players. Stronger players bring weaker lists against weaker players or weaker armies, defeat is something that can happen if they are outplayed. I am I think I can say without hubris but to make a point that I am the strongest player in our group and my primary army is Eldar (With Nids and CSM as options) if I played a high end Eldar list most of our games would be an exercise in self gratification as I chalked up pointless win after pointless win.
Now if I weaken that army I create an even playing field and if my opponent outplays me on the day, seizes a mistake or sees something I don't, they can win despite my stronger status and race choice. Now once the game starts I will pull no punches, I will play to table my opponent but unlike if I played the much stronger list if I make those mistakes I may lose. It's so much more entertaining for all involved.
Anyway, one last post before I leave the thread because neither of us is gonna budge and we're just repeating the same stuff different ways:
Tac marines with Plasma gun, Heavy Bolter against BA ASM with packs. Tacs will get to shoot, double tap and overwatch before you even really hands on that will kill half the ASM, and that's the best case for the ASM, if the marines fall back the ASM would be looking at getting single tapped twice plus a double and overwatch.
Double that up and 2 tacs against 2 ASM will kill one of the ASM squads before they close to range and while they spend the game slowly chewing up the tac squad at 1.6 kills a round the other will be free to act, claim objectives, all that fun troop stuff. Personally I find wiping out half+ a squad of MEQ's with jump packs before they can get to you a respectable level of firepower.
Oh, and better hope the tacs don't break or have Calgar, in which case they may break free, rally, and double tap you again.
Now you may run ASM differently, like with a Sang Priest and melta guns, but he is pricy and every point is put back into the balance on the tacs side, combi weapons, more troops, a better heavy weapon, last thing you want is them to have a plasma cannon.
There's very few troops in the game tacs can't go point to point with and perform at least admirably, they get killed by heavy support choices, but show me a troop choice that doesn't.
koooaei wrote: MAybe you should compare tactical marines with other race's troops in a squad on squad combat without transports or stuff to find out if they're good by themselves.
Something like:
tac vs csm/firewarriors/ork boyz/necron warriors/dire avengers/imperial guardsmen/termagaunts etc.
I'll start off with ignoring what you said because it doesn't work. You can't compare a squad of Tacticals to a squad of Guardsmen and then draw any meaningful conclusions from that, because the Marines are twice as expensive. It'd tilt performance in favour of the Tactical Squad.
CSM get double special weapons. They're essentially "Grey Hunters lite" since they don't get ATSKNF. Look through the rest of the thread for that discussion.
Fire Warriors have an S5 weapon with 30" range and have elements in their army that can actually augment their firepower. The only such thing for Tacticals is someone casting Prescience on them, which requires you to either take Tigurius or an allied Inquisitor. CT:UM and CT:IF obviously do their thing too, but UM is a one-shot and IF is a 10% increase in bolter hits.
Ork Boyz were discussed as early as page 1; Shoota Boyz outshoot tacticals point for point and are almost as durable in cover, while having the stabilizing effect of rolling lots of dice everytime they do anything, decreasing their odds of that one turn of "well crap, everyone died". They also get full shots out to 18", although they have a shorter max range.
Necron Warriors have what is more or less a 3+ armour save (4+ armour + ((1/3)/1/2) RP roll) which can be buffed and have a gun that can kill a Land Raider. Roughly equal survivability as Tacticals, better firepower and, above all else, Night Scythes as Dedicated Transports. Who cares if your Troops can't fight in close combat? They'll just fly around being immune to it anyway.
Dire Avengers have a gun with pseudo-rending, full shots out to 18" and battle focus. They also unlock Wave Serpents. We've seen enough discussion about these I'd say.
Guardsmen are cheap and can take loads of ablative wounds for their Plasma and Melta guns. Veterans have an obscene level of firepower and can be flown around in Vendettas. With Commissars, they're rather unlikely to be running even if the enemy gets into CC.
Termagants are cheap as chips; you can get 180 of the buggers for 720-ish points. The 'Nid Codex hasn't been out long enough for me to want to form an opinion on it yet, but 180 'gants is a LOT of things coming running your way rather fast.
Grey Hunters have already been discussed.
I'd actually rate Sisters of Battle higher than Tactical Squads. That extra Meltagun or Flamer makes a huge difference. Worse in combat, but Tactical Marines can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag either.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:
" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "
Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.
I didn't want to reply because you previous reply made me sad. The idea that everyone in your group is scrabbling for an advantage before the game starts goes so heavily against the spirit of the game for me as to be alien. Where is the skill or joy in victory if you start the game the equivalent of 200pts up?
For us 40k is not a sport, it is a game to be enjoyed by both players. Stronger players bring weaker lists against weaker players or weaker armies, defeat is something that can happen if they are outplayed. I am I think I can say without hubris but to make a point that I am the strongest player in our group and my primary army is Eldar (With Nids and CSM as options) if I played a high end Eldar list most of our games would be an exercise in self gratification as I chalked up pointless win after pointless win.
Now if I weaken that army I create an even playing field and if my opponent outplays me on the day, seizes a mistake or sees something I don't, they can win despite my stronger status and race choice. Now once the game starts I will pull no punches, I will play to table my opponent but unlike if I played the much stronger list if I make those mistakes I may lose. It's so much more entertaining for all involved.
You're actually agreeing with us, in a roundabout way. What we're saying is that Tactical Marines ought to be better so that you wouldn't have to take weaker lists. If Tactical Marines were better you would have more options that you could take without breaking the game.
Just as an example, let's assume that your favourite unit is the Wave Serpent. If you want to play with your favourite unit, you're more or less going to have a strong list by default. Your options are either to not play with your favourite unit, thus reducing your enjoyment, or to ROFL-stomp your enemy, reducing his or her enjoyment. What we want is to have Tactical Marines that let you, as an Eldar player, take Wave Serpents without feeling bad about it, without turning the fight into "look how many Marines you lose per turn, what fun!".
koooaei wrote: MAybe you should compare tactical marines with other race's troops in a squad on squad combat without transports or stuff to find out if they're good by themselves.
Something like:
tac vs csm/firewarriors/ork boyz/necron warriors/dire avengers/imperial guardsmen/termagaunts etc.
I'll start off with ignoring what you said because it doesn't work. You can't compare a squad of Tacticals to a squad of Guardsmen and then draw any meaningful conclusions from that, because the Marines are twice as expensive. It'd tilt performance in favour of the Tactical Squad.
CSM get double special weapons. They're essentially "Grey Hunters lite" since they don't get ATSKNF. Look through the rest of the thread for that discussion.
Fire Warriors have an S5 weapon with 30" range and have elements in their army that can actually augment their firepower. The only such thing for Tacticals is someone casting Prescience on them, which requires you to either take Tigurius or an allied Inquisitor. CT:UM and CT:IF obviously do their thing too, but UM is a one-shot and IF is a 10% increase in bolter hits.
Ork Boyz were discussed as early as page 1; Shoota Boyz outshoot tacticals point for point and are almost as durable in cover, while having the stabilizing effect of rolling lots of dice everytime they do anything, decreasing their odds of that one turn of "well crap, everyone died". They also get full shots out to 18", although they have a shorter max range.
Necron Warriors have what is more or less a 3+ armour save (4+ armour + ((1/3)/1/2) RP roll) which can be buffed and have a gun that can kill a Land Raider. Roughly equal survivability as Tacticals, better firepower and, above all else, Night Scythes as Dedicated Transports. Who cares if your Troops can't fight in close combat? They'll just fly around being immune to it anyway.
Dire Avengers have a gun with pseudo-rending, full shots out to 18" and battle focus. They also unlock Wave Serpents. We've seen enough discussion about these I'd say.
Guardsmen are cheap and can take loads of ablative wounds for their Plasma and Melta guns. Veterans have an obscene level of firepower and can be flown around in Vendettas. With Commissars, they're rather unlikely to be running even if the enemy gets into CC.
Termagants are cheap as chips; you can get 180 of the buggers for 720-ish points. The 'Nid Codex hasn't been out long enough for me to want to form an opinion on it yet, but 180 'gants is a LOT of things coming running your way rather fast.
Grey Hunters have already been discussed.
I'd actually rate Sisters of Battle higher than Tactical Squads. That extra Meltagun or Flamer makes a huge difference. Worse in combat, but Tactical Marines can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag either.
So on the whole, Troops to Troops, tactical squad is above average. And that's what i'm trying to tell you. The things that shift the ballance so much are transports and too cheap and effective things that negate armor/cover/toughness. But if u're buffing tactical marines straight - u're just forcing EVEN MORE annoying ap2 ignore cover pieplates. Cause if tacticals get too buffed - other troops will have hard time matching them without abusing such cheeze.
Now the pure existence of possibility to field triptides and serpent spam without loosing much but recieving massive advantages lowers overall good tactical marines to the state of mediocre point-holders. But such is the GW policy:
1. You produced a new X model or have tons of X models that lie dusted on the stock shelves produced previously cause players usually prefere a Y model.
2. You make the rules for X model good and make rules for Y model worse so that people want to buy your X model that u've spent time and money creating in the first place. Or just ban an Y model. Or invent a new role that can be fulfilled only by X model.
3. After dealing with the butthurt of their fancy Y models being replaced by a new/inmproved X model or by the fact that the new role is so important that you can't be sucksessful without X model, players pay the money.
4. You create the line of such X models that replace Y models for all the current codexes.
5. You repeat the process.
So it's no wonder that tacticals are so outclassed by new or improved models. It's business. I bet lootas and battlewagons are gona get hit next
You're actually agreeing with us, in a roundabout way. What we're saying is that Tactical Marines ought to be better so that you wouldn't have to take weaker lists. If Tactical Marines were better you would have more options that you could take without breaking the game.
Dammit Walrus I was trying to leave the thread
In part I am, it's why I said that suggesting people don't want a perfectly balanced game is a strawman. It'd be great if everything was balanced to perfection (no-one is saying otherwise) but doing that with the hundreds of unit combinations and powers, allies and dataslates is incredibly difficult. GW have it roughly right, there are a handful of units/combinations in the whole game that are too good or too bad, it's why you see so much in the way of repeated units in tourneys, spam the best.
The GW writers don't see their game as being played competitively, they see it as being played by people like me, so for them the "close enough" school of balance works.
I don't think Tacticals fall into the too good or the too bad categories, I think they sit in the 95% of units that are about right. Compared to Riptides they are weak, compared to Genestealers they are good.
This thread has become something like "do Tactical Marines suck?".
In my opinion, no they don´t. I play with them and against them, and I see them as one of the best units of one of the best armies.
You cannot look a "basic" troop option and compare it with a Fast, Heavy or Elite option. Troops are there to take strategic points, and perhaps give some support.
Tactical Space Marines are a multipurpose unit with more options than full Codexes. You can customize them to incredible levels, making them good at everything you want. And yes I said good. If you want to see a bad Troop option you should get your head out of this Codex. Have you played Tyranids, Chaos Marines or Sisters? They all have troops at around 14 points, the cost of a marine, which are far worse in all senses to the point that claiming that "Tactical suck" sounds quite odd.
A Chaos Space Marine lacks a lot of special rules that makes it quite inferior than the loyal counterpart. For a single point a tactical gets ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Chapter Tactics. You also lose the crippling Warriors of Chaos rule. Which is perhaps the biggest difference between Marines and the rest: Marines gets powerful & useful rules, the rest get weaknesses.
-> ATSKNF is a completely broken rule that allows the Marine player to skip all the Morale system, allegedly because it is an "army for beginners". It also grants retreating units major boosts by giving them big tactical advantages after a retreat.
-> Combat Squads is really big too. It grants you the possibility of changing the way your army deploy, in many ways, adapting to the battle. It is the only army that can do that, and it is a major tactical boost.
-> And then you get Chapter Tactics. The most powerful rule, the one everyone wanted. You can customize your army to amazing levels, getting lots of different Special Rules, all of them powerful, not a single weakness, for free. It was the dream of Chaos players (Legions), Sisters players (Orders), Ork players (Clans), Tyranid players (Hive Fleets), Dark Eldar players (Cabals), Eldar (Craftworlds), Imperial Guard players (doctrines) and the rest. Nobody else got it.
And everything is free. As a CSM player I would gladly pay 1 point for getting rid of Warriors of Chaos. If I proposed getting four really powerfull special rules for free I would be laughed at.
And let´s not start with 12 points Sisters or 14 points Genestealers!
And all this for 70 points. 70 points. And it is not ever the best Troop unit in the Codex (bikes). The best Troop unit in Codex: CSM is Cultists, and they are 50 points. What do tactical gets for 20 points?
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to shoot a weak unit (say, Cultists): it dies, runs away or get crippled.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: nothing. At all.
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a weak unit (say, Cultists): Cultists die, horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: Cultists die. Horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a light tank or a Walker: the vehicle dies, quickly. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to assault a light tank: nothing. If it is a Walker the Cultists die.
What happens if you customize your tactical marines: they have a chance of doing anything. A power fist, a power sword, a melta gun or a plasma cannon completely change their usefullness.
What happens if you customize your Cultists. Why would you? They have very few options, and they remain the same. The only option I have ever considered is making them zombies.
That´s a useless unit. A concept that was rooted out from Codex: Space Marines some time ago. The Codex have good units, very good units and excellent units. To find a really bad unit you need to look at other places.
I play both Space Marines and other armies, and Tactical are GREAT. I can trust them to hold the line and take care of easy stuff. That´s something I cannot say of my Daemons, my Genestealers, my Sisters, my cheap Culstist or my CSM.
That being said, I would give them some form of boost, because fluff-wise they are not the worse infantry unit in the Codex (save Scouts), which is what they are game-wise. Giving them the first rule proposed by the OP: ("Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list." and a slight buff to the no longer cool Bolter sound fine to me.
But then you should contemplate giving some boost to all other basic Troop options that are in a way, way worse state than Tacticals: Battle Sisters, CSM, Thousand Sons, Berserkers, Genestealers... the list is long.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:
" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "
Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.
I didn't want to reply because you previous reply made me sad. The idea that everyone in your group is scrabbling for an advantage before the game starts goes so heavily against the spirit of the game for me as to be alien. Where is the skill or joy in victory if you start the game the equivalent of 200pts up?
For us 40k is not a sport, it is a game to be enjoyed by both players. Stronger players bring weaker lists against weaker players or weaker armies, defeat is something that can happen if they are outplayed. I am I think I can say without hubris but to make a point that I am the strongest player in our group and my primary army is Eldar (With Nids and CSM as options) if I played a high end Eldar list most of our games would be an exercise in self gratification as I chalked up pointless win after pointless win.
Now if I weaken that army I create an even playing field and if my opponent outplays me on the day, seizes a mistake or sees something I don't, they can win despite my stronger status and race choice. Now once the game starts I will pull no punches, I will play to table my opponent but unlike if I played the much stronger list if I make those mistakes I may lose. It's so much more entertaining for all involved.
Anyway, one last post before I leave the thread because neither of us is gonna budge and we're just repeating the same stuff different ways:
Tac marines with Plasma gun, Heavy Bolter against BA ASM with packs. Tacs will get to shoot, double tap and overwatch before you even really hands on that will kill half the ASM, and that's the best case for the ASM, if the marines fall back the ASM would be looking at getting single tapped twice plus a double and overwatch.
Double that up and 2 tacs against 2 ASM will kill one of the ASM squads before they close to range and while they spend the game slowly chewing up the tac squad at 1.6 kills a round the other will be free to act, claim objectives, all that fun troop stuff. Personally I find wiping out half+ a squad of MEQ's with jump packs before they can get to you a respectable level of firepower.
Oh, and better hope the tacs don't break or have Calgar, in which case they may break free, rally, and double tap you again.
Now you may run ASM differently, like with a Sang Priest and melta guns, but he is pricy and every point is put back into the balance on the tacs side, combi weapons, more troops, a better heavy weapon, last thing you want is them to have a plasma cannon.
There's very few troops in the game tacs can't go point to point with and perform at least admirably, they get killed by heavy support choices, but show me a troop choice that doesn't.
da001 wrote: This thread has become something like "do Tactical Marines suck?".
In my opinion, no they don´t. I play with them and against them, and I see them as one of the best units of one of the best armies.
You cannot look a "basic" troop option and compare it with a Fast, Heavy or Elite option. Troops are there to take strategic points, and perhaps give some support.
Tactical Space Marines are a multipurpose unit with more options than full Codexes. You can customize them to incredible levels, making them good at everything you want. And yes I said good. If you want to see a bad Troop option you should get your head out of this Codex. Have you played Tyranids, Chaos Marines or Sisters? They all have troops at around 14 points, the cost of a marine, which are far worse in all senses to the point that claiming that "Tactical suck" sounds quite odd.
A Chaos Space Marine lacks a lot of special rules that makes it quite inferior than the loyal counterpart. For a single point a tactical gets ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Chapter Tactics. You also lose the crippling Warriors of Chaos rule. Which is perhaps the biggest difference between Marines and the rest: Marines gets powerful & useful rules, the rest get weaknesses.
-> ATSKNF is a completely broken rule that allows the Marine player to skip all the Morale system, allegedly because it is an "army for beginners". It also grants retreating units major boosts by giving them big tactical advantages after a retreat.
-> Combat Squads is really big too. It grants you the possibility of changing the way your army deploy, in many ways, adapting to the battle. It is the only army that can do that, and it is a major tactical boost.
-> And then you get Chapter Tactics. The most powerful rule, the one everyone wanted. You can customize your army to amazing levels, getting lots of different Special Rules, all of them powerful, not a single weakness, for free. It was the dream of Chaos players (Legions), Sisters players (Orders), Ork players (Clans), Tyranid players (Hive Fleets), Dark Eldar players (Cabals), Eldar (Craftworlds), Imperial Guard players (doctrines) and the rest. Nobody else got it.
CSM get an extra CCW and can take double specials. ATSKNF has already been discussed in the thread, it's really not as good as you're making it out to be. If everyone dies to a man, you're not using it anyway.
Combat Squads lets Space Marines be the only army with deployment customization, if you exclude Imperial Guard, Space Wolves and Grey Knights.
Chapter Tactics doesn't actually do that much though. Yes, they're nifty boni to have, I'm not turning down a 6+ FNP on everything, but the reason people want Legions, Orders, Clans and the like is to make the fluff matter, not because it's the best rule in the game.
And all this for 70 points. 70 points. And it is not ever the best Troop unit in the Codex (bikes). The best Troop unit in Codex: CSM is Cultists, and they are 50 points. What do tactical gets for 20 points?
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to shoot a weak unit (say, Cultists): it dies, runs away or get crippled.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: nothing. At all.
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a weak unit (say, Cultists): Cultists die, horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: Cultists die. Horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a light tank or a Walker: the vehicle dies, quickly. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to assault a light tank: nothing. If it is a Walker the Cultists die.
What happens if you customize your tactical marines: they have a chance of doing anything. A power fist, a power sword, a melta gun or a plasma cannon completely change their usefullness.
What happens if you customize your Cultists. Why would you? They have very few options, and they remain the same. The only option I have ever considered is making them zombies.
That´s a useless unit. A concept that was rooted out from Codex: Space Marines some time ago. The Codex have good units, very good units and excellent units. To find a really bad unit you need to look at other places.
I play both Space Marines and other armies, and Tactical are GREAT. I can trust them to hold the line and take care of easy stuff. That´s something I cannot say of my Daemons, my Genestealers, my Sisters, my cheap Culstist or my CSM.
That being said, I would give them some form of boost, because fluff-wise they are not the worse infantry unit in the Codex (save Scouts), which is what they are game-wise. Giving them the first rule proposed by the OP: ("Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list." and a slight buff to the no longer cool Bolter sound fine to me.
But then you should contemplate giving some boost to all other basic Troop options that are in a way, way worse state than Tacticals: Battle Sisters, CSM, Thousand Sons, Berserkers, Genestealers... the list is long.
Crikey, you really need to read the thread you're responding to.
Cultists get 10 wounds for 50 points, Marines get 5 for 70. The 10 Cultists are just as durable against bolters in 4+ cover as the Marines, and more durable against AP3 stuff (and if they go to ground for a 3+ or 2+ cover save, they live longer). The points saved add up, allowing you to purchase specialized units that perform better. Whether or not the Marines kill Cultists or not is irrelevant, neither of the two Troops choices can meaningfully threaten killy things, so the only thing left to do for them is to objective camp. Cultists are better at that.
You're playing to the strength of the Tactical Marines but ignore the fact that a fully kitted Tactical Squad is in excess of 140 points, whereas 10 Cultists are 50 points. If you hide the Cultists in reserve and walk them on later in the game they'll live long enough to score, freeing up at least 90 points that you could be spending on something else. Let's put it this way: Would you rather have 20 Marines or 20 Cultists and a Heldrake?
Battle Sisters aren't worse than Tacticals, because they can actually contribute. Same with CSM; double special weapons matters when the only meaningful part of the squad is the special weapons. The fact that there are Troops that are worse than Tacticals doesn't mean that they're good anyway, it just makes them not as bad as the others, most of which are in armies that have other options.
da001 wrote: This thread has become something like "do Tactical Marines suck?".
In my opinion, no they don´t. I play with them and against them, and I see them as one of the best units of one of the best armies.
You cannot look a "basic" troop option and compare it with a Fast, Heavy or Elite option. Troops are there to take strategic points, and perhaps give some support.
Tactical Space Marines are a multipurpose unit with more options than full Codexes. You can customize them to incredible levels, making them good at everything you want. And yes I said good. If you want to see a bad Troop option you should get your head out of this Codex. Have you played Tyranids, Chaos Marines or Sisters? They all have troops at around 14 points, the cost of a marine, which are far worse in all senses to the point that claiming that "Tactical suck" sounds quite odd.
A Chaos Space Marine lacks a lot of special rules that makes it quite inferior than the loyal counterpart. For a single point a tactical gets ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Chapter Tactics. You also lose the crippling Warriors of Chaos rule. Which is perhaps the biggest difference between Marines and the rest: Marines gets powerful & useful rules, the rest get weaknesses.
-> ATSKNF is a completely broken rule that allows the Marine player to skip all the Morale system, allegedly because it is an "army for beginners". It also grants retreating units major boosts by giving them big tactical advantages after a retreat.
-> Combat Squads is really big too. It grants you the possibility of changing the way your army deploy, in many ways, adapting to the battle. It is the only army that can do that, and it is a major tactical boost.
-> And then you get Chapter Tactics. The most powerful rule, the one everyone wanted. You can customize your army to amazing levels, getting lots of different Special Rules, all of them powerful, not a single weakness, for free. It was the dream of Chaos players (Legions), Sisters players (Orders), Ork players (Clans), Tyranid players (Hive Fleets), Dark Eldar players (Cabals), Eldar (Craftworlds), Imperial Guard players (doctrines) and the rest. Nobody else got it.
And everything is free. As a CSM player I would gladly pay 1 point for getting rid of Warriors of Chaos. If I proposed getting four really powerfull special rules for free I would be laughed at.
And let´s not start with 12 points Sisters or 14 points Genestealers!
And all this for 70 points. 70 points. And it is not ever the best Troop unit in the Codex (bikes). The best Troop unit in Codex: CSM is Cultists, and they are 50 points. What do tactical gets for 20 points?
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to shoot a weak unit (say, Cultists): it dies, runs away or get crippled.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: nothing. At all.
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a weak unit (say, Cultists): Cultists die, horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: Cultists die. Horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a light tank or a Walker: the vehicle dies, quickly. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to assault a light tank: nothing. If it is a Walker the Cultists die.
What happens if you customize your tactical marines: they have a chance of doing anything. A power fist, a power sword, a melta gun or a plasma cannon completely change their usefullness.
What happens if you customize your Cultists. Why would you? They have very few options, and they remain the same. The only option I have ever considered is making them zombies.
That´s a useless unit. A concept that was rooted out from Codex: Space Marines some time ago. The Codex have good units, very good units and excellent units. To find a really bad unit you need to look at other places.
I play both Space Marines and other armies, and Tactical are GREAT. I can trust them to hold the line and take care of easy stuff. That´s something I cannot say of my Daemons, my Genestealers, my Sisters, my cheap Culstist or my CSM.
That being said, I would give them some form of boost, because fluff-wise they are not the worse infantry unit in the Codex (save Scouts), which is what they are game-wise. Giving them the first rule proposed by the OP: ("Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list." and a slight buff to the no longer cool Bolter sound fine to me.
But then you should contemplate giving some boost to all other basic Troop options that are in a way, way worse state than Tacticals: Battle Sisters, CSM, Thousand Sons, Berserkers, Genestealers... the list is long.
This is everything I have been saying for 15 pages summed up better than me.
That and everytime I bring up Chapter Tactics I get crickets, that is the current game changer no one is seeing.
I'm not sure why some people don't see the value of ATSKNF.
It isn't just the falling auto regroup. It's also being completely immune to being wiped out in a sweeping advance. And look at the penalties you get when you rally. Oh wait, you don't suffer any of the penalties and actually get more movement. ATSKNF has saved me more times than I can count. You're also immune to fear.
Combat squads are also a huge advantage as mentioned before.
But the upgrades are what makes them versatile. Versatility is in itself the Tactical Squad's main advantage. In addition to it's special rules mentioned above you can pick just about anything to deal or help deal with anything.
Want a Tactical in your opponent's deployment zone near an objective? Hey for 35 points you can get a drop pod. Want to box up and stay safe, how about a rhino in cover and you can shoot your heavy weapon from the hatch. Not strong enough? How about a razorback where you can access another heavy weapon. Want to be more defensive take a flamer. Want to pop a vehicle first turn? Take a melta use ultra tactics and drop pod in with only 5 guys (heck take a combi melta for your sarge there too while you are at it).
It's how Tacts mesh with the rest of your army. Yep, send in your Special forces to clear specific targets and people but you are going to need your basic infantry to win the war. You can't win without your Tacts. In the marine codex you can adapt them to just about every role.
As to the OP's title about making them better, I would go with the HH bolter rule for tacticals. If they remain stationary you get an extra shot and gain shred. But that's as far as I would go. They are fine as they are in the context of the game.
Crantor wrote: I'm not sure why some people don't see the value of ATSKNF.
It isn't just the falling auto regroup. It's also being completely immune to being wiped out in a sweeping advance. And look at the penalties you get when you rally. Oh wait, you don't suffer any of the penalties and actually get more movement. ATSKNF has saved me more times than I can count. You're also immune to fear.
The reason ATSKNF doesn't matter in 6th edition (and we've said this loads of times) is that you have to live to use it. What few CC units remain viable in 6th edition are things like FMCs, Wraiths and Juggerlords, and they don't care if you're a Marine with ATSKNF, they cut you down instantly anyway.
Yes, ATSKNF can save you, but I'd rather have cheaper Troops so I can spend more points on damage and not have to be saved in the first place.
But the upgrades are what makes them versatile. Versatility is in itself the Tactical Squad's main advantage. In addition to it's special rules mentioned above you can pick just about anything to deal or help deal with anything.
If only there were a post in here somewhere discussing why versatility is worse than specialization. If only...
Meh. Doesn't bother me one way or the other. People will still whine one way or the other about either how good or how bad their or someone else's units are compared to theirs. If you don't like marines (Tacticals specifically) play another army.
Like I said, the HH shredding bolters would be a nifty addition.
Just giving my 2cents for what it is worth. And given that it is worth 10% less than USD it's less than you think.
da001 wrote: This thread has become something like "do Tactical Marines suck?".
In my opinion, no they don´t. I play with them and against them, and I see them as one of the best units of one of the best armies.
You cannot look a "basic" troop option and compare it with a Fast, Heavy or Elite option. Troops are there to take strategic points, and perhaps give some support.
Tactical Space Marines are a multipurpose unit with more options than full Codexes. You can customize them to incredible levels, making them good at everything you want. And yes I said good. If you want to see a bad Troop option you should get your head out of this Codex. Have you played Tyranids, Chaos Marines or Sisters? They all have troops at around 14 points, the cost of a marine, which are far worse in all senses to the point that claiming that "Tactical suck" sounds quite odd.
A Chaos Space Marine lacks a lot of special rules that makes it quite inferior than the loyal counterpart. For a single point a tactical gets ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Chapter Tactics. You also lose the crippling Warriors of Chaos rule. Which is perhaps the biggest difference between Marines and the rest: Marines gets powerful & useful rules, the rest get weaknesses.
-> ATSKNF is a completely broken rule that allows the Marine player to skip all the Morale system, allegedly because it is an "army for beginners". It also grants retreating units major boosts by giving them big tactical advantages after a retreat.
-> Combat Squads is really big too. It grants you the possibility of changing the way your army deploy, in many ways, adapting to the battle. It is the only army that can do that, and it is a major tactical boost.
-> And then you get Chapter Tactics. The most powerful rule, the one everyone wanted. You can customize your army to amazing levels, getting lots of different Special Rules, all of them powerful, not a single weakness, for free. It was the dream of Chaos players (Legions), Sisters players (Orders), Ork players (Clans), Tyranid players (Hive Fleets), Dark Eldar players (Cabals), Eldar (Craftworlds), Imperial Guard players (doctrines) and the rest. Nobody else got it.
And everything is free. As a CSM player I would gladly pay 1 point for getting rid of Warriors of Chaos. If I proposed getting four really powerfull special rules for free I would be laughed at.
And let´s not start with 12 points Sisters or 14 points Genestealers!
And all this for 70 points. 70 points. And it is not ever the best Troop unit in the Codex (bikes). The best Troop unit in Codex: CSM is Cultists, and they are 50 points. What do tactical gets for 20 points?
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to shoot a weak unit (say, Cultists): it dies, runs away or get crippled.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: nothing. At all.
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a weak unit (say, Cultists): Cultists die, horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: Cultists die. Horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a light tank or a Walker: the vehicle dies, quickly. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to assault a light tank: nothing. If it is a Walker the Cultists die.
What happens if you customize your tactical marines: they have a chance of doing anything. A power fist, a power sword, a melta gun or a plasma cannon completely change their usefullness.
What happens if you customize your Cultists. Why would you? They have very few options, and they remain the same. The only option I have ever considered is making them zombies.
That´s a useless unit. A concept that was rooted out from Codex: Space Marines some time ago. The Codex have good units, very good units and excellent units. To find a really bad unit you need to look at other places.
I play both Space Marines and other armies, and Tactical are GREAT. I can trust them to hold the line and take care of easy stuff. That´s something I cannot say of my Daemons, my Genestealers, my Sisters, my cheap Culstist or my CSM.
That being said, I would give them some form of boost, because fluff-wise they are not the worse infantry unit in the Codex (save Scouts), which is what they are game-wise. Giving them the first rule proposed by the OP: ("Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list." and a slight buff to the no longer cool Bolter sound fine to me.
But then you should contemplate giving some boost to all other basic Troop options that are in a way, way worse state than Tacticals: Battle Sisters, CSM, Thousand Sons, Berserkers, Genestealers... the list is long.
Tacticals are crap. We've explained extensively in this thread why this is true. Evidently you don't play space marines against any opponents that actually are fielding good lists or any opponent who know how to move their models. Tacticals do not contribute to the fight and are dead weight the marines can not afford. ATSKNF is incredibly overrated. I've voluntarily played without the rule in effect and noticed very little difference.
Good players are not going to allow the scenarios above to unfold. I know that I don't. I don't fear or care about tactical squads and they are always a harbinger of my opponent's defeat.
"I'm not sure why some people don't see the value of ATSKNF. "
Because my marines usually die to the man instead of taking morale tests. That's why.
"What happens if you customize your tactical marines: they have a chance of doing anything. A power fist, a power sword, a melta gun or a plasma cannon completely change their usefullness. "
No, that doesn't really mean anything. Been there, done that.
"That and everytime I bring up Chapter Tactics I get crickets, that is the current game changer no one is seeing."
That's because chapter tactics doesn't address the fundamental problems of the tactical squad at all. Chapter tactics don't make tacticals good at all, not even the bolter drill, because they're still just bolters.
You're actually agreeing with us, in a roundabout way. What we're saying is that Tactical Marines ought to be better so that you wouldn't have to take weaker lists. If Tactical Marines were better you would have more options that you could take without breaking the game.
Dammit Walrus I was trying to leave the thread
In part I am, it's why I said that suggesting people don't want a perfectly balanced game is a strawman. It'd be great if everything was balanced to perfection (no-one is saying otherwise) but doing that with the hundreds of unit combinations and powers, allies and dataslates is incredibly difficult. GW have it roughly right, there are a handful of units/combinations in the whole game that are too good or too bad, it's why you see so much in the way of repeated units in tourneys, spam the best.
The GW writers don't see their game as being played competitively, they see it as being played by people like me, so for them the "close enough" school of balance works.
I don't think Tacticals fall into the too good or the too bad categories, I think they sit in the 95% of units that are about right. Compared to Riptides they are weak, compared to Genestealers they are good.
If you think GW has it roughly right, you need your head examined. Too many useless units and then there are the chosen few god-like units.
Martel732 wrote: Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:
" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "
Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.
I didn't want to reply because you previous reply made me sad. The idea that everyone in your group is scrabbling for an advantage before the game starts goes so heavily against the spirit of the game for me as to be alien. Where is the skill or joy in victory if you start the game the equivalent of 200pts up?
For us 40k is not a sport, it is a game to be enjoyed by both players. Stronger players bring weaker lists against weaker players or weaker armies, defeat is something that can happen if they are outplayed. I am I think I can say without hubris but to make a point that I am the strongest player in our group and my primary army is Eldar (With Nids and CSM as options) if I played a high end Eldar list most of our games would be an exercise in self gratification as I chalked up pointless win after pointless win.
Now if I weaken that army I create an even playing field and if my opponent outplays me on the day, seizes a mistake or sees something I don't, they can win despite my stronger status and race choice. Now once the game starts I will pull no punches, I will play to table my opponent but unlike if I played the much stronger list if I make those mistakes I may lose. It's so much more entertaining for all involved.
Anyway, one last post before I leave the thread because neither of us is gonna budge and we're just repeating the same stuff different ways:
Tac marines with Plasma gun, Heavy Bolter against BA ASM with packs. Tacs will get to shoot, double tap and overwatch before you even really hands on that will kill half the ASM, and that's the best case for the ASM, if the marines fall back the ASM would be looking at getting single tapped twice plus a double and overwatch.
Double that up and 2 tacs against 2 ASM will kill one of the ASM squads before they close to range and while they spend the game slowly chewing up the tac squad at 1.6 kills a round the other will be free to act, claim objectives, all that fun troop stuff. Personally I find wiping out half+ a squad of MEQ's with jump packs before they can get to you a respectable level of firepower.
Oh, and better hope the tacs don't break or have Calgar, in which case they may break free, rally, and double tap you again.
Now you may run ASM differently, like with a Sang Priest and melta guns, but he is pricy and every point is put back into the balance on the tacs side, combi weapons, more troops, a better heavy weapon, last thing you want is them to have a plasma cannon.
There's very few troops in the game tacs can't go point to point with and perform at least admirably, they get killed by heavy support choices, but show me a troop choice that doesn't.
Grey Hunters. CSM. Sniper Kroot. Firewarriors. Dire Avengers. Grey Knight base troops. Shoota Boyz.
There are a ton of troops that can waste tactical marines.
Oh, and BA ASM don't really care about plasma. Plasma doesn't double me out and marines don't have much access to ignores cover. The tactical squad doesn't have a ghost of a chance, as ASM can jump over the 12" double tap spot.
Martel732 wrote: Tacticals are crap. We've explained extensively in this thread why this is true. Evidently you don't play space marines against any opponents that actually are fielding good lists or any opponent who know how to move their models. Tacticals do not contribute to the fight and are dead weight the marines can not afford. ATSKNF is incredibly overrated. I've voluntarily played without the rule in effect and noticed very little difference.
Good players are not going to allow the scenarios above to unfold. I know that I don't. I don't fear or care about tactical squads and they are always a harbinger of my opponent's defeat.
No, you have told us why you think they are “Crap”. You have not proven it to us the same as we have not proven they are “Not Crap” to you.
How about we try a different Approach: List in order what you feel their deficiencies [and yes we all know what you think they are].
1] Vulnerability to AP3
2] Bolt Guns are incapable of inflicting damage
3] and so on.
Then rather than saying they “Suck Because!” give us solutions to your problems.
1] Vulnerability to AP3: Give them FNP 2] Bolt Guns are incapable of inflicting damage: Make them S5 AP4
3] and so on.
Crantor wrote: Meh. Doesn't bother me one way or the other. People will still whine one way or the other about either how good or how bad their or someone else's units are compared to theirs. If you don't like marines (Tacticals specifically) play another army.
Like I said, the HH shredding bolters would be a nifty addition.
Just giving my 2cents for what it is worth. And given that it is worth 10% less than USD it's less than you think.
Martel732 wrote: Tacticals are crap. We've explained extensively in this thread why this is true. Evidently you don't play space marines against any opponents that actually are fielding good lists or any opponent who know how to move their models. Tacticals do not contribute to the fight and are dead weight the marines can not afford. ATSKNF is incredibly overrated. I've voluntarily played without the rule in effect and noticed very little difference.
Good players are not going to allow the scenarios above to unfold. I know that I don't. I don't fear or care about tactical squads and they are always a harbinger of my opponent's defeat.
No, you have told us why you think they are “Crap”. You have not proven it to us the same as we have not proven they are “Not Crap” to you.
How about we try a different Approach: List in order what you feel their deficiencies [and yes we all know what you think they are].
1] Vulnerability to AP3
2] Bolt Guns are incapable of inflicting damage
3] and so on.
Then rather than saying they “Suck Because!” give us solutions to your problems.
1] Vulnerability to AP3: Give them FNP 2] Bolt Guns are incapable of inflicting damage: Make them S5 AP4
3] and so on.
They do not contribute enough offense. I've said this at least 4 times. Sniper Kroot can meaningfully threaten MCs. Can tacs? No. Shoota Boyz can outshoot tacticals and suck up way more damage.
Tacticals do not make my opponent make any hard choices. In nearly every case, tacticals are safely ignored until all the other actually sorta dangerous marine units are dead, and then they can be wiped up at will.
I've also stated that being armed more like GK troops would really help a lot. S5 is so much better than S4. S4, as I said before is really like the new S3.
You can't/won't change armies
You can't/won't listen to others that have experiences other than your own
You can't/won't try to make changes within your group
You can't/won't make suggestion on how to improve them
I am starting the only thing you Can/Will do is complain out them.
I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).
I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"
Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list
nobody wrote: I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).
I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"
Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list
I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.
What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.
Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.
Are you talking about paying two points per model to get a CCW? You know the CSM would get 15 points against the 14 points of a far far far really far better loyal Marine?
and can take double specials.
True. That´s the only advantage the far better tactical space marines miss. That´s the reason I understand why the OP is asking for it. Sounds good to me. Then we add Legion/Order Tactics, Fearless and a Combat Squads equivalent to CSM and Sisters and we have Balance!
ATSKNF has already been discussed in the thread, it's really not as good as you're making it out to be. If everyone dies to a man, you're not using it anyway.
I see you never played with an army that depends on Morale.
You never suffered Sweeping Advance. It is a rule that quickly destroys any unit you make a mistake with.
ATSKF is broken. Really broken. It allows marines to completely ignore a lot of things that will destroy anything else. And in 6th it has gone worse: now if you retreat you regroup and do not suffer any inconvenience for it.
Combat Squads lets Space Marines be the only army with deployment customization, if you exclude Imperial Guard, Space Wolves and Grey Knights.
Marines and Imperial Guard then. I stand corrected
Chapter Tactics doesn't actually do that much though.
Hit and Run for all units, together with +1 S HoW, ignore Dangerous Terrain and +1 JInk saves? What else do you want for free? It is the rule every player was dreaming with for years. The fact that there are marine players that do not even appreciate it is really disturbing.What else do you want?
Yes, they're nifty boni to have, I'm not turning down a 6+ FNP on everything, but the reason people want Legions, Orders, Clans and the like is to make the fluff matter, not because it's the best rule in the game.
It is the BEST rule in the game, that we can agree.
And people wanted to customize their armies, to get more options, and to feel that the fluff matters.
Cultists get 10 wounds for 50 points, Marines get 5 for 70. The 10 Cultists are just as durable against bolters in 4+ cover as the Marines, and more durable against AP3 stuff (and if they go to ground for a 3+ or 2+ cover save, they live longer).
This proves beyond doubt you haven´t play with Cultists. They are not "more durable" in any real situation, unless you are theorizing. A Tactical Space Marine squad can destroy a points-equivalent Cultist unit by looking at it in most cases. The lack of ATSKNF means a useless X points Cultist squad have zero chances of surviving in an assault against a vastly superior X points Tactical Space Marine squad. More wounds? Tell that to Sweeping Advance.
It is extremely easy to take them out of objectives. Compared to that, it is hell to do the same with tactical SM. Use a flamer? Cultists die, Astartes ignore it. You need special, costy weapons to deal with MEQs.
Do you have a problem with Cultists? No matter which army you play, there is a quick, easy fix that will destroy them in a second, and in a reliable way. In most real situations, you will have a plethora of options to solve the problem.
Do you have a problem with tactical space marines? You have a problem. No easy solution. They are tough, they never give up, they are dangerous. And they are reliable. The last part is the most important one.
The points saved add up, allowing you to purchase specialized units that perform better. Whether or not the Marines kill Cultists or not is irrelevant, neither of the two Troops choices can meaningfully threaten killy things, so the only thing left to do for them is to objective camp. Cultists are better at that.
Wrong.
A Tactical Space Marine properly customized can threat anything.
A basic Tactical Space Marine can still deal with small objectives, including walkers and light vehicles and most "infantry that suck". They can do it reliably and they are tough. They need special gear to be properly dealt with.
A Cultist, against most targets, can only cry, and pray to the Darks Gods the Marines player focuses on other things.
And remember, the Cultist is one of the best units in the Codex.
You're playing to the strength of the Tactical Marines but ignore the fact that a fully kitted Tactical Squad is in excess of 140 points, whereas 10 Cultists are 50 points. If you hide the Cultists in reserve and walk them on later in the game they'll live long enough to score, freeing up at least 90 points that you could be spending on something else. Let's put it this way: Would you rather have 20 Marines or 20 Cultists and a Heldrake?
Given that the Chaos Marines absolutely lacks any form of air weaponry, the Heldrake (a unit I dislike) is nearly compulsory. People get Cultists for the reasons you gave.
Because the other option is to take more expensive units such Chaos Space Marines and the like. Which are significantly worse than Tactical Space Marines, point by point. That doesn´t mean that the Cultist is "good". And it makes it even more clear that the tactical is one of the best troops of the game. You just need to compare it to others
Battle Sisters aren't worse than Tacticals, because they can actually contribute.
You are talking about a unit that is equal or far worse than Tactical Marines at every single thing, at 2 points less. I have seen full battle sisters squads wiped out by Termagants in a single assault. Remember: they lack ATSKNF, they die as easy as anyone else except marines.
There was a big improvement in the 6th Codex for Sisters regarding troops. Before, you didn´t get the extra special and it was 10 models. That was a tax. They never achieved anything, you just paid points to access other units. And no it is not the case of marines, a 70 points tactical squad can wipe out a Sisters 140 points squad in a single turn, with ease and with no risk, if they get near. Seriously try it: minimal Tactical SM assaults a battle sister squad doubling in numbers and points. And then remember than tactical are not supposed to excel in close combat.
The fact that there are Troops that are worse than Tacticals doesn't mean that they're good anyway, it just makes them not as bad as the others, most of which are in armies that have other options.
This sounds true. Except the "have other options" thing. All armies lack the number of options the Marines have.
Tactical Space Marines are way better, point by point, than most other equivalent units. They are also highly customizable and with lots and lots of options. Are they good?
It depends of how you define good: they are Troops, they are supposed to be the low-tier units. In that, they excel.
Crikey, you really need to read the thread you're responding to.
Why so? I read some posts and it was enough.
It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army.ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong.
I play Marines and many other armies. I do not expect my Tacticals to do really important stuff. But they are reliable, tough, can be customized to fill specific roles, cannot be ignored by most enemies, can do easy tasks and, well... they are the best Troop unit I play with. The rest I really know are worse or really, really worse.
They are also quite forgiving. If the enemy outsmarts me and I am playing Marines, I know they will probably hold. If my enemy outsmarts me playing nids, sisters or daemons... no chance.
According to the fluff, they should contribute further to the game. Here we are in agreement. But the same can be said of Sister Battle Squads, CSM, Genestealers and a really long list. And believe me, Tactical Space Marines are extremely good compared with most other units.
"It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army. ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong. "
I've army swapped many times to show others what I have to deal with. They usually don't like the results. ATSKNF is actually far, far from broken. In my experiences, it is virtually useless in the 6th ed meta. My marines DIE. They don't get a chance to roll morale.
nobody wrote: I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).
I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"
Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list
I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.
What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.
Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.
I also gave you concrete changes, except for how to make the GK the special snowflake again if we give tacs their firepower. I really hate the GK and didn't want to think that hard.
"All armies lack the number of options the Marines have. "
It doesn't matter if all the options are bad/overcosted/ineffectual.
Oh, and BA ASM don't really care about plasma. Plasma doesn't double me out and marines don't have much access to ignores cover. The tactical squad doesn't have a ghost of a chance, as ASM can jump over the 12" double tap spot.
Except it's not 12", its 18", drop within 18" and they can double tap you. Stay outside of 18" and it's a long charge and the tacs can step back and keep you in single tap. Drop closer and they can hit you with a double. If you start jumping around cover you also can rarely move direct and thus slower, risk dangerous terrain checks, meaning you take more damage coming in. A priest may still give a 5+ against plasma but compared to your 3+ that's a huge drop in survivability, certainly enough to get you killed.
Unless you start right on the deployment lines opposite each other and the BA goes first those Tacs are putting 3 rounds *minimum* into you plus one overwatch then strike simultaneously, they have ASM bang to rights.
Sniper Kroot are good and can damage MC's better but can't fire and move properly nor can they scratch vehicles, Tac's with the right weapons can damage MC's, Vehicles, double out T3-4, don't have terrible morale and stay mobile.
CSM, no, no way, I'm not even arguing how much worse CSM are than tacs for 1 point, they don't get a melee weapon, they can pay for one which makes them more expensive than tacs and have none of the special rules Tacs do.
The others, point for point it's close enough I feel it's good enough, stronger in some cases weaker in others. We discussed Avengers to death, 12 Firewarriors kill like 1.3 marines at 30" and have 0 melee power and terrible morale.
Martel732 wrote: If you think GW has it roughly right, you need your head examined. Too many useless units and then there are the chosen few god-like units.
Lets take an example, the Tau codex.
OP Units: Riptides, Buffmanders (rolled a few of the buffy SC commanders in here), Broadsides maybe, those are the guys in every list.
Terrible Units: The Ethereal SC's? Vespids maybe but i find they pack a decent punch.
Middle of the road (Balanced) units: Everything else in the book.
Looks like a good hit rate to me, mostly fringe single slot units that are terrible. The big power lists are those 3 units smashed together with the similar entries from the Eldar list and bare minimum troops.
Martel732 wrote: "It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army. ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong. "
I've army swapped many times to show others what I have to deal with. They usually don't like the results. ATSKNF is actually far, far from broken. In my experiences, it is virtually useless in the 6th ed meta. My marines DIE. They don't get a chance to roll morale.
nobody wrote: I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).
I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"
Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list
I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.
What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.
Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.
AND...How do we fix this for you?
I also gave you concrete changes, except for how to make the GK the special snowflake again if we give tacs their firepower. I really hate the GK and didn't want to think that hard.
nobody wrote: I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).
I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"
Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list
I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.
What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.
Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.
Dunkelzhan's (sp?) posts over the last few pages were basically along the lines of asking people to not play those lists.
And personally I agree that a LOT of the problem is that certain units need a strong nerf (specifically, I think the riptide needs to lose access to the EWO, Sepent Shields should be one shot only, and rerolled armor/cover/invuln saves should not be any better than 4+)
nobody wrote: I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).
I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"
Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list
I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.
What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.
Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.
Dunkelzhan's (sp?) posts over the last few pages were basically along the lines of asking people to not play those lists.
And personally I agree that a LOT of the problem is that certain units need a strong nerf (specifically, I think the riptide needs to lose access to the EWO, Sepent Shields should be one shot only, and rerolled armor/cover/invuln saves should not be any better than 4+)
But I honestly don't see those changing
Sadly I agree we will not see GW doing al of that.
However I think everyone should read BRBpg 8 upper right(?) corner
Oh, and BA ASM don't really care about plasma. Plasma doesn't double me out and marines don't have much access to ignores cover. The tactical squad doesn't have a ghost of a chance, as ASM can jump over the 12" double tap spot.
Except it's not 12", its 18", drop within 18" and they can double tap you. Stay outside of 18" and it's a long charge and the tacs can step back and keep you in single tap. Drop closer and they can hit you with a double. If you start jumping around cover you also can rarely move direct and thus slower, risk dangerous terrain checks, meaning you take more damage coming in. A priest may still give a 5+ against plasma but compared to your 3+ that's a huge drop in survivability, certainly enough to get you killed.
Unless you start right on the deployment lines opposite each other and the BA goes first those Tacs are putting 3 rounds *minimum* into you plus one overwatch then strike simultaneously, they have ASM bang to rights.
Sniper Kroot are good and can damage MC's better but can't fire and move properly nor can they scratch vehicles, Tac's with the right weapons can damage MC's, Vehicles, double out T3-4, don't have terrible morale and stay mobile.
CSM, no, no way, I'm not even arguing how much worse CSM are than tacs for 1 point, they don't get a melee weapon, they can pay for one which makes them more expensive than tacs and have none of the special rules Tacs do.
The others, point for point it's close enough I feel it's good enough, stronger in some cases weaker in others. We discussed Avengers to death, 12 Firewarriors kill like 1.3 marines at 30" and have 0 melee power and terrible morale.
Martel732 wrote: If you think GW has it roughly right, you need your head examined. Too many useless units and then there are the chosen few god-like units.
Lets take an example, the Tau codex.
OP Units: Riptides, Buffmanders (rolled a few of the buffy SC commanders in here), Broadsides maybe, those are the guys in every list.
Terrible Units: The Ethereal SC's? Vespids maybe but i find they pack a decent punch.
Middle of the road (Balanced) units: Everything else in the book.
Looks like a good hit rate to me, mostly fringe single slot units that are terrible. The big power lists are those 3 units smashed together with the similar entries from the Eldar list and bare minimum troops.
Tacs sit in that last section in the marine dex.
You don't even play in a competitive environment. How can you have a good grasp on what is good and what is middle of the road? You are *abhorred* at the thought of someone list building to win. Marines have poor access to 2++ rerollable and ignores cover. Those two factors alone kick them down to tier 2.
I've never had an issue steamrolling tactical marines with ASM. BA ASM actually do benefit from some expensive synergy with other units in the list. They have a 78% save rate against bolters and with SoS, a 55% save rate against plasma. Getting off a single double tap is not going to save the tacticals. Stepping up to double tap guarantees me an assault and then they're done.
I've played this out against vanilla marines dozens of times. The vanilla marines can't get the job done with tac firepower. Space Wolves are different because I assault them and die. Grey Knights are different because their 12"-24" firepower is so much greater than tac marines. Shoota Boyz are different because there are so many and have more firepower than tacs.
Martel732 wrote: "It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army. ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong. "
I've army swapped many times to show others what I have to deal with. They usually don't like the results. ATSKNF is actually far, far from broken. In my experiences, it is virtually useless in the 6th ed meta. My marines DIE. They don't get a chance to roll morale.
nobody wrote: I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).
I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"
Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list
I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.
What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.
Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.
AND...How do we fix this for you?
I also gave you concrete changes, except for how to make the GK the special snowflake again if we give tacs their firepower. I really hate the GK and didn't want to think that hard.
And what are you doing about this?
I'm not moving just to get another play group. Besides, my previous group in another city was THE SAME WAY. Until I came on the boards, I had no idea other people didn't exploit the bejeesus out of GW's ineptitude.
Oh, and BA ASM don't really care about plasma. Plasma doesn't double me out and marines don't have much access to ignores cover. The tactical squad doesn't have a ghost of a chance, as ASM can jump over the 12" double tap spot.
Except it's not 12", its 18", drop within 18" and they can double tap you. Stay outside of 18" and it's a long charge and the tacs can step back and keep you in single tap. Drop closer and they can hit you with a double. If you start jumping around cover you also can rarely move direct and thus slower, risk dangerous terrain checks, meaning you take more damage coming in. A priest may still give a 5+ against plasma but compared to your 3+ that's a huge drop in survivability, certainly enough to get you killed.
Unless you start right on the deployment lines opposite each other and the BA goes first those Tacs are putting 3 rounds *minimum* into you plus one overwatch then strike simultaneously, they have ASM bang to rights.
Sniper Kroot are good and can damage MC's better but can't fire and move properly nor can they scratch vehicles, Tac's with the right weapons can damage MC's, Vehicles, double out T3-4, don't have terrible morale and stay mobile.
CSM, no, no way, I'm not even arguing how much worse CSM are than tacs for 1 point, they don't get a melee weapon, they can pay for one which makes them more expensive than tacs and have none of the special rules Tacs do.
The others, point for point it's close enough I feel it's good enough, stronger in some cases weaker in others. We discussed Avengers to death, 12 Firewarriors kill like 1.3 marines at 30" and have 0 melee power and terrible morale.
Martel732 wrote: If you think GW has it roughly right, you need your head examined. Too many useless units and then there are the chosen few god-like units.
Lets take an example, the Tau codex.
OP Units: Riptides, Buffmanders (rolled a few of the buffy SC commanders in here), Broadsides maybe, those are the guys in every list.
Terrible Units: The Ethereal SC's? Vespids maybe but i find they pack a decent punch.
Middle of the road (Balanced) units: Everything else in the book.
Looks like a good hit rate to me, mostly fringe single slot units that are terrible. The big power lists are those 3 units smashed together with the similar entries from the Eldar list and bare minimum troops.
Tacs sit in that last section in the marine dex.
You don't even play in a competitive environment. How can you have a good grasp on what is good and what is middle of the road? You are *abhorred* at the thought of someone list building to win. Marines have poor access to 2++ rerollable and ignores cover. Those two factors alone kick them down to tier 2.
Martel732 wrote: "It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army. ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong. "
I've army swapped many times to show others what I have to deal with. They usually don't like the results. ATSKNF is actually far, far from broken. In my experiences, it is virtually useless in the 6th ed meta. My marines DIE. They don't get a chance to roll morale.
nobody wrote: I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).
I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"
Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list
I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.
What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.
Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.
AND...How do we fix this for you?
I also gave you concrete changes, except for how to make the GK the special snowflake again if we give tacs their firepower. I really hate the GK and didn't want to think that hard.
And what are you doing about this?
I'm not moving just to get another play group. Besides, my previous group in another city was THE SAME WAY. Until I came on the boards, I had no idea other people didn't exploit the bejeesus out of GW's ineptitude.
You don't even play in a competitive environment. How can you have a good grasp on what is good and what is middle of the road? You are *abhorred* at the thought of someone list building to win. Marines have poor access to 2++ rerollable and ignores cover. Those two factors alone kick them down to tier 2.
Ergo I must not be a strong player? By playing with a weaker list I am a weaker player? If I cannot see a units strengths how could I balance my list against my opponents?
I've never had an issue steamrolling tactical marines with ASM. BA ASM actually do benefit from some expensive synergy with other units in the list. They have a 78% save rate against bolters and with SoS, a 55% save rate against plasma. Getting off a single double tap is not going to save the tacticals. Stepping up to double tap guarantees me an assault and then they're done.
Anecdotal, I've never had a problem beating people with tactical marines, irrelevant. Also you just added what, 200 pts of elite and HQ to your unit to make your point, on a unit that was already more expensive than the one it is compared to. Enough to pay for another whole squad and then some.
Yes I'm the one saying play weaker lists, the guy still loving 40k
Marines have poor access to 2++ rerollable and ignores cover
@Martel732
How many armies actually have easy access to 2++ rerollable? You make it sound like marines are the only ones.
Ignores cover?
Thunderfire Whirlwind Sternguard special ammo Tigurius Flamers Heavy Flamers Flamestorms Legion of the Damned Grav-guns (depends on how you interpret the rules)
Looks like plenty of ignores cover options for marines.
Is it because you want ignores cover at 2++ re roll for Tact marines? It seems more like you are having issues with the codex more than the tacts.
I agree though that Tacts tend to get ignored in favour of the other more deadly stuff. But you should be playing to that. It stands to reason that your deadly stuff should be softening up the opponent as well. If you can cause enough hurt your opponent likely won't have anything left to be able to dislodge your tact squads as easily as you say. So when they are forced into a Pyrhic victory over all of your elites and stuff, they now have to contend with displacing 30-40 marines with only a few turns left to do it.
If you don't like Tacts then get allies, min max your troops and spend more stuff on the deadlier stuff, through in an Inquisitor and fight cheese with cheese.
I'd be curious to see what kind of C:SM list you run that consitantly gets it's good units wiped out and your tacts wiped out to a man after that. I don't know what your local scene is like so I'd be curious to know.
I think though we can all agree that Marines are not top tier. But someone has to be up there I guess.
As to your suggested fix, Str 5 isn't the solution in my mind. Being able to select two special weapons is good or as I mentioned give their bolters shred when stationary.
You don't even play in a competitive environment. How can you have a good grasp on what is good and what is middle of the road? You are *abhorred* at the thought of someone list building to win. Marines have poor access to 2++ rerollable and ignores cover. Those two factors alone kick them down to tier 2.
Ergo I must not be a strong player? By playing with a weaker list I am a weaker player? If I cannot see a units strengths how could I balance my list against my opponents?
I've never had an issue steamrolling tactical marines with ASM. BA ASM actually do benefit from some expensive synergy with other units in the list. They have a 78% save rate against bolters and with SoS, a 55% save rate against plasma. Getting off a single double tap is not going to save the tacticals. Stepping up to double tap guarantees me an assault and then they're done.
Anecdotal, I've never had a problem beating people with tactical marines, irrelevant. Also you just added what, 200 pts of elite and HQ to your unit to make your point, on a unit that was already more expensive than the one it is compared to. Enough to pay for another whole squad and then some.
Yes I'm the one saying play weaker lists, the guy still loving 40k
We basically are playing two different games. I'm seriously considering your suggestion of moving on because I do enjoy other games much more and I refuse to put more money into this one.
Marines have poor access to 2++ rerollable and ignores cover
@Martel732
How many armies actually have easy access to 2++ rerollable? You make it sound like marines are the only ones.
Ignores cover?
Thunderfire
Whirlwind
Sternguard special ammo
Tigurius
Flamers
Heavy Flamers
Flamestorms
Legion of the Damned
Grav-guns (depends on how you interpret the rules)
Looks like plenty of ignores cover options for marines.
Is it because you want ignores cover at 2++ re roll for Tact marines? It seems more like you are having issues with the codex more than the tacts.
I agree though that Tacts tend to get ignored in favour of the other more deadly stuff. But you should be playing to that. It stands to reason that your deadly stuff should be softening up the opponent as well. If you can cause enough hurt your opponent likely won't have anything left to be able to dislodge your tact squads as easily as you say. So when they are forced into a Pyrhic victory over all of your elites and stuff, they now have to contend with displacing 30-40 marines with only a few turns left to do it.
If you don't like Tacts then get allies, min max your troops and spend more stuff on the deadlier stuff, through in an Inquisitor and fight cheese with cheese.
I'd be curious to see what kind of C:SM list you run that consitantly gets it's good units wiped out and your tacts wiped out to a man after that. I don't know what your local scene is like so I'd be curious to know.
I think though we can all agree that Marines are not top tier. But someone has to be up there I guess.
As to your suggested fix, Str 5 isn't the solution in my mind. Being able to select two special weapons is good or as I mentioned give their bolters shred when stationary.
That's a whole other can of worms. Marines in general don't cause enough casualties to keep up with the Xeno competition.
I use a variety of lists, but I haven't found any combo that lets me crack Riptide/Buffmander, Screamerstar, or Wave Serpent/Jetseer council. My success rate against other meq lists is actually quite high. There is nothing in the marine codex that gives me the fits that the previously mentioned lists do. In fact, I'm famous in my playgroup for my disdain of other meq lists while playing meqs myself. This is because other meq lists can't shut me down from range like Xeno lists. Even the most potent marine list is a vacation from serpent spam. And marines are very vulnerable compared to other, higher quality lists. But the players I play against have migrated to those other lists because they want to play against the other Riptide/Screamerstar/Jetseer lists.
As for your curiosity about why my games proceed the way they do is pretty straightforward. The Xeno lists can basically ignore tactical squads. This means is if they kill some select other units, they are safe from a damage standpoint. Most marine elite units that cause damage have no extra defenses. Sternguard are a perfect example of this. After their alpha strike, they take damage no better than any other marine. This is crippling. This fact is how I am able to compete against other C:SM lists with BA. Teqs are another example. On a per point basis, their defenses are *inferior* to a tactical marine. A tactical marine who already is getting run off the table by Xeno firepower.
Marines lack throw weight. Their damage is capped by the costly nature of everything about their list. Basically, marines are dying much faster than I can kill back. None of these rules people quote about tacticals over and over help with this one bit. Now that 3+ armor is basically a joke, there is nowhere left to hide for the tactical marine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: Yes we are playing difrent games apprently
If you came to my play group, you would understand. I've had games where tactical marines killed nothing. Nothing. And there was nothing I could do about it.
When your possible targets are: Jetseer council, Wave Serpent, or Wraithknight, you see why I would prefer Kroot snipers, because at least they can down the Wraithknight and take SOME pressure off my killy units.
Anpu42 wrote: Yes we are playing difrent games apprently
If you came to my play group, you would understand. I've had games where tactical marines killed nothing. Nothing. And there was nothing I could do about it.
And if you came to play at my group your Tactical Marines would be winning you games. Then you would understand.
Anpu42 wrote: Yes we are playing difrent games apprently
If you came to my play group, you would understand. I've had games where tactical marines killed nothing. Nothing. And there was nothing I could do about it.
And if you came to play at my group your Tactical Marines would be winning you games. Then you would understand.
But I'd win even more if I had cheaper units to stand around and not contribute.
And it doesn't sound like your tacs win anything for you. It sounds like your opponents don't bring adequate firepower. Because unless your group is making rules up, I KNOW the tacs aren't killing anything.
Anpu42 wrote: Yes we are playing difrent games apprently
If you came to my play group, you would understand. I've had games where tactical marines killed nothing. Nothing. And there was nothing I could do about it.
And if you came to play at my group your Tactical Marines would be winning you games. Then you would understand.
But I'd win even more if I had cheaper units to stand around and not contribute.
And it doesn't sound like your tacs win anything for you. It sounds like your opponents don't bring adequate firepower. Because unless your group is making rules up, I KNOW the tacs aren't killing anything.
You could say that my Tactial Squads don't win by killing things, they dont most of the time. They win my games bt being there on turn 5 sitting on Objectives.
And that's why I say your opponents aren't bringing enough firepower because sometimes I don't have models left in turn 5. Against Xenos. Funny how I can win against meqs no problem, but 6th ed Xenos are killing me down to nothing.
With as many tacticals as you are talking about, you are crippling your own ability to hit back. But, if your opponents don't field lethal lists, then hitting back becomes not as important.
Martel732 wrote: And that's why I say your opponents aren't bringing enough firepower because sometimes I don't have models left in turn 5. Against Xenos. Funny how I can win against meqs no problem, but 6th ed Xenos are killing me down to nothing.
With as many tacticals as you are talking about, you are crippling your own ability to hit back. But, if your opponents don't field lethal lists, then hitting back becomes not as important.
A 2k Marine list with 33 Plasma Weapons is not killy enough?
Martel732 wrote: And that's why I say your opponents aren't bringing enough firepower because sometimes I don't have models left in turn 5. Against Xenos. Funny how I can win against meqs no problem, but 6th ed Xenos are killing me down to nothing.
With as many tacticals as you are talking about, you are crippling your own ability to hit back. But, if your opponents don't field lethal lists, then hitting back becomes not as important.
A 2k Marine list with 33 Plasma Weapons is not killy enough?
Not against a 2K Eldar, Tau or Daemon list. They don't care about your plasma. Neither do mech BA at 2K. Other meqs do, but we've already established I know how to beat them and do so regularly. My lord 2K unlocks double force org. So many Riptides........
Martel732 wrote: And that's why I say your opponents aren't bringing enough firepower because sometimes I don't have models left in turn 5. Against Xenos. Funny how I can win against meqs no problem, but 6th ed Xenos are killing me down to nothing.
With as many tacticals as you are talking about, you are crippling your own ability to hit back. But, if your opponents don't field lethal lists, then hitting back becomes not as important.
A 2k Marine list with 33 Plasma Weapons is not killy enough?
Not against a 2K Eldar, Tau or Daemon list. They don't care about your plasma. Neither do mech BA at 2K. Other meqs do, but we've already established I know how to beat them and do so regularly. My lord 2K unlocks double force org. So many Riptides........
Mech BA. I'm in a tank shooting you and Baal preds are gunning your little tactical losers down by the bucketful. Think of the Baal pred as an incredibly crappy Wave Serpent. But here it does okay. And you can't pen AV 13 with plasma, so by the time you hull point them out, I just send in the clean up crew.
Granted, there are a ton of lists out there that just wreck BA mech, which is why I don't use it very often anymore. But C:SM plasma spam is not one of them.
Martel732 wrote: Mech BA. I'm in a tank shooting you and Baal preds are gunning your little tactical losers down by the bucketful. And you can't pen AV 13 with plasma, so by the time you hull point them out, I just send in the clean up crew.
Granted, there are a ton of lists out there that just wreck BA mech, which is why I don't use it very often anymore. But C:SM plasma spam is not one of them.
Yes but they are AV11 from the rear.
I don't need to Pen them, I can Just Glance them to death
I still get my 3+ Save
I don't see the issue right now
How about using Tacticals in more unconventional way and make them your alpha strike (situation and task will vary of course).
Take a 5 man tact. In a drop pod with melta and combi-melta. yes it will die but I've come to expect that with alpha strike units. Anyways this build is suitable for most vehicles. Works even better if you can land two of these and land them together. That 5 man build is about the same cost as one sternguard squad without any upgrades. With Ultra doctrine you could get two melta shots off with a re-roll.
Another build is to take 10 guys but combat squad them when they get out to avoid concentrated fire.
To be honest I run into similar situations but not likely to the same extreme as you.
My SOP is to have Tiggy with a Dev squad and try (but almost always get) the ignores cover divination power.
I have normally two 10 man Tact that are equiped either with plasma cannons or Lascannons but that's it. I park them and take pot shots. while they won't wipe out anything they do contribute to wounds/hp damage etc and can even finish some stuff off.
I've also taken to using a guard blob as allies to sit back and do nothing and keeping Tact costs down. Also unlocks some guard arty for my marines.
A local here suggested creating a SM deathstar using Cassius and a souped up CM with the eternal shield and the teeth of terra sword. They would land with sternguard break off and form a two man unit. 2+ 3++ EW with rampage and with majority toughness are at T6. CM could LOS shots that hit Cassius and the whole two get Zealot. Not a bad alpha strike unit and might actually survive to get into melee.
Martel732 wrote: Mech BA. I'm in a tank shooting you and Baal preds are gunning your little tactical losers down by the bucketful. And you can't pen AV 13 with plasma, so by the time you hull point them out, I just send in the clean up crew.
Granted, there are a ton of lists out there that just wreck BA mech, which is why I don't use it very often anymore. But C:SM plasma spam is not one of them.
Yes but they are AV11 from the rear.
I don't need to Pen them, I can Just Glance them to death
I still get my 3+ Save
I don't see the issue right now
Actually, they're AV 10 on the rear. How do you tactical squads get on the rear? Or even the side of a fast tank? I can move 6" every turn and fire 12 shots at 24". Your 3+ save means nothing against wound spam that you can't retaliate against. As I said, they are crappy Wave Serpents in this scenario.
Anpu42 wrote: Drop Pods and/or Storm Ravens
And it is not my Tactical Squads doing the killing, it's my Speeders and Sternguard.
How many turns of shooting do you think speeders or Sternguard are going to get compared to a Riptide or Wave Serpent? I'll gladly take on your worst.
Autolas preds and las plas razors will make a mess of the speeders and the Sternguard will be one-shot johnnies. There is not a single quality target in my mech BA list for Sternguard. The best you can get is a pred. Good for you. Kill a pred and then die to the man. Because as I pointed out before, Sternguard are extra points, but can't TAKE fire better than any other marine. And I'm up points on the trade.
I'm well schooled in drop pod defense. I battle Wolves and they do it better than C:SM anyway. A little terrain trickery and unit placement really limits where the pods can come in.
Anpu42 wrote: Drop Pods and/or Storm Ravens
And it is not my Tactical Squads doing the killing, it's my Speeders and Sternguard.
How many turns of shooting do you think speeders or Sternguard are going to get compared to a Riptide or Wave Serpent? I'll gladly take on your worst.
Autolas preds and las plas razors will make a mess of the speeders and the Sternguard will be one-shot johnnies. There is not a single quality target in my mech BA list for Sternguard. The best you can get is a pred. Good for you. Kill a pred and then die to the man. Because as I pointed out before, Sternguard are extra points, but can't TAKE fire better than any other marine. And I'm up points on the trade.
I'm well schooled in drop pod defense. I battle Wolves and they do it better than C:SM anyway. A little terrain trickery and unit placement really limits where the pods can come in.
So am I fighting TauDar or Marines here?
Well I will tell what is normal foir me
My Sternguad Drop and put 10 Plasma Shots into the rear of two Vehiles/MCs or HQ each. My Speeders move to a Side shot and shoot down a third Vehicle/MC.
Anything else eats about 6 Plasma Cannons.
Anpu42 wrote: Drop Pods and/or Storm Ravens
And it is not my Tactical Squads doing the killing, it's my Speeders and Sternguard.
How many turns of shooting do you think speeders or Sternguard are going to get compared to a Riptide or Wave Serpent? I'll gladly take on your worst.
Autolas preds and las plas razors will make a mess of the speeders and the Sternguard will be one-shot johnnies. There is not a single quality target in my mech BA list for Sternguard. The best you can get is a pred. Good for you. Kill a pred and then die to the man. Because as I pointed out before, Sternguard are extra points, but can't TAKE fire better than any other marine. And I'm up points on the trade.
I'm well schooled in drop pod defense. I battle Wolves and they do it better than C:SM anyway. A little terrain trickery and unit placement really limits where the pods can come in.
So am I fighting TauDar or Marines here?
Well I will tell what is normal foir me
My Sternguad Drop and put 10 Plasma Shots into the rear of two Vehiles/MCs or HQ each. My Speeders move to a Side shot and shoot down a third Vehicle/MC.
Anything else eats about 6 Plasma Cannons.
Since your list has no blast weapons, why would someone let you drop behind their vehicles? Marines don't bubblewrap super well, but they still can. Compare your alpha strike to what Wave Serpents can do, and I think you'll see why I don't fear marines. Also, notice how much your tacticals are contributing to this attack. Virtually nothing. You basically are engaging your opponent piecemealed. They'll thank you for that.
Martel732 wrote: "It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army. ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong. "
I've army swapped many times to show others what I have to deal with. They usually don't like the results. ATSKNF is actually far, far from broken. In my experiences, it is virtually useless in the 6th ed meta. My marines DIE. They don't get a chance to roll morale.
Perhaps you swapped armies with Eldar and Tau players?
Armies without Morale protection can see their units wiped out with ease. That´s Sweeping Advance. It is a big rule. And you get units running out of the table. ATSKNF makes Marines invulnerable to something that is a BIG problem for most armies. It is like being invulnerable to tanks or to close combat. Tyranids (Instinctive Behavior), Daemons (Daemonic Instability), Guard, Chaos, Sisters... for most armies taking care of morale aspects is key. The fact that you are ignoring this entire part of the game is only because Marines are immune to it.
Also... if you changed armies.... did you used Chaos Space Marines, Sisters or Genestealers, to name a few? They are more or less the same cost than a Tactical Marine, but far worse in all regards. And how can people say "tactical are useless, they are just 70 points to get objectives" when they have played Cultists? Cultists are useless, as in "pick a mission: they will fail trying to do it". Tactical Marines are extremely useful. They are meh compared to other units from their own Codex, but quite good is used properly. And tough. And customizable. And cheap.
What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle.
This is true. Marines struggle against two armies. Tau and Eldar.
This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change. Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.
I also gave you concrete changes, except for how to make the GK the special snowflake again if we give tacs their firepower. I really hate the GK and didn't want to think that hard.
I agree they will be OK with a little buff.
But then most armies have way more problems. Marines are the "beloved faction" of GW. The last Codex is a testament to that. It is a pure masterpiece compared to any other Codex in 6th regarding everything but competitiveness. You only need to look at the Tyranid Codex, which is about 90% a copy paste of the last Codex, with less units and less options. And if you really want to go deeper, get a Codex: Adepta Sororitas.
"All armies lack the number of options the Marines have. "
It doesn't matter if all the options are bad/overcosted/ineffectual.
Most Marine options are far more powerful, and usually far cheaper, than those from the average army. Again, you seem to focus on Eldar or Tau to say things like that. Look at the CSM Codex to find really, really bad options. Or most other Codexes indeed, including Eldar and Tau, who have some really Good options, but also some completely useless options. GW does not playtest their armies, it seems, with the exception of Marines.
nobody wrote: (...)
And personally I agree that a LOT of the problem is that certain units need a strong nerf (specifically, I think the riptide needs to lose access to the EWO, Sepent Shields should be one shot only, and rerolled armor/cover/invuln saves should not be any better than 4+)
This is it. Most of the reasons for Marines to "suck" is that they are slightly below the top three. But the top three have just a few broken units. Fix that units instead of buffing all units from most Codexes. A few changes and everyone can be happy.
However I think everyone should read BRBpg 8 upper right(?) corner
The First Rule: "Warhammer 40.000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played. Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just the framework to support an enjoyable game. Whether a battle ends in victory or defeat, your goal should always be to enjoy the journey. What's more, Warhammer 40.000 calls on a lot from you, the player. Your job isn't just to follow the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written."
The only way this game works: if you see something you don´t like, talk with the other player and change it. There is no fun in a one-sided battle.
Why would someone let you drop behind their vehicles?
By not giving them a choice, You can get a drop pod real close to a targets rear with no fear usually.
Marines don't bubble wrap super well, but they still can.
Compare your alpha strike to what Wave Serpents can do, and I think you'll see why I don't fear marines.
So am I fighting Marines or Eldar?
Also, notice how much your Tacticals are contributing to this attack. Virtually nothing. You basically are engaging your opponent piecemealed. They'll thank you for that.
Yes they are, If I did not have Tacticals, who would hold my Objectives?
That is their contribution, doing their job, holding objectives so I can gain VPs and win the game. They are also fielding 2 of the Plasma Cannons, sometimes 3.
Also, notice how much your Tacticals are contributing to this attack. Virtually nothing. You basically are engaging your opponent piecemealed. They'll thank you for that.
Yes they are, If I did not have Tacticals, who would hold my Objectives?
That is their contribution, doing their job, holding objectives so I can gain VPs and win the game. They are also fielding 2 of the Plasma Cannons, sometimes 3.
Same here. I run two tacticals with plasma cannons. They win my games by holding objectives, while the rest of the army does other things. They are reliable, they can handle almost anything save for really strong stuff.
I also run some demi-squad with melta&sword or melta&fist right behind the elite/fast/heavy/hq units that attack the enemy position. They provide some help if needed and, more important, take the objective and win the game for me.
They are not the heros leading the army, but they get their job done.
And that´s something most Troops DO NOT.
Martel732 wrote: And that's why I say your opponents aren't bringing enough firepower because sometimes I don't have models left in turn 5. Against Xenos. Funny how I can win against meqs no problem, but 6th ed Xenos are killing me down to nothing.
With as many tacticals as you are talking about, you are crippling your own ability to hit back. But, if your opponents don't field lethal lists, then hitting back becomes not as important.
Perhaps it is a cover problem?
There should be lots of cover on the game. Armies are not supposed to destroy the other from afar, this is a game based on objectives. Do you use enough LOS-blocking terrain?
Also, notice how much your Tacticals are contributing to this attack. Virtually nothing. You basically are engaging your opponent piecemealed. They'll thank you for that.
Yes they are, If I did not have Tacticals, who would hold my Objectives?
That is their contribution, doing their job, holding objectives so I can gain VPs and win the game. They are also fielding 2 of the Plasma Cannons, sometimes 3.
Same here. I run two tacticals with plasma cannons. They win my games by holding objectives, while the rest of the army does other things. They are reliable, they can handle almost anything save for really strong stuff.
I also run some demi-squad with melta&sword or melta&fist right behind the elite/fast/heavy/hq units that attack the enemy position. They provide some help if needed and, more important, take the objective and win the game for me.
They are not the heros leading the army, but they get their job done.
And that´s something most Troops DO NOT.
Martel732 wrote: And that's why I say your opponents aren't bringing enough firepower because sometimes I don't have models left in turn 5. Against Xenos. Funny how I can win against meqs no problem, but 6th ed Xenos are killing me down to nothing.
With as many tacticals as you are talking about, you are crippling your own ability to hit back. But, if your opponents don't field lethal lists, then hitting back becomes not as important.
Perhaps it is a cover problem?
There should be lots of cover on the game. Armies are not supposed to destroy the other from afar, this is a game based on objectives. Do you use enough LOS-blocking terrain?
What's "enough"? Every table is randomly generated as per the rules. Tau and Eldar didn't get your memo on not destroying from afar.
I've played without ATSKNF on marines before to prove a point about how not useful this rule is. It all comes down to whether you opponents are optimizing their lists or not I suppose. If your opponent leaves stragglers, they get what they deserve I guess. But I was able to beat CSM without too much trouble even without ATSKNF. Because I mostly shot them to death. That's why lack of ATSKNF really doesn't matter to Tau or Eldar; there are no sweeping advances because there is no CC happening. You die before you can get there.
As for army swap, as if beating C:SM with BA isn't bad enough, I did it with DE as well. That's all I've done that I can think of with regards to C:SM.
I think he also meant what kind of terrain. If you randomnly generate 3 pieces of terrain on one 12x12 area and all you do is place little rocks and low fences or a swamp then yeah I see the issue. What about LOS blocking terrain? The game sI've played in my area have been way better when we introduced LOS blocking terrain as a standard.
Crantor wrote: I think he also meant what kind of terrain. If you randomnly generate 3 pieces of terrain on one 12x12 area and all you do is place little rocks and low fences or a swamp then yeah I see the issue. What about LOS blocking terrain? The game sI've played in my area have been way better when we introduced LOS blocking terrain as a standard.
There is a variable amount of LOS blocking terrain available at any given time. I can't really use that as an excuse, though, because I can't reliably beat Tau/Eldar/Daemon even with a lot of terrain. I can handle other meqs not problem either way.
Taudar players want to play on a parking lot, of course.
I don't see how terrain solves the issue of tac marines having pitiful throw weight for their points.
I don't see how terrain solves the issue of tac marines having pitiful throw weight for their points.
You are exagerating. Pitiful is hardly the word I would use.
Why not do a line by line comparison and how many points base units are.
5 Tact Marines is 70 pts base. Are they better or worse than 10 Guard vets at the same cost? How about 5 scouts? Or the min DE warriors whatever they cost.
If you were to pit a base non upgraded squad against another which one whould you pick? Work from that premise.
Heck even better, max out each troops choice and see how many upgrades and options you could give yourself and see which one you would pick.
Like 10 Tact with ML and plasma gun and combi plasma and razorback. Would you pick that or 30 Gaunts tooled up? Or 10 Fire warriors and a Devil fish?
Crantor wrote: I think he also meant what kind of terrain. If you randomnly generate 3 pieces of terrain on one 12x12 area and all you do is place little rocks and low fences or a swamp then yeah I see the issue. What about LOS blocking terrain? The game sI've played in my area have been way better when we introduced LOS blocking terrain as a standard.
There is a variable amount of LOS blocking terrain available at any given time. I can't really use that as an excuse, though, because I can't reliably beat Tau/Eldar/Daemon even with a lot of terrain. I can handle other meqs not problem either way.
Taudar players want to play on a parking lot, of course.
I don't see how terrain solves the issue of tac marines having pitiful throw weight for their points.
Then don’t play that game, try something difrent.
Tau requite Marker Lights to Ignore Cover and Shoot Well, that means Pathfinders. Remove the Pathfinders from the equation.
Use drop Pods, Lots of Drop Pods:
This is without the knowledge of what you have exactly
Now this give you 7 Drop Pods and One Model that Can not be put in Reserve, the Baal Predator.
Turn One: The only Model you need to concern yourself with it the Baal Predator. If you are going first, Scout it, if not find something to hide behind and prey.
You Drop 4 Pods.
Pod#1] Feed The Pathfinders your Sternguard using Flamers and Ignore Cover Ammo.
Pod #2] If there is a second Pathfinder Group, feed it one of the Assault Squads if no go after the Kroot Snipers hiding in the woods.
Pod #3] Waves Serpents get a Tactical Squad in the rear, oh there are some guardians or something there Go for the Squad.
Pod #4] Tycho and friends land near the Riptide and feed it Melta.
There should be so much Chaos going on your opponent will need to come up defenses on the run as now that he has to live without Marker Lights.
Just one question: every broadside and riptide in the list is going to have an EWO...how may marines do you think are going to have left to shoot up his pathfinders (who were likely bubble wrapped by kroot)?
And the buff commander also allows for remove cover if attached to a unit.
Though this is playing into my earlier concern re: taking the EWO away from riptides
I've played lists very similar to that before. They don't work well against Xenos for a few reasons.
The number one reason is that I can't list tailor. I never know I'm playing Tau until I get to the store most of the time. We make our lists before we arrive, so I have to be willing to use a list like that against any list, which right there is a problem.
Additionally, Tau can get marker lights in other places than Pathfinders. This is becoming increasingly common. And now there is a push for Tetras because up until Escalation, we strictly banned FW, but now that might be changing.
I guess you don't play against too many people that understand how to defend against a drop list. The Tau are masters of bubblewrapping and you will suffer dearly the turn after your alpha strike. Drop pods are old hat for most of my play group because we tried to break them in 5th, and not much has changed on the drop pod.
Crantor wrote: (...)
I don't see how terrain solves the issue of tac marines having pitiful throw weight for their points.
I really find odd that most games do not reach turn 5. Tactical Marines in cover in a place with LOS blocked from most positions should not be that easy to kill.
Anyway, this is not a problem of tac marines "sucking". It is a problem of Tau/Eldar being overpowered. Out of talking with the players about the problem (as per the rules, see page 8 above mentioned), there are few solutions apart from just changing armies.
Marines are Tier 2. There is a Tier 3 and a Tier 4, and perhaps more. They are quite good, but they are not THE best army regarding competition.
By the way, yes I meant big LOS-blocking terrain.
I like the drop pod-list. This should be obvious, but try to get in close combat. Since Tau do not have ATSKNF, they die horribly and quickly if a "pitiful" tac marine touches them. Yeah I know getting there is the difficult part. And kill the pathfinders.
I don't see how terrain solves the issue of tac marines having pitiful throw weight for their points.
You are exagerating. Pitiful is hardly the word I would use.
Why not do a line by line comparison and how many points base units are.
5 Tact Marines is 70 pts base. Are they better or worse than 10 Guard vets at the same cost? How about 5 scouts? Or the min DE warriors whatever they cost.
If you were to pit a base non upgraded squad against another which one whould you pick? Work from that premise.
Heck even better, max out each troops choice and see how many upgrades and options you could give yourself and see which one you would pick.
Like 10 Tact with ML and plasma gun and combi plasma and razorback. Would you pick that or 30 Gaunts tooled up? Or 10 Fire warriors and a Devil fish?
Strictly from that comparison, you have valid points. I concede that. But that is not the game as a whole. Tactical marines are much poorer in practice than they are on paper. They have many dinky little upgrades that don't save them from ion accelerator to the face. If I'm taking fire from Tau, I think I'd rather have the 30 wounds to give, because my marine defenses aren't that useful. By the same logic, I'd take troop capable of sucking up the wounds that top tier armies can shell out. Against Eldar firepower, I'm paying for T4 that they largely are ignoring with S6/7 guns.
Let's not also forget the additional randomness of marines over Orks and Gaunts and Kroot. One turn, especially early, of bad saves will cripple your list. Lists design to just absorb the wounds don't care as much.
Come to think of it, given the mobility of gaunts, I might always pick the gaunts because your sample tactical squad just isn't that scary. Maybe I'm just completely numb to facing other meq lists.
Crantor wrote: (...)
I don't see how terrain solves the issue of tac marines having pitiful throw weight for their points.
I really find odd that most games do not reach turn 5. Tactical Marines in cover in a place with LOS blocked from most positions should not be that easy to kill.
Anyway, this is not a problem of tac marines "sucking". It is a problem of Tau/Eldar being overpowered. Out of talking with the players about the problem (as per the rules, see page 8 above mentioned), there are few solutions apart from just changing armies.
Marines are Tier 2. There is a Tier 3 and a Tier 4, and perhaps more. They are quite good, but they are not THE best army regarding competition.
By the way, yes I meant big LOS-blocking terrain.
I like the drop pod-list. This should be obvious, but try to get in close combat. Since Tau do not have ATSKNF, they die horribly and quickly if a "pitiful" tac marine touches them. Yeah I know getting there is the difficult part. And kill the pathfinders.
Marines are tier 2. For now. Actually, maybe tier 3 because I think they are still worse than Necrons/GK. It's not that important, because the gap between tier 1 and 2 is so big. Tier 2/3 distinction is just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.
Oh, and for all the bellyaching about the Tyranids, I got to look at their codex, and I do NOT feel comfortable taking them on as marines.
I don't list tailor. I would never field that list against an unknown foe. If I draw Space Wolves, I just lose. Also, cover doesn't matter against wound spam.
Martel732 wrote: I've played lists very similar to that before. They don't work well against Xenos for a few reasons.
The number one reason is that I can't list tailor. I never know I'm playing Tau until I get to the store most of the time. We make our lists before we arrive, so I have to be willing to use a list like that against any list, which right there is a problem.
Why Not, House Rules?
I normally know what I am dealing with.
By the way List Tailoring is going “I know what Fred is playing so now I will Make my List now.”
Showing up with a Nid List, a TauDar List and a Marine List is just being prepared.
The List I gave you is a risky TAC Army, but should work vs. most.
Additionally, Tau can get marker lights in other places than Pathfinders. This is becoming increasingly common. And now there is a push for Tetras because up until Escalation, we strictly banned FW, but now that might be changing.
Yes one herer and one there, the only units you get massed one are Pathfinders, Fire Warrior [by giving up their Pulse Rifles] and drone Squadrens.
I guess you don't play against too many people that understand how to defend against a drop list. The Tau are masters of bubblewrapping and you will suffer dearly the turn after your alpha strike. Drop pods are old hat for most of my play group because we tried to break them in 5th, and not much has changed on the drop pod.
Then Turn one is “Kill off the Bubble Wrap!”. Unless there is some sort of fealess going on, some units will be forced to run off the board.
Also when was the last time a Pod Army was used in you group.
Martel732 wrote: I've played lists very similar to that before. They don't work well against Xenos for a few reasons.
The number one reason is that I can't list tailor. I never know I'm playing Tau until I get to the store most of the time. We make our lists before we arrive, so I have to be willing to use a list like that against any list, which right there is a problem.
Why Not, House Rules?
I normally know what I am dealing with.
By the way List Tailoring is going “I know what Fred is playing so now I will Make my List now.”
Showing up with a Nid List, a TauDar List and a Marine List is just being prepared.
The List I gave you is a risky TAC Army, but should work vs. most.
Additionally, Tau can get marker lights in other places than Pathfinders. This is becoming increasingly common. And now there is a push for Tetras because up until Escalation, we strictly banned FW, but now that might be changing.
Yes one herer and one there, the only units you get massed one are Pathfinders, Fire Warrior [by giving up their Pulse Rifles] and drone Squadrens.
I guess you don't play against too many people that understand how to defend against a drop list. The Tau are masters of bubblewrapping and you will suffer dearly the turn after your alpha strike. Drop pods are old hat for most of my play group because we tried to break them in 5th, and not much has changed on the drop pod.
Then Turn one is “Kill off the Bubble Wrap!”. Unless there is some sort of fealess going on, some units will be forced to run off the board.
Also when was the last time a Pod Army was used in you group.
We still see pods all the time, because we still have a Space Wolf player.
No, we simulate tournaments where you don't know your next foe. We often randomize games after meet up. So there is no way to construct a list a priori. This is by design. If you have to tailor to win, you didn't win in my estimation.
You won't have an army left after spending a turn killing the bubble wrap. That's what I'm trying to get through to you.
But the point is that other players shouldn't have to self nerf. Where is the middle ground? How many Riptides is too many? Which units should be banned? Negotiating that for each and every game is insane to me.
It's also a bit degrading, don't you think? "Please don't use your REAL list." Hell, I'm not sure how many own the non-optimal models for these lists.
Anpu42 wrote: I have one Question:
Do you enjoy your gaming enviroment as it stands right now?
I like the set up. I hate list tailoring. I like competitive lists. What I don't like is how GW has hosed up army balance *again*.
That is not what I asked:
Do you enjoy your gaming enviroment as it stands right now?
No, not really, because I have neither the money nor the inclination to buy a power list.
That was... priceless.
The point of the game is having fun. Talk with the rest. Perhaps you will find more people willing to play with Tier2/3 armies, or House Rules to fix it up. Join forces with people who love armies they cannot field anymore.
By the way: many people have neither the money nor the inclination to buy a power list.
GW is NOT going to fix the game. Actually I am pretty sure they are focusing on breaking it further.
Put an add up for other that just want to play and have fun.
Use the player finder here on Dakka-Dakka
But the point is that other players shouldn't have to self nerf.
Don’t ask them to.
Where is the middle ground? How many Riptides is too many? Which units should be banned? Negotiating that for each and every game is insane to me.
It's also a bit degrading, don't you think? "Please don't use your REAL list." Hell, I'm not sure how many own the non-optimal models for these lists.
Don’t restrict anything. You might be surprised at what happens. I have found that most peope are happy to play within guidelines if just asked.
These are some of the house rules we have come up with.
FOC Modification: This is an optional Rule, we really don’t enforce self it, but we encourage its use.
HQ: 1-2
Troop: 2-6
Elite: 1-3
Fast Attack: 1-3
Heavy Support: 1-3
Fortifications: 0-1
Lord of War: 0-1 [Let others know you are using this one in advance.]
Double FOC: We just ask that you let the other player you will be using it in advance.
Allies: We just ask that you let the other player you will be using them in advance.
Flyers: We just ask that you let the other player you will be using any in advance.
The last four do cause a little list “Tailoring”, but it also becomes a common courtesy after a while. If player A goes “Hey I am going to bring my new Fighter next week", you know you will need some sort of Anti-Aircraft. If you get some guy who like to play the same 3 Riptides every game you can also ask him to please play something else because they are Boring to fight up against.
I stopped going to my Local Game Store because of the Ultra-Elitist Attitude. I now play at home, the library or even my local Starbucks and I enjoy the games much more.
Suggest something like my list to the store owner or maybe suggest it as a campaign setup.
"I stopped going to my Local Game Store because of the Ultra-Elitist Attitude"
Describe what qualifies as ultra-eltist. I'm trying to avoid asking people to not bring their Riptides. I'm sure for some that's all the Tau elites they own.
namiel wrote: Joining the conversation way too late......
Give them pistol, bolter, AND cc weapon. OMG done
That would help against Nids and some other tier 2/3 foes, but does nothing against the big boys. I think most people have just kind of given up on tier 1 foes. Subtracting out tier 1 foes, the tactical marine goes from poor to adequate I'd say.
Martel732 wrote: "I stopped going to my Local Game Store because of the Ultra-Elitist Attitude"
Describe what qualifies as ultra-eltist. I'm trying to avoid asking people to not bring their Riptides. I'm sure for some that's all the Tau elites they own.
Ok, one of my Horror Stories:
We used to have an open game day and I had been going to it for 2-3 months now and not really getting any games in because of various things.
Well one day I see this guy pull out his army and think to myself “Lets see if I can get a game in.
Me: “Hey you want to get a game in?” Him: “No I am waiting for a buddy who is going to show up later.” Thinking maybe we can get a quick 500point or so game in.
Me: “Well what time is he expected?” Him: “About 6:00” Look up at the clock reading about 1:30
Actualy 90% of the people only played the same people only.
This goes for the players of:
WH40k Axis & Alies: Minis
Heroclicks
Flames of War
Star Wars Minis
The only two groups who were willing to play with new people were the CCG people and the Warmachine players, the Warmachine Players would not let you proxy so you could lern to play.
Martel732 wrote: That would help against Nids and some other tier 2/3 foes, but does nothing against the big boys. I think most people have just kind of given up on tier 1 foes. Subtracting out tier 1 foes, the tactical marine goes from poor to adequate I'd say.
Honestly, trying to change a unit that fits fine in many theoretical (because in practice a lot of thing aren't played competitively) matchups but lacking against small number of extremely powerful (becuase of both raw power and versatility) compositions is quite bad idea. You bring them on the level of current FOTM, and then you feel that you need to do the same with every little thing that isn't T1 in every army too.
I just feel that entire idea of doing something to tacs is a wrong angle to approach the actual problem from.
And, concerning additional CCW: many units from non-C:SM marines armies have ar can take those, not that it helps them in most problematic MUs at the moment...
Crikey, you really need to read the thread you're responding to.
Cultists get 10 wounds for 50 points, Marines get 5 for 70. The 10 Cultists are just as durable against bolters in 4+ cover as the Marines, and more durable against AP3 stuff (and if they go to ground for a 3+ or 2+ cover save, they live longer). The points saved add up, allowing you to purchase specialized units that perform better. Whether or not the Marines kill Cultists or not is irrelevant, neither of the two Troops choices can meaningfully threaten killy things, so the only thing left to do for them is to objective camp. Cultists are better at that.
You're playing to the strength of the Tactical Marines but ignore the fact that a fully kitted Tactical Squad is in excess of 140 points, whereas 10 Cultists are 50 points. If you hide the Cultists in reserve and walk them on later in the game they'll live long enough to score, freeing up at least 90 points that you could be spending on something else. Let's put it this way: Would you rather have 20 Marines or 20 Cultists and a Heldrake?
Battle Sisters aren't worse than Tacticals, because they can actually contribute. Same with CSM; double special weapons matters when the only meaningful part of the squad is the special weapons. The fact that there are Troops that are worse than Tacticals doesn't mean that they're good anyway, it just makes them not as bad as the others, most of which are in armies that have other options.
Well, Firstly, the cultists will have to pass a ld test for losses, than try to regroup again with a ld test. Or they can be killed by a few random models that came around in close combat cause when they loose combat they get swept. Than there are many weapons that ignore cover and have bad ap.
Basically, i think that 5 marines are way better as pointholders than cultists. Just cause they're more durable and less prone to ld fails. The thing is that sm have even better option as sniper scouts. And csm have only cultists or...well...csm that have issues with ld.
The main issue is not with just pointholding but with offensive capabilities. I agree that 2 special weapons are good and i do prefer csm for offence cause their rhinos also have havoc launchers But they're not much better. And they got issues with ld once again.
Martel732 wrote: I'm seriously considering your suggestion of moving on because I do enjoy other games much more and I refuse to put more money into this one.
I think that's your winning move, I genuinely think part of it it down to your local group, it's just my opinion by they sound horrible to play games with. I think if you had a group like the one we've built it would take some getting used to but you would have a blast again. Games are tight, close and above all fun (barring those ones where lady luck is playing favourites )
I would try as I think it was Anpu said though, see if you aren't alone first. If you are just walk away, but if you aren't that may well be the starting blocks of your new group that answers. You say no-one should have to self nerf, but even in a perfectly balanced game like chess it's something you have to do.
I play games with my wife all the time, I'm a stronger player. I could go all out and destroy her every time but what's the point? Instead maybe I pick a weaker race combination, point out what it is I'm trying to do before I do it, little self nerfs here and there. I never let her win but now victory is possible, the game is closer and produces more memorable and fun moments. As she learns a game and gets better I can do it less but I'm always going to have to do it a little because I just have more of a head for strategy than she does.
It's the same with 40k armies, 2 even players can find themselves in a disparate matchup because of the armies involved. Now the player with the stronger army can lord it up because he spent his money on Riptides not Deathwing (which is hardly indicative of Creed! levels of tactics) and ride his easy win. The alternative is that his friend is looking at running his Baharoth/Jain Zar 30 Swooping Hawks and 30 footslogging Banshees theme list and say maybe today I'll field those Sniper Drones and Piranha's rather than the 3 Riptides, or maybe I'll play with Riptides but give myself a points or some other handicap.
The game can still be very tactical and fun without "optimised" lists.
Honestly, trying to change a unit that fits fine in many theoretical (because in practice a lot of thing aren't played competitively) matchups but lacking against small number of extremely powerful (becuase of both raw power and versatility) compositions is quite bad idea. You bring them on the level of current FOTM, and then you feel that you need to do the same with every little thing that isn't T1 in every army too.
I see you never played with an army that depends on Morale.
You never suffered Sweeping Advance. It is a rule that quickly destroys any unit you make a mistake with.
ATSKF is broken. Really broken. It allows marines to completely ignore a lot of things that will destroy anything else. And in 6th it has gone worse: now if you retreat you regroup and do not suffer any inconvenience for it.
No, really, read the thread. It's been discussed already. ATSKNF doesn't matter when you're dead, and even if you have two or three marines that survive due to it that is usually a DRAWBACK, as it means you can't shoot the enemy unit.
If Imperial Guard had ATSKNF it'd be broken; we've already seen how popular Azrael or a Rune Priest in a blob was at the beginning of 6th. Marines don't have the numbers to make the rule broken.
Hit and Run for all units, together with +1 S HoW, ignore Dangerous Terrain and +1 JInk saves? What else do you want for free? It is the rule every player was dreaming with for years. The fact that there are marine players that do not even appreciate it is really disturbing.What else do you want?
Yes, I'm sure better HoW and improved Jink Saves make Tactical Marines so much better than CSM. You got me there.
This proves beyond doubt you haven´t play with Cultists. They are not "more durable" in any real situation, unless you are theorizing. A Tactical Space Marine squad can destroy a points-equivalent Cultist unit by looking at it in most cases. The lack of ATSKNF means a useless X points Cultist squad have zero chances of surviving in an assault against a vastly superior X points Tactical Space Marine squad. More wounds? Tell that to Sweeping Advance.
It is extremely easy to take them out of objectives. Compared to that, it is hell to do the same with tactical SM. Use a flamer? Cultists die, Astartes ignore it. You need special, costy weapons to deal with MEQs.
Use a Baleflamer, Riptide, or D-Scythe and the 14 point Marines die like 5-point Cultists, and they're weapons you'd have taken anyway, because they kill things that are actually dangerous too. I showed you the math. Cultists benefit from free saves from cover, whereas Marines pay for theirs. And yes, ATSKNF makes Marines more durable in melee than cultists, but it's a moot point. Think about it, what are the CC units you see in 6th edition? Juggerlords, FMCs, Wraiths, Daemonettes, Khorne Hounds and the like. Do you honestly think ATSKNF is going to save Tactical Marines from those?
The points saved add up, allowing you to purchase specialized units that perform better. Whether or not the Marines kill Cultists or not is irrelevant, neither of the two Troops choices can meaningfully threaten killy things, so the only thing left to do for them is to objective camp. Cultists are better at that.
Wrong.
A Tactical Space Marine properly customized can threat anything.
A basic Tactical Space Marine can still deal with small objectives, including walkers and light vehicles and most "infantry that suck". They can do it reliably and they are tough. They need special gear to be properly dealt with.
A Cultist, against most targets, can only cry, and pray to the Darks Gods the Marines player focuses on other things.
Oh for the love of... READ what you're responding to. A Tactical squad with a Heavy Bolter does not meaningfully threaten a squad of Boyz, just like a Tactical Squad with a Lascannon does not meaningfully threaten a Land Raider.
This sounds true. Except the "have other options" thing. All armies lack the number of options the Marines have.
Tactical Space Marines are way better, point by point, than most other equivalent units. They are also highly customizable and with lots and lots of options. Are they good?
It depends of how you define good: they are Troops, they are supposed to be the low-tier units. In that, they excel.
"Options" as in "can take other troops". Marines are stuck with Tacticals and Scouts unless you want to play a Bike list.
And no, Tactical Marines absolutely aren't better point for point. Cheaper Troops choices benefit from cover much, much more, and can usually come with some sort of specialized weapon that means you can use the rest of the list to do other things.
You are talking about a unit that is equal or far worse than Tactical Marines at every single thing, at 2 points less. I have seen full battle sisters squads wiped out by Termagants in a single assault. Remember: they lack ATSKNF, they die as easy as anyone else except marines.
There was a big improvement in the 6th Codex for Sisters regarding troops. Before, you didn´t get the extra special and it was 10 models. That was a tax. They never achieved anything, you just paid points to access other units. And no it is not the case of marines, a 70 points tactical squad can wipe out a Sisters 140 points squad in a single turn, with ease and with no risk, if they get near. Seriously try it: minimal Tactical SM assaults a battle sister squad doubling in numbers and points. And then remember than tactical are not supposed to excel in close combat.
Marines are BS4, Sisters are BS4. Marines get 1 meltagun/flamer, Sisters get 2. Sisters have a 6++ at all times, Marines don't. If you're going to use absolute statements, make sure they're actually true.
Guess what? I've seen Tactical Marines wiped out in a single assault phase by Termagants too. Know why? Because Tacticals are rubbish at melee. Sure, they'd probably kill a Sister squad if they got to melee, but how on earth are they?
It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army.ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong.
Oh look, another thing you're wrong about. I've played Orks, IG and CSM too. And guess what? They have ways of coping with morale too. Orks get Fearless and Boss Poles, IG have Orders and Commissars, Chaos has VotLW and Fearless. The same is true for Tau (Bonding Knives), Daemons (what morale test?), and Tyranids have Fearless. It's not just Marines that have ways around morale.
I said: you can get stuff like Hit and Run for your army, together with +1 S HoW, ignore Dangerous Terrain and +1 JInk saves. Your answer was "Yes, I'm sure better HoW and improved Jink Saves make Tactical Marines so much better than CSM. You got me there."
You ignored the "Hit and Run" part? Does this mean a part of you is actually starting to think about how good Chapter Tactics and Tactical Marines are instead of trying to pick some witty reason (yes I should have worded it better, ha ha) to ignore the reasonings people do?
Or do you mean that "Hit and Run" sucks too?
You also missed Combat Squads, another really powerful rule, if you like, you know, using tactics when you deploy your army.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Use a Baleflamer, Riptide, or D-Scythe and the 14 point Marines die like 5-point Cultists,
And?
Use anything and Cultists die as if they were made of toilet paper. Use most things and Tactical Marines endure. You need special weapons to fight Tactical Marines. Your opponent need to outsmart you and face your Rock with a Paper and your Scissor with a Rock.
You keep comparing marines to other units in a 100% best case scenario for your reasoning like if the world was made of Riptides and Heldrakes. Guess what? There are other units and other armies, and most of them are in a far worse state than Marines. With far worse Troops options.
Big question: Would you feel better if tactical marines get Hit and Run, ATSKNF, Rage, Battle Focus, Supporting Fire and Master-crafted in all weapons, for free?
Following your reasoning... it seems your answer will still be NO. Riptides and Plasma will still kill your marines, they will never achieve a thing because they are gonna die... every single "reason" you gave for Tactical Marines to suck will be still there. They will still be far better than most other Troop units, but they will still fail to meet your expectatives of what a basic unit is mean to do.
So what else do you want? Tac Marines able to deal with Riptides by themselves?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Do you honestly think ATSKNF is going to save Tactical Marines from those?
Given that many of the units you said are close combat units, yes definetely ATSKNF provides a good chance of them surviving the assault. You need to kill all the marines to destroy the unit. That´s big. Tactical Marines go through a lot and survive. Most other Troops? They will lose the combat (like marines) and they will DIE. Also you keep comparing Troop "basic" cheap choices with "killy" expensive elite specialists.
The points saved add up, allowing you to purchase specialized units that perform better. Whether or not the Marines kill Cultists or not is irrelevant, neither of the two Troops choices can meaningfully threaten killy things, so the only thing left to do for them is to objective camp. Cultists are better at that.
Wrong.
A Tactical Space Marine properly customized can threat anything.
A basic Tactical Space Marine can still deal with small objectives, including walkers and light vehicles and most "infantry that suck". They can do it reliably and they are tough. They need special gear to be properly dealt with.
A Cultist, against most targets, can only cry, and pray to the Darks Gods the Marines player focuses on other things.
Oh for the love of... READ what you're responding to. A Tactical squad with a Heavy Bolter does not meaningfully threaten a squad of Boyz, just like a Tactical Squad with a Lascannon does not meaningfully threaten a Land Raider.
Heavy Bolters?
You equip your Tactical Marines with Heavy Bolters?
Hey perhaps we have found the reason your Tac do nothing. Know what? Heavy Bolters suck.
Use Plasma Cannon -> your Tac Marines are a big menace to Heavy Infantry
Use Lascannon -> Your Tac Marines are a big manace to big scary Heavy Vehicles.
Meltagun, Plasma Guns, Missile Launchers... there are many ways to make a Tactical Marine matters.
And, by the way, you skipped all the Vehicle/Walkers part.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Guess what? I've seen Tactical Marines wiped out in a single assault phase by Termagants too. Know why? Because Tacticals are rubbish at melee. Sure, they'd probably kill a Sister squad if they got to melee, but how on earth are they?
While we have already found why your Tactical Marines do nothing (avoid Heavy Bolters and you will be fine) we have yet to find the answer to this mistery: how can your Marines die against a single Termagant unit in assault? Ans a question such as "how on Earth are they gonna get to melee with Sisters of Battle?" begets another question: how it comes your marines die so easily?
I mean, you know if a couple of Tac marines touches the Sisters, they will probably die, do you? They will lose the combat by two or three -> Sweeping -> all dead. So what if they kill one Marine with meltas? Where are your Meltas? Do you realize both units are similarly costed? How can you compare Tactical Marines to Sisters and claim than "Marines suck" with a straight face?
Crikey, you really need to read the thread you're responding to.
Why so? I read some posts and it was enough. It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army.
No, no it wasn't. You're dragging up arguments we've already had.
I just quoted one of that "arguments", the one with the meaningfully word on it. Reread it.
You said: Whether or not the Marines kill Cultists or not is irrelevant, neither of the two Troops choices can meaningfully threaten killy things, so the only thing left to do for them is to objective camp. Cultists are better at that.
I said: that´s not true. Then I gave you scores of situations where the Tactical Marines were able to do lots of things other than that. Other people posted more situations. On the other side, the Cultist were completely unable to do any other thing that objective camp.
Your answer? You said "Oh for the love of... READ what you're responding to. A Tactical squad with a Heavy Bolter does not meaningfully threaten a squad of Boyz, just like a Tactical Squad with a Lascannon does not meaningfully threaten a Land Raider." and change the size of your sentence.
1: I did answer your question, proving I had read it.
2: You didn´t answer to what I posted. At all. The fact that you quoted part of it makes it even more obvious.
3: Your answer does not make sense at all. Do you admit Tactical Marines can actually do everything I said while still claiming that they are bad just because they cannot kill Boyz with Heavy Bolters? Or do you believe Tactical Marines cannot deal with, say, light vehicles that go too near, walkers, Heavy Infantry (with the help of plasma), and so on?
Oh look, another thing you're wrong about. I've played Orks, IG and CSM too. And guess what? They have ways of coping with morale too. Orks get Fearless and Boss Poles, IG have Orders and Commissars, Chaos has VotLW and Fearless. The same is true for Tau (Bonding Knives), Daemons (what morale test?), and Tyranids have Fearless. It's not just Marines that have ways around morale
Wrong.
If you played that way, you played it wrong.
Here are some reasons why ATSKNF is such an awesome rule. Some reasons why so many people claim it is broken.
-> Tyranids are only Fearless under Synapse. Break the Synapse and they start running, killing themselves by getting out the table or even start attacking each other. A tyranid player who forget morale is bound to be defeated. As a Marine player, you should know this and try to breake the Synapse. If you do, that, the lack of ATSKNF will do the rest.
-> Chaos has VorLW and Fearless?? Really? Check that.
-> Daemons. Well at least you ask "what morale test?" here. I already answer your that question in a previous post. The rule is called Daemonic Instablity. As a Marine player, you should know that units with low Ld will suffer a lot in close combat, if they lose the combat, because the lack of ATSKNF.
-> Orks are only Fearless in numbers. Big units of elite troops are expensive and do not usually have numbers enough to keep it. That´s a major advantage for a Marine player.
-> Tau have Bonding Knives. Oh my! totally like ATSKNF. They still die touching the border, and they die in scores by sweeping advance. A single "useless" tactical marine can destroy the entire Tau line if let alive. Try it. Get some Tac Marines near the Fire Warriors. Either the Tau player will address the 70 points problem (thus ignoring other threats) or the useless tac marines will have a chance of unbalancing the game, all by themselves. And, by the way, this is something you can do with cultists too. The difference is that tac marines have lots of viable options to get there, and actually have a chance of getting close and even surviving some Tau firepower.
-> IG have Comissars? Didn´t know they got them in every unit, for free. That´s the problem: you are assuming Marines should receive incredible expensive special rules and then complain that it is not enough. Comissars are awesome... but they are expensive and if they die you have a problem. ATSKNF is free for every single one of your units.
So you think these armies have a ATSKNF equivalent? A free rule for all models that allows them to ignore Morale?
I said it before and I am saying it again: It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrotherHaraldus wrote: Fearless is given out like candy. ATSKNF is a footnote more than anything else.
Et tu, brother?
Marks do not give Fearless (they should).
Basic CSMs do not get any protection against morale (BIG THING HERE)
Most our units have a lot of problems with morale.
Even Terminators! Have you seen a Chaos Terminator running out of the table?
I think tactical are some of the greatest troops merely because there is no one thing they're bad at. They have a fantastic stat line but they are a shade on the expensive side.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: Fearless is given out like candy. ATSKNF is a footnote more than anything else.
Et tu, brother?
Marks do not give Fearless (they should).
Basic CSMs do not get any protection against morale (BIG THING HERE)
Most our units have a lot of problems with morale.
Even Terminators! Have you seen a Chaos Terminator running out of the table?
I have not. Thus far all my units either have an IoV, VotLW and/or an Independent in them, making them very difficult to force off via morale. It's sad as I like IoE and IoR, but oh well.
ATSKNF is a good utility ability but it does not suffice to make Tacticals what they should be.
If the Pyrovore had ATSKNF, would it be competetive?
Extreme example for sure, but it's just not enough when it is for a T4 3+ unit that pays a lot for that when it is less relevant than ever.
Green Tide will oneshot you in melee whether you are T3 5+ or T4 3+
(Pseudo-)Rending, AP2/3 large blasts etc are massively common.
You say it is a sign of skill to use these things against Tacticals? That it is just using rock against scissors?
Strange, when I see a Heldrake mow down 500+ points of troops alone (Not even counting in vector strikes) it does not seem very difficult to do at all.
Tacticals should be able to gun down other ranged forces, though not entirely points effectively, and chop down melee enemies, though not entirely points effectively.
They do neither. The 'counter' units are so extremely easy to target the Marines with so their supposed advantages become irrelevant. My Forgefiend does not care if it is Gretchin or Tacticals it is shooting at, and only the Forgefiend (Which is not an awesome unit in itself) pretty much completely invalidates footslogging Tacs unless the enemy can kill it quickly.
Oh, and as a side note; marks should not give fearless. CSM should have fearless or ATSKNF baseline, Legion Tactics, and be 14 pts base just like Tacticals... And even then they need fixes just like Tacs do.
Somehow I've read the entire thread, and while I admire those who have defended the notion that Tactical Marines are not worth their points. I just can't find it in me to argue against those who think all the options Tacticals have somehow make them stronger. They are a point sink, if your Meta doesn't prove that to you each and every game. Good for you. That doesn't mean anything to those of us who take the field against armies that hit the table looking to wreck face every game. Are Tactical Marines the worst troop choice in the game? No. Are they the best? No. Are they worth the points in a competitive Meta?
No.
da001 wrote: I mean, you know if a couple of Tac marines touches the Sisters, they will probably die, do you? They will lose the combat by two or three -> Sweeping -> all dead. So what if they kill one Marine with meltas? Where are your Meltas? Do you realize both units are similarly costed? How can you compare Tactical Marines to Sisters and claim than "Marines suck" with a straight face?
Must be nice to play against SoB players who don't run priests AND run melta's in their battle sister squads.
The points saved add up, allowing you to purchase specialized units that perform better. Whether or not the Marines kill Cultists or not is irrelevant, neither of the two Troops choices can meaningfully threaten killy things, so the only thing left to do for them is to objective camp. Cultists are better at that.
Wrong.
A Tactical Space Marine properly customized can threat anything.
A basic Tactical Space Marine can still deal with small objectives, including walkers and light vehicles and most "infantry that suck". They can do it reliably and they are tough. They need special gear to be properly dealt with.
A Cultist, against most targets, can only cry, and pray to the Darks Gods the Marines player focuses on other things.
Oh for the love of... READ what you're responding to. A Tactical squad with a Heavy Bolter does not meaningfully threaten a squad of Boyz, just like a Tactical Squad with a Lascannon does not meaningfully threaten a Land Raider.
Heavy Bolters?
You equip your Tactical Marines with Heavy Bolters?
Hey perhaps we have found the reason your Tac do nothing. Know what? Heavy Bolters suck.
Use Plasma Cannon -> your Tac Marines are a big menace to Heavy Infantry
Use Lascannon -> Your Tac Marines are a big manace to big scary Heavy Vehicles.
Meltagun, Plasma Guns, Missile Launchers... there are many ways to make a Tactical Marine matters.
And, by the way, you skipped all the Vehicle/Walkers part.
No, I don't equip Tacticals with Heavy Bolters, and I have absolutely no idea why you came to that conclusion. As you correctly stated, they suck. That's where you ran out of steam, though. As I said in the second half of the very sentence you reacted to, a Tactical Squad with a Lascannon isn't a meaningful threat to heavy armour. Similarly, a Plasma Cannon Tactical squad isn't a meaningful threat to Heavy Infantry, nor Missile Launchers (of all things) to anything. You simply do not put out a meaningful amount of shots from the special or heavy weapons, which is why I feel both Sisters and CSM are better due to double specials. When you've got one shot you're much more vulnerable to statistical outliers than when you've got several, just as Marines (and Sisters, and other low-model-count armies) are more vulnerable to a round of bad saves than Orks or Tyranids.
I skipped the Vehicle/Walkers part because the only Walkers that see competetive play are AV13 anyway, making the point rather moot. Further, I've already explained the difference between specialists and generalists. For the points you save not overspending on Tactical Marines you can buy a proper anti-tank unit instead, and do everything better than the Marines.
While we have already found why your Tactical Marines do nothing (avoid Heavy Bolters and you will be fine) we have yet to find the answer to this mistery: how can your Marines die against a single Termagant unit in assault? Ans a question such as "how on Earth are they gonna get to melee with Sisters of Battle?" begets another question: how it comes your marines die so easily?
I mean, you know if a couple of Tac marines touches the Sisters, they will probably die, do you? They will lose the combat by two or three -> Sweeping -> all dead. So what if they kill one Marine with meltas? Where are your Meltas? Do you realize both units are similarly costed? How can you compare Tactical Marines to Sisters and claim than "Marines suck" with a straight face?
For the HB comment, see above.
Tactical Marines die to a single Termagant squad the same way Sisters do: by rolling badly. It was a response to your claim that you've seen Sisters squads wiped out by Termagant Squads (which I don't doubt BTW) to illustrate the fact that outliers are not the norm.
And I can claim that Sisters are better because having two meltaguns (or flamers) makes them more reliable at doing their job than Marines. Having a unit that can take 2784 options on the army list doesn't matter, what matters is what they can do in-game. If you want a tank-hunting unit, Sisters are probably going to do that better. If you want an anti-infantry unit, Sisters are probably going to do that better. This, in turn, lets you build the rest of the list to deal with things the Sisters themselves can't. I'd still not call Sisters a good Troops unit, but they're better than Tacticals.
You're a bit stuck on Sweeping Advances. What are you getting killed by that wouldn't chew through a Tactical Squad in short order?
You said: Whether or not the Marines kill Cultists or not is irrelevant, neither of the two Troops choices can meaningfully threaten killy things, so the only thing left to do for them is to objective camp. Cultists are better at that.
I said: that´s not true. Then I gave you scores of situations where the Tactical Marines were able to do lots of things other than that. Other people posted more situations. On the other side, the Cultist were completely unable to do any other thing that objective camp.
Your answer? You said "Oh for the love of... READ what you're responding to. A Tactical squad with a Heavy Bolter does not meaningfully threaten a squad of Boyz, just like a Tactical Squad with a Lascannon does not meaningfully threaten a Land Raider." and change the size of your sentence.
1: I did answer your question, proving I had read it.
2: You didn´t answer to what I posted. At all. The fact that you quoted part of it makes it even more obvious.
3: Your answer does not make sense at all. Do you admit Tactical Marines can actually do everything I said while still claiming that they are bad just because they cannot kill Boyz with Heavy Bolters? Or do you believe Tactical Marines cannot deal with, say, light vehicles that go too near, walkers, Heavy Infantry (with the help of plasma), and so on?
You didn't answer the question though; none of the examples you posted have any sort of meaningful application in-game. Whether or not Marines can kill a walker is irrelevant when no one takes walkers with lower than AV13 front because they're bad.
Wrong.
If you played that way, you played it wrong.
Here are some reasons why ATSKNF is such an awesome rule. Some reasons why so many people claim it is broken.
-> Tyranids are only Fearless under Synapse. Break the Synapse and they start running, killing themselves by getting out the table or even start attacking each other. A tyranid player who forget morale is bound to be defeated. As a Marine player, you should know this and try to breake the Synapse. If you do, that, the lack of ATSKNF will do the rest.
-> Chaos has VorLW and Fearless?? Really? Check that.
-> Daemons. Well at least you ask "what morale test?" here. I already answer your that question in a previous post. The rule is called Daemonic Instablity. As a Marine player, you should know that units with low Ld will suffer a lot in close combat, if they lose the combat, because the lack of ATSKNF.
-> Orks are only Fearless in numbers. Big units of elite troops are expensive and do not usually have numbers enough to keep it. That´s a major advantage for a Marine player.
-> Tau have Bonding Knives. Oh my! totally like ATSKNF. They still die touching the border, and they die in scores by sweeping advance. A single "useless" tactical marine can destroy the entire Tau line if let alive. Try it. Get some Tac Marines near the Fire Warriors. Either the Tau player will address the 70 points problem (thus ignoring other threats) or the useless tac marines will have a chance of unbalancing the game, all by themselves. And, by the way, this is something you can do with cultists too. The difference is that tac marines have lots of viable options to get there, and actually have a chance of getting close and even surviving some Tau firepower.
-> IG have Comissars? Didn´t know they got them in every unit, for free. That´s the problem: you are assuming Marines should receive incredible expensive special rules and then complain that it is not enough. Comissars are awesome... but they are expensive and if they die you have a problem. ATSKNF is free for every single one of your units.
So you think these armies have a ATSKNF equivalent? A free rule for all models that allows them to ignore Morale?
I said it before and I am saying it again: It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army.
Could you please point out the place I said that they're equivalent to ATSKNF? I'll wait.
As a closing statement, I'd like to ask you to stop assuming that I don't know anything about Morale. As a Black Templars player, I can assure you I do.
dracpanzer wrote: Somehow I've read the entire thread, and while I admire those who have defended the notion that Tactical Marines are not worth their points. I just can't find it in me to argue against those who think all the options Tacticals have somehow make them stronger. They are a point sink, if your Meta doesn't prove that to you each and every game. Good for you. That doesn't mean anything to those of us who take the field against armies that hit the table looking to wreck face every game. Are Tactical Marines the worst troop choice in the game? No. Are they the best? No. Are they worth the points in a competitive Meta?
No.
da001 wrote: I mean, you know if a couple of Tac marines touches the Sisters, they will probably die, do you? They will lose the combat by two or three -> Sweeping -> all dead. So what if they kill one Marine with meltas? Where are your Meltas? Do you realize both units are similarly costed? How can you compare Tactical Marines to Sisters and claim than "Marines suck" with a straight face?
Must be nice to play against SoB players who don't run priests AND run melta's in their battle sister squads.
That sould be Ultra-Compeative Meta. We have at least for us a very compeative Meta. Now we don't have TauDar running around, but We would all like to change that. Our group is also not into the whole Turny mind set, so we will never see the Tripple Riptide.
And yes you can have a competative Meta without Tripple Riptides, bcouse Tripple TauDar Riptide list are anything but Competative.
And yes you can have a competative Meta without Tripple Riptides, bcouse Tripple TauDar Riptide list are anything but Competative.
No, you can't.
See, I can make up stuff without backing it up too!
EDIT:
Let's put it this way: between the top 16 players of NOVA 2013, top 16 of Adepticon 2013 and the top 15 of the BAO 2013 there's a grand total of 10 Tactical Marines. Those are in Tony Kopach's runner-up list and are two squads of five Marines with a combi-melta because he had to fill his minimum Troops requirement. Admittedly that was before the current book, but even with price drops Tacticals aren't too different.
And yes you can have a competative Meta without Tripple Riptides, bcouse Tripple TauDar Riptide list are anything but Competative.
No, you can't.
See, I can make up stuff without backing it up too!
EDIT:
Let's put it this way: between the top 16 players of NOVA 2013, top 16 of Adepticon 2013 and the top 15 of the BAO 2013 there's a grand total of 10 Tactical Marines. Those are in Tony Kopach's runner-up list and are two squads of five Marines with a combi-melta because he had to fill his minimum Troops requirement. Admittedly that was before the current book, but even with price drops Tacticals aren't too different.
No the Superbowl is Competative.
Three Riptives vs an Army that has no defence against them in Domination.
Have you seen a Chaos Terminator running out of the table?
I have not. Thus far all my units either have an IoV, VotLW and/or an Independent in them, making them very difficult to force off via morale. It's sad as I like IoE and IoR, but oh well.(...) CSM should have fearless or ATSKNF baseline, Legion Tactics, and be 14 pts base just like Tacticals... And even then they need fixes just like Tacs do.
We are in agreement then. Chaos have a problem with morale, and you need to buy stuff to get through it.
I was OK with getting Tactical Marines fixed, they need fixing. I actually proposed some. Getting them a CCW and the possibility of getting a second special (or heavy) sounds really good.
The point of the discussion is "Tactical Marines suck and cannot do anything" vs "they are one of the best Troop basic unit in the game". There are many other troops in a worse situation... starting with CSM. When I pointed out the advantage ATSKNF (among many other rules) means for loyalists, I was answered that Chaos Space Marines get Fearless. Well they do not. Some people here is claiming lots of odd things.
Your post came right there.
Tacticals should be able to gun down other ranged forces, though not entirely points effectively, and chop down melee enemies, though not entirely points effectively.
They do neither. The 'counter' units are so extremely easy to target the Marines with so their supposed advantages become irrelevant. My Forgefiend does not care if it is Gretchin or Tacticals it is shooting at, and only the Forgefiend (Which is not an awesome unit in itself) pretty much completely invalidates footslogging Tacs unless the enemy can kill it quickly.
I disagree,
They are a basic 70 points Troop option. They are not there to "gun down ranged forces" or "chop down melee enemies". They hold objectives and can lay a hand in many situations. That´s all they are supposed to do, and with the last buff in 6th they are quite good at it. A Heldrake kills them? Yeah, sure. Compare it with a similarly costed unit. And remember that they try to be able to help at anything. They are generalists.
da001 wrote: I mean, you know if a couple of Tac marines touches the Sisters, they will probably die, do you? They will lose the combat by two or three -> Sweeping -> all dead. So what if they kill one Marine with meltas? Where are your Meltas? Do you realize both units are similarly costed? How can you compare Tactical Marines to Sisters and claim than "Marines suck" with a straight face?
Must be nice to play against SoB players who don't run priests AND run melta's in their battle sister squads.
Sorry I thought we were talking about basic Troops. I didn´t know your Sisters got a priest attached. Anyway Tacticals will still destroy them because they have both Marneus Calgar and Tigurius attached.
Martel732 wrote: I don't know why you are so fixated on ATSKNF. It hasn't won me a game in a long time.
It is a nice rule, that help a lot in many situations. And I am not "fixated", it is just one rule. I also mentioned Chapter Tactics and Combat Squads. If Marines suck, then many other Troops suck even harder, because Marines have a lot of nice rules that, all put together, gets them over the average basic Troop.
It all boils down to wheter or not we are comparing Marines with Tau/Eldar and claiming Tac Marines are useless because they have zero chances against a Riptide.
It all boils down to wheter or not we are comparing Marines with Tau/Eldar and claiming Tac Marines are useless because they have zero chances against a Riptide.
Or Daemons. Or Tyranids. Or CSM. Or Sisters. Or Orks. Or...
It all boils down to wheter or not we are comparing Marines with Tau/Eldar and claiming Tac Marines are useless because they have zero chances against a Riptide.
Or Daemons. Or Tyranids. Or CSM. Or Sisters. Or Orks. Or...
Funny My Tactical Marines handle them all of the time.
It all boils down to wheter or not we are comparing Marines with Tau/Eldar and claiming Tac Marines are useless because they have zero chances against a Riptide.
Or Daemons. Or Tyranids. Or CSM. Or Sisters. Or Orks. Or...
Funny My Tactical Marines handle them all of the time.
How do Tactical Marines handle CSM? They get twice the plasma you do.
How do Tactical Marines handle Tyranids? They get T6 W6 MCs.
How do Tactical Marines handle Daemonettes? Or Nurglings who aren't anywhere near you and just sit around to score for cheap?
Even against Orks, who ought to be a prime target for Tactical Marines, they don't do too well, because if you're in Rapid Fire range you're in comfortable charge range next turn, and you're not beating charging Orks. If you first shoot and then charge them with 10 Tactical Marines you kill around 7 Orks, assuming you live through Overwatch, don't shoot yourself out of range and somehow manage to get within charging distance of Orks without them charging you first. Then you'll be ground down.
It all boils down to wheter or not we are comparing Marines with Tau/Eldar and claiming Tac Marines are useless because they have zero chances against a Riptide.
Or Daemons. Or Tyranids. Or CSM. Or Sisters. Or Orks. Or...
Funny My Tactical Marines handle them all of the time.
I think we've established that the players in your meta aren't using good lists. If you guys have fun with that, great, but don't try to pass it off like some kind of metric that means something. That BA list you suggested would be massacred in my play group. Admittedly, BA in general get massacred, but the fact that you thought that list had a legitimate chance says a lot. Yeah, you might call us "elitist", but to others, we are merely "effective".
It all boils down to wheter or not we are comparing Marines with Tau/Eldar and claiming Tac Marines are useless because they have zero chances against a Riptide.
Or Daemons. Or Tyranids. Or CSM. Or Sisters. Or Orks. Or...
Funny My Tactical Marines handle them all of the time.
How do Tactical Marines handle CSM? They get twice the plasma you do.
How do Tactical Marines handle Tyranids? They get T6 W6 MCs.
How do Tactical Marines handle Daemonettes? Or Nurglings who aren't anywhere near you and just sit around to score for cheap?
Even against Orks, who ought to be a prime target for Tactical Marines, they don't do too well, because if you're in Rapid Fire range you're in comfortable charge range next turn, and you're not beating charging Orks. If you first shoot and then charge them with 10 Tactical Marines you kill around 7 Orks, assuming you live through Overwatch, don't shoot yourself out of range and somehow manage to get within charging distance of Orks without them charging you first. Then you'll be ground down.
And the Nob with the power claw that was in the middle of the squad eventually gets into HTH and its over.
It all boils down to wheter or not we are comparing Marines with Tau/Eldar and claiming Tac Marines are useless because they have zero chances against a Riptide.
Or Daemons. Or Tyranids. Or CSM. Or Sisters. Or Orks. Or...
Funny My Tactical Marines handle them all of the time.
How do Tactical Marines handle CSM? They get twice the plasma you do.
How do Tactical Marines handle Tyranids? They get T6 W6 MCs.
How do Tactical Marines handle Daemonettes? Or Nurglings who aren't anywhere near you and just sit around to score for cheap?
Even against Orks, who ought to be a prime target for Tactical Marines, they don't do too well, because if you're in Rapid Fire range you're in comfortable charge range next turn, and you're not beating charging Orks. If you first shoot and then charge them with 10 Tactical Marines you kill around 7 Orks, assuming you live through Overwatch, don't shoot yourself out of range and somehow manage to get within charging distance of Orks without them charging you first. Then you'll be ground down.
Martel732 wrote: And the Nob with the power claw that was in the middle of the squad eventually gets into HTH and its over.
That why my Sarg's usaly have a Lighting Claw
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: 2K Orks don't care about your plasma. Been there, seen that. Small templates don't kill enough Orks. And plasma can't stop Battlewagons.
Not from the front and that is not what Tactical Squads are for?
LErned that the hard way when dealng with 4 Battlewagone with Defroller.
You catch them from the side with Land Speeder Typhoons and Plasma from the rear.
Back to the same talking points about drop pods and the like. Your speeders are not likely to be able to get through the AV 12 KFF shielded wagons in time to prevent disaster.
For sarges with lightning claws, just wait till the sarge is dead. The sarge with a lightning claw is just a waste of points. But whatever, keep telling us how you totally have Battlewagon Orks handled with tactical squads.
Martel732 wrote: Back to the same talking points about drop pods and the like. Your speeders are not likely to be able to get through the AV 12 KFF shielded wagons in time to prevent disaster.
For sarges with lightning claws, just wait till the sarge is dead. The sarge with a lightning claw is just a waste of points. But whatever, keep telling us how you totally have Battlewagon Orks handled with tactical squads.
I DON'T have them handeled with my Tactical Squads
I Have them Handled with my Army that my Tactical Squads are PART OF!
Tactical Squads will not win you the Battle if that is all you have, that is what everything out their is for.
The Sternguard in a Pod make you HAVE to deal with them at some point.
The Land Speeders are for Flanking and getting at your sides and rear.
The Devistators Are for dealing with your Elite Units
My Choice of useing Pedro give me Army wide Re-Roll 1s with Bolters off all type [exept for Sternguard Special Ammo]
Tactical Squads make up the core and and generaly kill off a good number before they get close from normal wounds and the fact that my Overwatch fire will hit more [Thanks Perdro].
With the Challange System My Sarge gets his chance to kill off your Attack.
Odds are I will kill more Orks than Marines forcing them to make a moral chack if thay are under 11 [normaly is this way at this time] usaly with a penalty and i will most likely make the Sweepeing advance.
No, I don't equip Tacticals with Heavy Bolters, and I have absolutely no idea why you came to that conclusion
I quoted the part where you used it an an example. Actually you quoted me back your own sentence while quoting me.
It was a bad example. We were discussing about how you can customize your Tactical Marines to make them do some support and you gave two examples. Here is the quote again: "A Tactical squad with a Heavy Bolter does not meaningfully threaten a squad of Boyz, just like a Tactical Squad with a Lascannon does not meaningfully threaten a Land Raider."
The second example is more or less OK. I think you mean "reliably" when saying "meaningfully". A single Lascannon can "meaningfully" threaten a LR because it has a chance (and not a particularly low one) to utterly destroy it in a single shot. It doesn´t "reliably" threatens it because it is one single shot. Tactical Marines cannot destroy Heavy Vehicles reliably, which should be expected, given that they are a basic unit. But they can have a go at it and, potentially, change the course of the battle. They are low-level threats. It is not a game-winner unit, but a humble one. Like most Troops. But then again, they are better at doing that that most other Troops in the game.
Your first example didn´t make sense and I quoted it for that reason: you were stretching your reasonings, giving Marines crappy weapons and then blaming them for not doing their job.
For the points you save not overspending on Tactical Marines you can buy a proper anti-tank unit instead, and do everything better than the Marines.
That´s where the Objective-oriented thing and the FOC strikes. Your are FORCED to buy Troops. They are compulsory.
Of course there are more powerful things. But a rule of the game is there to force you to buy "basic" troops, instead of turning the game into a "superheroes" match.
Of all the "normal people" you are forced to buy, point by point Tactical Marines are among the best.
Tactical Marines die to a single Termagant squad the same way Sisters do: by rolling badly. It was a response to your claim that you've seen Sisters squads wiped out by Termagant Squads (which I don't doubt BTW) to illustrate the fact that outliers are not the norm.
No Marines don´t die that way.
I used that example to explain the reason ATSKNF is a really good rule. Sisters are far weaker in combat, to the point that a basic unit, like a basic Termagant Squad, can easily win a close combat against them by a wound or two. Then, using Sweeping Advance, the entire squad is wiped out.
I was not talking about "bad rolls". Do the math: Termagants are I4 -> they strike first. Both have BS 3 so they hit with a 4+, and both have S3 T3 so they wound with a 4+ too. A basic 10 Termagant means 20 attacks on charge. That´s 20/2 = 10 hits and 10/2 = 5 wounds, which means 1,66 models less. A 60 points Sister squad is 4 sisters and a superior, that should be priority target. If they get two casualties they strike back with 3 attacks, hitting with a 4+, wounding with a 4+, save 6+. That´s 0,625 wounds.
Then Sweeping Advance and the full unit is destroyed.
Wanna see the same numbers with Marines?
Even if you roll really, really, really bad, you will still survive thanks to ATSKNF and the quite good stats Marines have.
Marines suck? Not compared with many armies. And the 12 points Sister Vs 14 points Marine is a joke of a comparison. If you play Sisters, you really need to be careful of where you sent them: anything has a good chance of hurting them. Not with Marines. By the way, at ranged combat they are more or less the same, it is in close combat when the WS3 S3 T3 I3 stats kick. And then Sweeping Advance and your scoring unit is gone. Regarding CSM vs SM, by far the most common match I have met year after year, the difference is quite easy to see: they have roughly about 50% chance of winning or losing the assault. If Chaos wins, nothing happens. If SM wins, the Chaos unit is destroyed roughly 50% of the times.
I'd still not call Sisters a good Troops unit, but they're better than Tacticals
No way.
You're a bit stuck on Sweeping Advances. What are you getting killed by that wouldn't chew through a Tactical Squad in short order?
Anything that is not super-killy. Termagants, other marines, Sisters, CSMs... most units in the game actually. One of my main points is that you are talking as if everything were able to destroy marines with ease.
Last time I played, a CSM squad with a Chaos Lord attached assaulted a 5 men basic demi-squad holding an objective. Not particularly bad rolls, but they got 3 casualties and ran away. The two remaining Marines didn´t die (ATSKNF). They became a threat, because it was turn 5 and they, without help, were potentially able to contest the objective or get another one. The other player could not ignore them. And shooting at them would be a waste of effort. It would have been even better if the plasma cannon dude wasn´t one of the fallen. A plasma blast is quite meaningful against CSM.
Sisters, cultists, nids out of Synapse and the like would have died, and CSM too, depending on the Sweeping Advance roll.
And to be clear: I am talking about basic troops holding an objective.
You didn't answer the question though; none of the examples you posted have any sort of meaningful application in-game.
I did answer your question. You just think my answer is wrong. Because our opinions differ. Not the same thing
Could you please point out the place I said that they're equivalent to ATSKNF? I'll wait.
It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army.ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong.
Oh look, another thing you're wrong about. I've played Orks, IG and CSM too. And guess what? They have ways of coping with morale too. Orks get Fearless and Boss Poles, IG have Orders and Commissars, Chaos has VotLW and Fearless. The same is true for Tau (Bonding Knives), Daemons (what morale test?), and Tyranids have Fearless. It's not just Marines that have ways around morale.
If you were not trying to compare these things to ATSKNF, I don´t know what is this list supposed to mean. That other armies have rules or options, far more expensive and far worse than what Marines get?
It really sounded as if you were comparing ATSKNF with a list of things.... all of them wrong. Bonding Knives, no less. And apparently CSM are Fearless. And you ignored how Morale works for Daemons. And Orks and IG and nids.
As a closing statement, I'd like to ask you to stop assuming that I don't know anything about Morale. As a Black Templars player, I can assure you I do.
Seriously?
If you are talking about Templars before the 6th ed Codex, they were Fearless in close combat, no less. "Righteous Zeal" was a slight inconvenience compared to what Morale can do to not-Fearless units. Try a not-Marine army. Try a nid army without many Synapse bugs. Try Sisters. Try Chaos.
... and try Tau. They have big problems regarding morale in close combat. Even a cultist unit is a danger for them in close combat. That´s the way Tau are supposed to be "balanced" against other factions (I don´t think they are).
"With the Challange System My Sarge gets his chance to kill off your Attack. "
Not if I deny it. If your sergeants have claws, your list is deficient somewhere else. It's unlikely your sarge makes his points back clawing down boyz.
I think this line of debate is pointless. Even in your above description of how your army works, the tactical squads are just a tax.
I don't think your list sounds very good. I can tell you that devastator marines and land speeders in 6th edition are both quite bad. Sternguard in pods seem to be being phased out in favor of Sternguard being used in a less brute force manner. I don't think you would beat most of the Ork players I know with your list.
But it really doesn't matter, because we all know that GW is never going to change tactical squads in a meaningful manner. So I guess the only real litmus test is head to head between marine lists build around tac squads and those lists that minimize them at all costs. And also compare those two approaches' records against the field.
After all, you admitted yourself you don't have much of a chance against Triple Riptide. I've beaten that list with my approach, but my success rate is poor. I don't see how adding tacticals to my lists will improve my success rate against triple riptide.
It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army.ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong.
Oh look, another thing you're wrong about. I've played Orks, IG and CSM too. And guess what? They have ways of coping with morale too. Orks get Fearless and Boss Poles, IG have Orders and Commissars, Chaos has VotLW and Fearless. The same is true for Tau (Bonding Knives), Daemons (what morale test?), and Tyranids have Fearless. It's not just Marines that have ways around morale.
If you were not trying to compare these things to ATSKNF, I don´t know what is this list supposed to mean. That other armies have rules or options, far more expensive and far worse than what Marines get?
It really sounded as if you were comparing ATSKNF with a list of things.... all of them wrong. Bonding Knives, no less. And apparently CSM are Fearless. And you ignored how Morale works for Daemons. And Orks and IG and nids.
Comparing =/= saying they're equivalent. I pointed out that other armies have rules that let them cope with morale too. And yes, Chaos Lords make units they're in Fearless. Daemons are Fearless too, as are Plague Zombies.
Morale still works for Marines, you're just as dead as everyone else if you run off the board. Everyone else, on the other hand, aren't (usually) at risk of having one model survive and keep something that you'd rather shoot at locked in combat.
As a closing statement, I'd like to ask you to stop assuming that I don't know anything about Morale. As a Black Templars player, I can assure you I do.
Seriously?
If you are talking about Templars before the 6th ed Codex, they were Fearless in close combat, no less. "Righteous Zeal" was a slight inconvenience compared to what Morale can do to not-Fearless units. Try a not-Marine army. Try a nid army without many Synapse bugs. Try Sisters. Try Chaos.
... and try Tau. They have big problems regarding morale in close combat. Even a cultist unit is a danger for them in close combat. That´s the way Tau are supposed to be "balanced" against other factions (I don´t think they are).
Ld 7 Target Priority Tests all of 5th edition. The rule didn't even exist in the BRB anymore. But I'm sure I know nothing of morale issues, and nothing of having Terminators run off the table due to taking 20% casualties (yes 20%, not 25%). And nothing of having lascannons pulled out of position due to having to consolidate in 6th edition.
To break the stalemate a bit, I'd like to revisit the idea of specialist ammunition we had earlier in the thread. I was thinking, suppose you gave Tactical Squads the following ammo types:
Dragonfire bolt: R24" S4 AP- Ignores Cover Rapid Fire
Rename the Sternguard equivalent ammunition to "Master-crafted X bolt".
This way Tacticals could actually adapt to different targets, choosing whatever ammunition type is better, without stealing all the thunder from other races. Dark Eldar would still do poisoned shooting better, Tau would still have the superior long-range small-arm, and Sternguard would still have better shooting than Tactical Marines.
It'd also open up the possibility for more diversity between the bolter-wielding Codices. Chaos Space Marines would obviously not have access to the same ammunition types as the Imperium, but they'd have their own variations on a similar-yet-different theme. Same with Sisters. Imperial Guard wouldn't get any bolter ammo except for the "normal" bolts, as they're not valuable enough to justify spending the massive resources these bolts cost on.
Martel732 wrote: "With the Challange System My Sarge gets his chance to kill off your Attack. "
Not if I deny it. If your sergeants have claws, your list is deficient somewhere else. It's unlikely your sarge makes his points back clawing down boyz.
I think this line of debate is pointless. Even in your above description of how your army works, the tactical squads are just a tax.
I don't think your list sounds very good. I can tell you that devastator marines and land speeders in 6th edition are both quite bad. Sternguard in pods seem to be being phased out in favor of Sternguard being used in a less brute force manner. I don't think you would beat most of the Ork players I know with your list.
But it really doesn't matter, because we all know that GW is never going to change tactical squads in a meaningful manner. So I guess the only real litmus test is head to head between marine lists build around tac squads and those lists that minimize them at all costs. And also compare those two approaches' records against the field.
After all, you admitted yourself you don't have much of a chance against Triple Riptide. I've beaten that list with my approach, but my success rate is poor. I don't see how adding tacticals to my lists will improve my success rate against triple riptide.
I know you were talking with Anpu42, but there is something jarring here.
This is Proposed Rules. The topic is about how Tactical Marines can be fixed, not using a tactic, but by changing the rules. You are talking as if a competitive solution is possible. Well it is not. Competitive people will not let you change the rules to bolster your army. As you yourself pointed out, it is nearly impossible that GW will fix the unit in the near future . But if you fix the tactical with a rule... why not fixing Riptides with another rule? The problem is not really the Tactical, there are lots of units in a far worse situation. Fix the overpowered units and that´s all.
I am saying that because you are talking about changing units on the go. Instead of trying to find a fix for one of your units, the "competitive solution" to this problem is quite easy: play Tau/Eldar. This is not the thing I would do, but it is what I see competitive players doing.
Martel732 wrote: "With the Challange System My Sarge gets his chance to kill off your Attack. "
Not if I deny it. If your sergeants have claws, your list is deficient somewhere else. It's unlikely your sarge makes his points back clawing down boyz.
I think this line of debate is pointless. Even in your above description of how your army works, the tactical squads are just a tax.
I don't think your list sounds very good. I can tell you that devastator marines and land speeders in 6th edition are both quite bad. Sternguard in pods seem to be being phased out in favor of Sternguard being used in a less brute force manner. I don't think you would beat most of the Ork players I know with your list.
But it really doesn't matter, because we all know that GW is never going to change tactical squads in a meaningful manner. So I guess the only real litmus test is head to head between marine lists build around tac squads and those lists that minimize them at all costs. And also compare those two approaches' records against the field.
After all, you admitted yourself you don't have much of a chance against Triple Riptide. I've beaten that list with my approach, but my success rate is poor. I don't see how adding tacticals to my lists will improve my success rate against triple riptide.
I never said they would.
I already Admited that in your local group my list won't work, but you and a couple of others seem to take it beecouse they don't work tin their envoriment they must Suck Everwhere!
And me and a couple of other keep saying, you are right, but they are working for us.
Because it's easier to get people to agree to buffs for other armies than for nerfs for their own. We can't stuff the Taudar genie back in the bottle without fans of those lists being upset.
I think the above rules proposed by Walrus might be the best yet. Ghetto sternguard ammo would at least give the tactical squad options where they have none now. The one heavy and one special per ten men is a joke as it stands. Your single plasma cannon is not getting you anywhere except against paste eaters who clump up teqs. The rest of the 40K universe is not scared of your plasma cannon.
The 40K universe is at least concerned about mass Kroot snipers.
And I would say there are SOME units worse off, but not as many as I'm sure you would claim. The most obvious example is CSM, because they are mainly marine--, but I'd take plague marines over tacs any day. I just don't think it's clicking with many just how incapable tac marines are for their points. After watching a game that involved the new Tyranid codex, I find myself wishing that tacs were as useful as hormagaunts.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: (...)
To break the stalemate a bit, I'd like to revisit the idea of specialist ammunition we had earlier in the thread. I was thinking, suppose you gave Tactical Squads the following ammo types:
Dragonfire bolt: R24" S4 AP- Ignores Cover Rapid Fire
Rename the Sternguard equivalent ammunition to "Master-crafted X bolt".
This way Tacticals could actually adapt to different targets, choosing whatever ammunition type is better, without stealing all the thunder from other races. Dark Eldar would still do poisoned shooting better, Tau would still have the superior long-range small-arm, and Sternguard would still have better shooting than Tactical Marines.
It'd also open up the possibility for more diversity between the bolter-wielding Codices. Chaos Space Marines would obviously not have access to the same ammunition types as the Imperium, but they'd have their own variations on a similar-yet-different theme. Same with Sisters. Imperial Guard wouldn't get any bolter ammo except for the "normal" bolts, as they're not valuable enough to justify spending the massive resources these bolts cost on.
Yeah, better to break the stalemate.
Your rule works fine, but it is quite complicated, and it is taking the "mojo" out of another unit (one of my favs btw). Special ammo is Sternguard thing.
I will fix the Tactical by making two changes:
1: allowing 10 Marines squads to get items from both the Special and Heavy Weapons lists, instead of one of each. That way they will be highly customizable. I don´t get why vanilla Marines don´t get that.
2: giving them a CCW. They have it in the fluff. And it doesn´t make much sense that they lack it.
About CSM: the same (CCW) and then Legion Traits. That´s what all players miss.
About Sisters: the same (CCW) and then Order Traits.
Your rule works fine, but it is quite complicated, and it is taking the "mojo" out of another unit (one of my favs btw). Special ammo is Sternguard thing.
GK have special ammo. Scout Heavy Bolters have special ammo. Telion has special ammo. Cassius has special ammo. Tycho has special ammo. There's more than Sternguard with special ammo, so it's not unheard of. Plus, Sternguard would still have better ammo, combi-weapons and access to Vengeance Rounds for AP3.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: (...)
To break the stalemate a bit, I'd like to revisit the idea of specialist ammunition we had earlier in the thread. I was thinking, suppose you gave Tactical Squads the following ammo types:
Dragonfire bolt: R24" S4 AP- Ignores Cover Rapid Fire
Rename the Sternguard equivalent ammunition to "Master-crafted X bolt".
This way Tacticals could actually adapt to different targets, choosing whatever ammunition type is better, without stealing all the thunder from other races. Dark Eldar would still do poisoned shooting better, Tau would still have the superior long-range small-arm, and Sternguard would still have better shooting than Tactical Marines.
It'd also open up the possibility for more diversity between the bolter-wielding Codices. Chaos Space Marines would obviously not have access to the same ammunition types as the Imperium, but they'd have their own variations on a similar-yet-different theme. Same with Sisters. Imperial Guard wouldn't get any bolter ammo except for the "normal" bolts, as they're not valuable enough to justify spending the massive resources these bolts cost on.
Yeah, better to break the stalemate.
Your rule works fine, but it is quite complicated, and it is taking the "mojo" out of another unit (one of my favs btw). Special ammo is Sternguard thing.
I will fix the Tactical by making two changes:
1: allowing 10 Marines squads to get items from both the Special and Heavy Weapons lists, instead of one of each. That way they will be highly customizable. I don´t get why vanilla Marines don´t get that.
2: giving them a CCW. They have it in the fluff. And it doesn´t make much sense that they lack it.
About CSM: the same (CCW) and then Legion Traits. That´s what all players miss.
About Sisters: the same (CCW) and then Order Traits.
Even this is better than nothing to me. I'm not that greedy. If tacs had that second CC weapon, then when I build a TAC list, I can put in more points to anti-Riptide and anti-Wave Serpent tech and spend less covering my ass against hordes. For all the Space Wolf players out there: you don't know how spoiled you are against Orks, gaunts, and other horde units. You just sit and laugh as they get massacred *on the assault*. How any Space Wolf player has ever lost to Orks is beyond me. Compare this situation to tac marines. 10 attacks. That's all you get when assaulted. Assuming all your guys lived. You are hard pressed to break anything with only 10 swings. Your opponent's lack of ATSKNF means nothing in CC against tacs, because they'll never lose.
Martel732 wrote: Even this is better than nothing to me. I'm not that greedy. If tacs had that second CC weapon, then when I build a TAC list, I can put in more points to anti-Riptide and anti-Wave Serpent tech and spend less covering my ass against hordes. For all the Space Wolf players out there: you don't know how spoiled you are against Orks, gaunts, and other horde units. You just sit and laugh as they get massacred *on the assault*. How any Space Wolf player has ever lost to Orks is beyond me. Compare this situation to tac marines. 10 attacks. That's all you get when assaulted. Assuming all your guys lived. You are hard pressed to break anything with only 10 swings. Your opponent's lack of ATSKNF means nothing in CC against tacs, because they'll never lose.
As a Space Would player who is protective of my [and yes I said MY] Codex, I would have no issues for Every Marine in power Armor a Close Combat Weapon.
The only issue I have with the Special Ammo for Tacticals is adding all of them for free. Have them as an option say for 1 or 2 point a models.
It's nice to see a consensus on this, double special/heavy and the ccw are good to me as well. I'm iffy on the ammo bit personally, but I wouldn't turn it down.
Martel732 wrote: Even this is better than nothing to me. I'm not that greedy. If tacs had that second CC weapon, then when I build a TAC list, I can put in more points to anti-Riptide and anti-Wave Serpent tech and spend less covering my ass against hordes. For all the Space Wolf players out there: you don't know how spoiled you are against Orks, gaunts, and other horde units. You just sit and laugh as they get massacred *on the assault*. How any Space Wolf player has ever lost to Orks is beyond me. Compare this situation to tac marines. 10 attacks. That's all you get when assaulted. Assuming all your guys lived. You are hard pressed to break anything with only 10 swings. Your opponent's lack of ATSKNF means nothing in CC against tacs, because they'll never lose.
As a Space Would player who is protective of my [and yes I said MY] Codex, I would have no issues for Every Marine in power Armor a Close Combat Weapon.
The only issue I have with the Special Ammo for Tacticals is adding all of them for free. Have them as an option say for 1 or 2 point a models.
Counter attack for free is still extremely dubious, but the Grey Hunters would no longer be insanely better than tacs, just substantially better. I'd pay 2 points for the special ammo. It's worth it to have a unit in the troop slot that can hurt MCs.
Martel732 wrote: Even this is better than nothing to me. I'm not that greedy. If tacs had that second CC weapon, then when I build a TAC list, I can put in more points to anti-Riptide and anti-Wave Serpent tech and spend less covering my ass against hordes. For all the Space Wolf players out there: you don't know how spoiled you are against Orks, gaunts, and other horde units. You just sit and laugh as they get massacred *on the assault*. How any Space Wolf player has ever lost to Orks is beyond me. Compare this situation to tac marines. 10 attacks. That's all you get when assaulted. Assuming all your guys lived. You are hard pressed to break anything with only 10 swings. Your opponent's lack of ATSKNF means nothing in CC against tacs, because they'll never lose.
As a Space Would player who is protective of my [and yes I said MY] Codex, I would have no issues for Every Marine in power Armor a Close Combat Weapon.
The only issue I have with the Special Ammo for Tacticals is adding all of them for free. Have them as an option say for 1 or 2 point a models.
Counter attack for free is still extremely dubious, but the Grey Hunters would no longer be insanely better than tacs, just substantially better. I'd pay 2 points for the special ammo. It's worth it to have a unit in the troop slot that can hurt MCs.
Counter Attack should stay a Space Wolf thing. Besides then all they would be is funny named Tacticals.
Now a Character that gave them Counter Attack...
Martel732 wrote: Even this is better than nothing to me. I'm not that greedy. If tacs had that second CC weapon, then when I build a TAC list, I can put in more points to anti-Riptide and anti-Wave Serpent tech and spend less covering my ass against hordes. For all the Space Wolf players out there: you don't know how spoiled you are against Orks, gaunts, and other horde units. You just sit and laugh as they get massacred *on the assault*. How any Space Wolf player has ever lost to Orks is beyond me. Compare this situation to tac marines. 10 attacks. That's all you get when assaulted. Assuming all your guys lived. You are hard pressed to break anything with only 10 swings. Your opponent's lack of ATSKNF means nothing in CC against tacs, because they'll never lose.
As a Space Would player who is protective of my [and yes I said MY] Codex, I would have no issues for Every Marine in power Armor a Close Combat Weapon.
The only issue I have with the Special Ammo for Tacticals is adding all of them for free. Have them as an option say for 1 or 2 point a models.
Counter attack for free is still extremely dubious, but the Grey Hunters would no longer be insanely better than tacs, just substantially better. I'd pay 2 points for the special ammo. It's worth it to have a unit in the troop slot that can hurt MCs.
Counter Attack should stay a Space Wolf thing. Besides then all they would be is funny named Tacticals.
Now a Character that gave them Counter Attack...
I have no problem with Grey Hunters being different and better than tactical marines. In fact, I'd even let them keep their pricing, especially in 6th edition. Your counterattack only matters in CCs where you have a chance to begin with, and that doesn't happen that often unfortunately in competitive play.
Anpu42 wrote: That sould be Ultra-Compeative Meta. We have at least for us a very compeative Meta. Now we don't have TauDar running around, but We would all like to change that.
An SoB player putting a flamer and heavy flamer in each of their BSS units with a Priest is an ultra competitive Meta? Its good that you get to play in an environment where you'd think so, Every point made about Tactical Marines "sucking" in this thread have been made with the idea that Tau, Eldar, and Daemons are at least part of the equation. If you're hoping to change to that environment, I say be careful what you wish for.
Anpu42 wrote: That sould be Ultra-Compeative Meta. We have at least for us a very compeative Meta. Now we don't have TauDar running around, but We would all like to change that.
An SoB player putting a flamer and heavy flamer in each of their BSS units with a Priest is an ultra competitive Meta? Its good that you get to play in an environment where you'd think so, Every point made about Tactical Marines "sucking" in this thread have been made with the idea that Tau, Eldar, and Daemons are at least part of the equation. If you're hoping to change to that environment, I say be careful what you wish for.
I was not responding to you, sorry if I did not make that clear.
.
dracpanzer wrote: Must be nice to play against SoB players who don't run priests AND run melta's in their battle sister squads.
da001 wrote: Sorry I thought we were talking about basic Troops. I didn´t know your Sisters got a priest attached. Anyway Tacticals will still destroy them because they have both Marneus Calgar and Tigurius attached.
You're right, Marneus Calgar and Tigurius attached to a tactical squad IS the same as a 25 point Priest model that are available to attach to every BSS squad in a TACSoB army. You can still do so while putting together a decent SoB Priest blob. My point is that the Meta you seem to reference just isn't the same as the competitive Meta the thread is based on.
As far as "fixing" tacticals. I think changing the bolter profile to "salvo" 2/3 would be a good start for ALL the armies that use them. Let the Banner of Devestation and Noise Marines give Rend instead and you'd buff all the "weaker" 6ed dex's. Not sure if it'd be enough, but it'd be a lot more than I expect we'll ever get, absolutely nothing.
dracpanzer wrote: Must be nice to play against SoB players who don't run priests AND run melta's in their battle sister squads.
da001 wrote: Sorry I thought we were talking about basic Troops. I didn´t know your Sisters got a priest attached. Anyway Tacticals will still destroy them because they have both Marneus Calgar and Tigurius attached.
You're right, Marneus Calgar and Tigurius attached to a tactical squad IS the same as a 25 point Priest model that are available to attach to every BSS squad in a TACSoB army. You can still do so while putting together a decent SoB Priest blob. My point is that the Meta you seem to reference just isn't the same as the competitive Meta the thread is based on.
I think that whatever meta you are referencing, you should compare units one-by-one. I know it is not a fair comparison, but if you start considering all the options this game allows you, comparisons are impossible. My point was that the tactical, compared point by point with a similar unit, is not that bad.
As far as "fixing" tacticals. I think changing the bolter profile to "salvo" 2/3 would be a good start for ALL the armies that use them. Let the Banner of Devestation and Noise Marines give Rend instead and you'd buff all the "weaker" 6ed dex's. Not sure if it'd be enough, but it'd be a lot more than I expect we'll ever get, absolutely nothing.
Not sure about giving Noise Marines Rending but I have been toying with the salvo 2/3 for bolters for a while too. It makes basic Marines (and basic Sisters) of all armies quite more important. Instead of having a squad reduced to its Special Weapons, every model matters. I playtested this some time ago and loved it. But it was more about buffing the Bolter, not buffing Tacticals.
Perhaps the Eldar/Tau overpower is giving us a good chance to propose something that would buff all MEQs.
The Heavy Bolter is a closely related weapon which is also in need of love.
I play orkses with ig allies and have a squad of vets with an AChwt and a melta sitting backfield. And i'm pretty happy with what they do. Now let's compare them with tac marines for this purpose.
7 vets [melta]
1 hwt [AC]
1 serg
s3, t3, i3, ld7(8 serg), armor 5+
90 pt total
They have issues with ld and basically they get wiped the moment they're shot at with something that ignores cover. Otherwise, they just go to ground. They all got nades and can get a rather cheap melta which is super-awesome for backfield sitters cause they can handle lesser threats like a landspeeder or a dreadhaught and can harm any armor with ap1. But they die in mellee to a bunch of ork boyz that made it there. Also, they generally can't handle 2-3 spacemarines and get swept down. Sometimes they can kill 1 though.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Pointefficient.
Now marines:
4 marines [plazmacannon]
1 serg
s4, t4, i4, ld8, armor 3+
85 pt total
They have issues with durability vs anti-marine weapons like baleflamers. Though atsknf is priceless for point-holding cause you can reliably regroup AND act normally. The ability to take a plazmacannon is also great cause it's a versatile tac weapon. Sometimes it can be replaced with a laz-cannon that's also good. They can handle any lesser threat backfield.
But what makes them really great is the ability to take a 10-strong squad and divide them putting one with a plazma/melta + combi-weapon in a rhino or a razorback. And they're cheaper than 2 squads of vets, 1 of which are in chimera and don't die if a transport gets blown-up. Also, they take just 1 slot.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Versatile. A bit less pointefficient than vets but much more reliable.
Now also you have sniper scouts that are great for what they do and can sometimes replace tactical marines for backfield point-holding. But they have a different role and are less survivable when something comes for them with a flamer in hands.
This is my view. Base them on the rpg model of tactical marines with alteration.
Stat line- ws4, b4, s5, t5, w2, i5, a2, Ld9, save 3+ but have the option of 1 squad per army in artificer armour, 2 if master of the forge is taken
Weapons- come standard with krak and frag grenades, bolter, bolt pistol and ccw, give them more weapon options their tactical marines not let us choose your tactics for you marines
Give them banners that do stuff
Give squad tactics to pick from
5-15 a squad
Special rules such as relentless, feel no pain, invulnerable (5+?) and possibly fleet or make them squad options
3rdGen wrote: This is my view. Base them on the rpg model of tactical marines with alteration.
Stat line- ws4, b4, s5, t5, w2, i5, a2, Ld9, save 3+ but have the option of 1 squad per army in artificer armour, 2 if master of the forge is taken
Weapons- come standard with krak and frag grenades, bolter, bolt pistol and ccw, give them more weapon options their tactical marines not let us choose your tactics for you marines
Give them banners that do stuff
Give squad tactics to pick from
5-15 a squad
Special rules such as relentless, feel no pain, invulnerable (5+?) and possibly fleet or make them squad options
I think that makes them hard as rocks
Cool idea (Even if it needs adjustment) but they'd need to be so expensive so you wouldn't be able to field more than a few squads in a normal-sized game.
Many have loads of Marine models who will rarely see the field. (Afaik this was GW's primary reason for giving SM so nerfed down stats to begin with.)
Plus, they'd be extremely weak firepowerwise. A standard bolter might be cheap but that kind of statline sure isn't.
Perhaps the good way would be to go somewhere between the Movie Marine and current Marine stats?
Like T5 compared to current Marine T4 and MM T6, and so on.
CSM can get the same treatment.
In order to avoid affecting other armies with bolters, we can just say that it is Astartes pattern bolters or something. Marines are bigger, yes? So their guns are bigger, yes? Ergo they can be more powerful as well. Like Lasgun VS Multilaser (Though Bolters won't have to be on a Multilaser level.)
Stat wise they'd be expensive? Don't think so. Necrons are basically I2 (or is it 3) marines with guns that can kill tanks. Why not give the bolters that same property? They are miniature warheads after all. Maybe drop the str5 and make them t5 with bs5 and gun range 30 with s5 or ap3.
Chaos marines should be harder, they've survived that long in the warp+daemonic gifts+marks+marine power from the heresy they should be loads tougher
Special Rules: And They Shall Know No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads
Wargear:
Astartes Bolter: Strength 5 ap5 Rapid Fire range 24"
Astartes Bolt Pistol: S5 ap5 pistol range 12"
Astartes Combat Blade: Close combat weapon (Maybe Rending? Might be OTT, but they are described as having monomolecular edges)
Giving them BS5 and S5 guns would make them much much more shooty, and T5 would make them far less vulnerable to Battle Cannon equivalents. (These weapons remain highly effective, however.)
At T5, W2 and 3+ sv they have little to fear from a lasgun... But when you spam the lasguns in the numbers that the Guard are famous for, it's another story, which should please everyone.
Tempting to give them additional special rules to reflect autosenses and whatnot, but then we're starting to stray into Movie Marine territory and I want something reasonable in between.
Should their resilience be shifted more towards the armour?
Special Rules: And They Shall Know No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads
Wargear:
Astartes Bolter: Strength 5 ap5 Rapid Fire range 24"
Astartes Bolt Pistol: S5 ap5 pistol range 12"
Astartes Combat Blade: Close combat weapon (Maybe Rending? Might be OTT, but they are described as having monomolecular edges)
Giving them BS5 and S5 guns would make them much much more shooty, and T5 would make them far less vulnerable to Battle Cannon equivalents. (These weapons remain highly effective, however.)
At T5, W2 and 3+ sv they have little to fear from a lasgun... But when you spam the lasguns in the numbers that the Guard are famous for, it's another story, which should please everyone.
Tempting to give them additional special rules to reflect autosenses and whatnot, but then we're starting to stray into Movie Marine territory and I want something reasonable in between.
Should their resilience be shifted more towards the armour?
Hmm. Perhaps. It depends. 40 points is as much as a Terminator, though they are arguably overcosted. Above tacticals are on par with Termies, winning out in resilience against AP4+ and AP2 but being weaker in melee. I'd say the Tacs are slightly stronger.
Do we have anything to compare these Marines to? Something reasonably similar in stats?
koooaei wrote: I play orkses with ig allies and have a squad of vets with an AChwt and a melta sitting backfield. And i'm pretty happy with what they do. Now let's compare them with tac marines for this purpose.
7 vets [melta]
1 hwt [AC]
1 serg
s3, t3, i3, ld7(8 serg), armor 5+
90 pt total
They have issues with ld and basically they get wiped the moment they're shot at with something that ignores cover. Otherwise, they just go to ground. They all got nades and can get a rather cheap melta which is super-awesome for backfield sitters cause they can handle lesser threats like a landspeeder or a dreadhaught and can harm any armor with ap1. But they die in mellee to a bunch of ork boyz that made it there. Also, they generally can't handle 2-3 spacemarines and get swept down. Sometimes they can kill 1 though.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Pointefficient.
Now marines:
4 marines [plazmacannon]
1 serg
s4, t4, i4, ld8, armor 3+
85 pt total
They have issues with durability vs anti-marine weapons like baleflamers. Though atsknf is priceless for point-holding cause you can reliably regroup AND act normally. The ability to take a plazmacannon is also great cause it's a versatile tac weapon. Sometimes it can be replaced with a laz-cannon that's also good. They can handle any lesser threat backfield.
But what makes them really great is the ability to take a 10-strong squad and divide them putting one with a plazma/melta + combi-weapon in a rhino or a razorback. And they're cheaper than 2 squads of vets, 1 of which are in chimera and don't die if a transport gets blown-up. Also, they take just 1 slot.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Versatile. A bit less pointefficient than vets but much more reliable.
Now also you have sniper scouts that are great for what they do and can sometimes replace tactical marines for backfield point-holding. But they have a different role and are less survivable when something comes for them with a flamer in hands.
So you're taking a unit that's not supposed to be objective camping (seriously, it's a unit that can take 3 Special Weapons!) and you compare it to a Tactical Squad, and the Veterans are still better. If you'd upgrade the Veterans with Harker and Camo-cloaks, they'd cost 10 more points than the Tactical Marines, but have Infiltrate and a 2+ cover save in 4+ cover. That's a unit that takes 135 BS4 bolter shots to kill, whereas the Tactical Marines take 90 BS4. And yes, I know the Veterans are more vulnerable to Flamers, but then we're back to the whole "requiring special weapons to deal with troops" bit. The Marines have a S7 AP2 blast with Gets Hot!, whereas the Veterans have 2 S7 AP4 shots, 3 S5 AP4 shots and a Meltagun (you can add a Melta to the Marines for the 10 points if you want). Same cost, comparable firepower (different targets), vastly different survivability. If close combat mattered in 6th edition the Marines might be more durable, but most of the CC units in 6th edition kill Marines as if they were Guardsmen, so the increased survivability in CC doesn't really kick in very often, if at all.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: Hmm. Perhaps. It depends. 40 points is as much as a Terminator, though they are arguably overcosted. Above tacticals are on par with Termies, winning out in resilience against AP4+ and AP2 but being weaker in melee. I'd say the Tacs are slightly stronger.
Do we have anything to compare these Marines to? Something reasonably similar in stats?
You can do a +5 for increase to upgrade the guns to Astartes.
+5 to gain a reg bolter and knife
+10 for WS and BS +10 for W
+5 for I, A, and Ld
Making them about 50 points.
The thing is you would have to completely redo the SM and CSM codexes for this to work, smaller squads, buffing some special chars, re-pricing everything. These marines are a bit like tougher crisis suits with good BS and WS w/o jet packs.
I've lost track of which of these threads I've posted in, but what I'd do is change the bolt gun. Make it salvo 2/3 (or 3/2, whichever makes sense) and/or give the bolter a volkite-like ability to cause extra wounds to a unit.
The defensive issue is not one that really can be solved by upping marines. Really, the issue is with specific units in other books that need a downgrade.
Offensively, I'd think double special (or heavy) and being able to take both at 5 men, would work on the offensive end.
koooaei wrote: I play orkses with ig allies and have a squad of vets with an AChwt and a melta sitting backfield. And i'm pretty happy with what they do. Now let's compare them with tac marines for this purpose.
7 vets [melta]
1 hwt [AC]
1 serg
s3, t3, i3, ld7(8 serg), armor 5+
90 pt total
They have issues with ld and basically they get wiped the moment they're shot at with something that ignores cover. Otherwise, they just go to ground. They all got nades and can get a rather cheap melta which is super-awesome for backfield sitters cause they can handle lesser threats like a landspeeder or a dreadhaught and can harm any armor with ap1. But they die in mellee to a bunch of ork boyz that made it there. Also, they generally can't handle 2-3 spacemarines and get swept down. Sometimes they can kill 1 though.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Pointefficient.
Now marines:
4 marines [plazmacannon]
1 serg
s4, t4, i4, ld8, armor 3+
85 pt total
They have issues with durability vs anti-marine weapons like baleflamers. Though atsknf is priceless for point-holding cause you can reliably regroup AND act normally. The ability to take a plazmacannon is also great cause it's a versatile tac weapon. Sometimes it can be replaced with a laz-cannon that's also good. They can handle any lesser threat backfield.
But what makes them really great is the ability to take a 10-strong squad and divide them putting one with a plazma/melta + combi-weapon in a rhino or a razorback. And they're cheaper than 2 squads of vets, 1 of which are in chimera and don't die if a transport gets blown-up. Also, they take just 1 slot.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Versatile. A bit less pointefficient than vets but much more reliable.
Now also you have sniper scouts that are great for what they do and can sometimes replace tactical marines for backfield point-holding. But they have a different role and are less survivable when something comes for them with a flamer in hands.
So you're taking a unit that's not supposed to be objective camping (seriously, it's a unit that can take 3 Special Weapons!) and you compare it to a Tactical Squad, and the Veterans are still better. If you'd upgrade the Veterans with Harker and Camo-cloaks, they'd cost 10 more points than the Tactical Marines, but have Infiltrate and a 2+ cover save in 4+ cover. That's a unit that takes 135 BS4 bolter shots to kill, whereas the Tactical Marines take 90 BS4. And yes, I know the Veterans are more vulnerable to Flamers, but then we're back to the whole "requiring special weapons to deal with troops" bit. The Marines have a S7 AP2 blast with Gets Hot!, whereas the Veterans have 2 S7 AP4 shots, 3 S5 AP4 shots and a Meltagun (you can add a Melta to the Marines for the 10 points if you want). Same cost, comparable firepower (different targets), vastly different survivability. If close combat mattered in 6th edition the Marines might be more durable, but most of the CC units in 6th edition kill Marines as if they were Guardsmen, so the increased survivability in CC doesn't really kick in very often, if at all.
Can you pls link a batrep where your marines were as useless as you write they are. I mean even my regular csm guyz do meaningful things. And don't tell me that a specila weapon instead of heavy is making that much difference. They can't combat squad and don't have atsknf which i'd prefer to a second weapon actually. Can you pls point out a real game issue where tacticals were worse than any other infantry would have been?
BrotherHaraldus wrote: Hmm. Perhaps. It depends. 40 points is as much as a Terminator, though they are arguably overcosted. Above tacticals are on par with Termies, winning out in resilience against AP4+ and AP2 but being weaker in melee. I'd say the Tacs are slightly stronger.
Do we have anything to compare these Marines to? Something reasonably similar in stats?
You can do a +5 for increase to upgrade the guns to Astartes.
+5 to gain a reg bolter and knife
+10 for WS and BS +10 for W
+5 for I, A, and Ld
Making them about 50 points.
The thing is you would have to completely redo the SM and CSM codexes for this to work, smaller squads, buffing some special chars, re-pricing everything. These marines are a bit like tougher crisis suits with good BS and WS w/o jet packs.
I don't think they are worth as much. Look at what tacs pay now for +1 WS, BS and so on compared to a Guardsman. Nine points in total, even if we assume orders equal CT, combat squads and ATSKNF in value. Nine more ppm is probably not enough, but 35 more seems excessive for their damage output.
koooaei wrote: I play orkses with ig allies and have a squad of vets with an AChwt and a melta sitting backfield. And i'm pretty happy with what they do. Now let's compare them with tac marines for this purpose.
7 vets [melta]
1 hwt [AC]
1 serg
s3, t3, i3, ld7(8 serg), armor 5+
90 pt total
They have issues with ld and basically they get wiped the moment they're shot at with something that ignores cover. Otherwise, they just go to ground. They all got nades and can get a rather cheap melta which is super-awesome for backfield sitters cause they can handle lesser threats like a landspeeder or a dreadhaught and can harm any armor with ap1. But they die in mellee to a bunch of ork boyz that made it there. Also, they generally can't handle 2-3 spacemarines and get swept down. Sometimes they can kill 1 though.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Pointefficient.
Now marines:
4 marines [plazmacannon]
1 serg
s4, t4, i4, ld8, armor 3+
85 pt total
They have issues with durability vs anti-marine weapons like baleflamers. Though atsknf is priceless for point-holding cause you can reliably regroup AND act normally. The ability to take a plazmacannon is also great cause it's a versatile tac weapon. Sometimes it can be replaced with a laz-cannon that's also good. They can handle any lesser threat backfield.
But what makes them really great is the ability to take a 10-strong squad and divide them putting one with a plazma/melta + combi-weapon in a rhino or a razorback. And they're cheaper than 2 squads of vets, 1 of which are in chimera and don't die if a transport gets blown-up. Also, they take just 1 slot.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Versatile. A bit less pointefficient than vets but much more reliable.
Now also you have sniper scouts that are great for what they do and can sometimes replace tactical marines for backfield point-holding. But they have a different role and are less survivable when something comes for them with a flamer in hands.
So you're taking a unit that's not supposed to be objective camping (seriously, it's a unit that can take 3 Special Weapons!) and you compare it to a Tactical Squad, and the Veterans are still better. If you'd upgrade the Veterans with Harker and Camo-cloaks, they'd cost 10 more points than the Tactical Marines, but have Infiltrate and a 2+ cover save in 4+ cover. That's a unit that takes 135 BS4 bolter shots to kill, whereas the Tactical Marines take 90 BS4. And yes, I know the Veterans are more vulnerable to Flamers, but then we're back to the whole "requiring special weapons to deal with troops" bit. The Marines have a S7 AP2 blast with Gets Hot!, whereas the Veterans have 2 S7 AP4 shots, 3 S5 AP4 shots and a Meltagun (you can add a Melta to the Marines for the 10 points if you want). Same cost, comparable firepower (different targets), vastly different survivability. If close combat mattered in 6th edition the Marines might be more durable, but most of the CC units in 6th edition kill Marines as if they were Guardsmen, so the increased survivability in CC doesn't really kick in very often, if at all.
Can you pls link a batrep where your marines were as useless as you write they are. I mean even my regular csm guyz do meaningful things. And don't tell me that a specila weapon instead of heavy is making that much difference. They can't combat squad and don't have atsknf which i'd prefer to a second weapon actually. Can you pls point out a real game issue where tacticals were worse than any other infantry would have been?
I just did, didn't I? Batreps are anecdotal evidence anyway, it'd be meaningless. For what it's worth, I've had Crusader Squads torn to pieces by MCs, Juggerlords, Daemons and similar, and Crusader Squads are significantly more competent in CC than normal Marines. Has ATSKNF saved me? Yes, it has on occasion. More often than not, I've just gotten completely murdered.
Heldrakes are very popular. Riptides are very popular. High-volume high-S-high-AP shots are very popular (Daemons, Eldar, IG, DE, Orks). It doesn't matter that Marines have a theoretical edge against things that aren't played because they're inferior to the others. If you had a choice between a unit that's good at killing Guardsmen but bad at killing Marines and one that was good at killing any infantry, at roughly the same price, which one would you choose? Therein lies the problem.
Special Rules: And They Shall Know No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads
Wargear:
Astartes Bolter: Strength 5 ap5 Rapid Fire range 24"
Astartes Bolt Pistol: S5 ap5 pistol range 12"
Astartes Combat Blade: Close combat weapon (Maybe Rending? Might be OTT, but they are described as having monomolecular edges)
Giving them BS5 and S5 guns would make them much much more shooty, and T5 would make them far less vulnerable to Battle Cannon equivalents. (These weapons remain highly effective, however.)
At T5, W2 and 3+ sv they have little to fear from a lasgun... But when you spam the lasguns in the numbers that the Guard are famous for, it's another story, which should please everyone.
Tempting to give them additional special rules to reflect autosenses and whatnot, but then we're starting to stray into Movie Marine territory and I want something reasonable in between.
Should their resilience be shifted more towards the armour?
Maybe an inv?
People have devised a jokestatline for marines called 'Movie Marines'. Do a quick google search for them, because its essentially what you're proposing.
Marines are largely fine, its the power level of Eldar and Tau that hurt them.
Personally, all I want for a Tac squad is a suspensor web upgrade to make heavy weapons into half range assault weapons for +10/15pts. And heavy flamer for a heavy option.
But no, making them 2W and 5s across the board is not a reasonable fix or solution.
I STILL think that tac marine's lack of offensive output compared to their price really hurts marine lists that use tactical marines.
Yes, Tau and Eldar are the biggest problem, but tactical marines have trouble making an impact against ANY opponent due to their crappy offense. In a game about offense.
Martel732 wrote: I STILL think that tac marine's lack of offensive output compared to their price really hurts marine lists that use tactical marines.
Yes, Tau and Eldar are the biggest problem, but tactical marines have trouble making an impact against ANY opponent due to their crappy offense. In a game about offense.
Well, my suspensor web idea makes the heavy weapon more readily useable in conjuction with the special.
Still, the biggest issue is Tau and Eldar. Bringing those codices down to an appropriate level would do a significant amount for bringing Tac marines in line with other troop choices.
As for shooting power, I don't have too much to offer that wouldn't be crazy powerful or silly. Maybe a 'Fury of the Legion' type rule where they can shoot twice in a single phase but forego the next shooting phase. Either that or choose double special/double heavy/special and heavy.
I don't have the answer either. I'd settle for double special and a CC weapon for a point. I guess. Doesn't help vs Eldar/Tau, but makes me feel better.
I'm not a marine fanboy, either. I play AGAINST a lot of meqs, and the easiest ones to beat are the ones with lots of tacticals. This is not a coincidence.
Martel732 wrote: I don't have the answer either. I'd settle for double special and a CC weapon for a point. I guess. Doesn't help vs Eldar/Tau, but makes me feel better.
I'm not a marine fanboy, either. I play AGAINST a lot of meqs, and the easiest ones to beat are the ones with lots of tacticals. This is not a coincidence.
No, and I agree, but you also can't go making Tacticals too good either. There's a simple solution here, or at least temp fix, which would be double weapons of either special, heavy, or mixed. Then buy a CCW for 1pts a model. But then you have to give Assault marines a boost too now, which is an internal balance issue.
The real issue though is Tau and Eldar. Marines as a codex are largely fine.
Martel732 wrote: Vanguard vets would actually be fine with me if they came with a jump apothecary. Ie, BA ASM clones with their base 2 attacks.
I was thinking more along the lines of making Vanguard cost 25 PPM and coming stock with jump packs and PWs. Essentially being Honour Guard with a Jump Pack that trades the 2+ armour for a Jump Pack. Not sure if that'd work, but still.
Special Rules: And They Shall Know No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads
Wargear:
Astartes Bolter: Strength 5 ap5 Rapid Fire range 24"
Astartes Bolt Pistol: S5 ap5 pistol range 12"
Astartes Combat Blade: Close combat weapon (Maybe Rending? Might be OTT, but they are described as having monomolecular edges)
Giving them BS5 and S5 guns would make them much much more shooty, and T5 would make them far less vulnerable to Battle Cannon equivalents. (These weapons remain highly effective, however.)
At T5, W2 and 3+ sv they have little to fear from a lasgun... But when you spam the lasguns in the numbers that the Guard are famous for, it's another story, which should please everyone.
Tempting to give them additional special rules to reflect autosenses and whatnot, but then we're starting to stray into Movie Marine territory and I want something reasonable in between.
Should their resilience be shifted more towards the armour?
Maybe an inv?
I know people have already shot this down but . As much as I'd love to be evil and deploy T6 Nurgle armies and T7 bikers.... I'm going to have to say this is probably a bad idea . Not only is this a drastic change, but it would also require the change up of 6 entirce codices. Along with this, it would require scaling up other races, in particular, Necrons, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Daemons and would require scaling up certain units in all other codices as well. Along with that, I wouldn't want lasguns. Screw that, I'm taking Plasma guns. Its simply not worth it. An entire unit of 10 guardsman firing, only 5 would hit, then it is quite possible not even a single one would wound (its statistically a 1/6th chance of wounding. You don't even have enough dice to roll one of every value). Even amassing a total of 50 guardsman (ignoring any plasma weapons and pretending like there are no sergeants, and lets put it in rapid fire range), approximately 6 SM would die. This isn't fun nor is it entertaining and honestly at that point I'd just never play a SM army nor play against one. On top of that, plasma only wounds on 3+ now, MC can only wound on a 3+, SM can wound MC on a 5+ (thus again invalidating the point of krak grenades possibly), BS5 and WS5 means that you'd need to buff other characters stats even higher so your named characters would have BS6 and WS7 or 8, which would then thrust models even higher elsewhere as now you have a MC's stats in WS and BS, further invalidating the point of WS as now not even a MC with WS10 can make 6 armies roll a 5+ to hit further making DP unappealing, S5 guns would mean one would want to buff pink horrors even further, S5 guns would be wounding even MC (standard) on a 5+, etc. And trust me, an invuln save isn't that great. Don't you remember Thousand Sons? Oh awesome! You have a 4+ invuln. Oh yeah that doesn't matter because you die to everything else like a standard marine and each one of you costs astronomic prices.
Anyways, yeah I'd concur to saying double specials seems a fine change, an option for an extra CCW would be good, maybe a way to make heavy weapons salvo instead (though probably not heavy flamers then)? Those seem like the best band-aid solutions although I think that CSM will require a bit of extra work the only thing they got going for them is they can bring 2 special weapons in a squad of 10 and can pay 1 point (making us cost the same as a Tac) for a CCW.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: Hmm. Perhaps. It depends. 40 points is as much as a Terminator, though they are arguably overcosted. Above tacticals are on par with Termies, winning out in resilience against AP4+ and AP2 but being weaker in melee. I'd say the Tacs are slightly stronger.
Do we have anything to compare these Marines to? Something reasonably similar in stats?
You can do a +5 for increase to upgrade the guns to Astartes.
+5 to gain a reg bolter and knife
+10 for WS and BS +10 for W
+5 for I, A, and Ld
Making them about 50 points.
The thing is you would have to completely redo the SM and CSM codexes for this to work, smaller squads, buffing some special chars, re-pricing everything. These marines are a bit like tougher crisis suits with good BS and WS w/o jet packs.
I don't think they are worth as much. Look at what tacs pay now for +1 WS, BS and so on compared to a Guardsman. Nine points in total, even if we assume orders equal CT, combat squads and ATSKNF in value. Nine more ppm is probably not enough, but 35 more seems excessive for their damage output.
Well, there main power would be their toughness/wounds (they are harder to kill than termies are now agsint anyhitn that can't ignore their armour). Termies cost something like 35 now don't they, and they aren't basic troops. 35 seems about right, although you would have to see how there balance works.
I agree. They are nowhere near Movie Marine power (Movie Marines basically each have Relentless 36" Assault Cannons on every model, as well as a 3++, a 3+ rerollable, T6, S6...) and I'd argue that they are pretty much in between.
It is a massive change for sure, but that is no issue in itself. It's not like any rules designed here can hope to end up as anything more than house rules anyway. Our meta is already rewriting lots of things.
I do agree that other races become skewed. My stats would make Marine strength compared to, say, Guardsmen more accurate to fluff, but it skews the balance against, say, Banshees, who I imagine at least should be able to equal a Marine in combat.
We could try playtesting it... Though our playtesting queue is looooong.
Even amassing a total of 50 guardsman (ignoring any plasma weapons and pretending like there are no sergeants, and lets put it in rapid fire range), approximately 6 SM would die.
Lols, that is down to opinion. If you kill 6 SM with 250 points of Guardsmen, you'll have to remember that those 6 SM are 6x35=210 points of models removed in one shooting phase. That is not even close to bad, and the current way that Guardsmen kill Marines (Or Eldar, for that matter. Or Necrons. Or Daemons. Or...) just seems out of character with both factions to me. My meta is agreeing, so we are looking at developing 'fluff marine' stats. It's a complex job and it will be hard to please everyone since few can agree on just how powerful they actually are... But we'll do our best, and in our meta at least, we don't think Movie Marine stats are nearly as ludicrous as people say (Though may need tweaking, especially removing obvious things like stunt doubles)
I just did, didn't I? Batreps are anecdotal evidence anyway, it'd be meaningless. For what it's worth, I've had Crusader Squads torn to pieces by MCs, Juggerlords, Daemons and similar, and Crusader Squads are significantly more competent in CC than normal Marines. Has ATSKNF saved me? Yes, it has on occasion. More often than not, I've just gotten completely murdered.
Heldrakes are very popular. Riptides are very popular. High-volume high-S-high-AP shots are very popular (Daemons, Eldar, IG, DE, Orks). It doesn't matter that Marines have a theoretical edge against things that aren't played because they're inferior to the others. If you had a choice between a unit that's good at killing Guardsmen but bad at killing Marines and one that was good at killing any infantry, at roughly the same price, which one would you choose? Therein lies the problem.
U're once again comparing wrong things. Would any other tac troop choice be better in this situation? Basic troops dealing with mcs and juggerlords are an exception rather than a rule. I don't really know even one troop choice that can handle a juggerlord + retinue. Ork boyz? Challenged out nob. Done. Firewarriors? Not enough dakka even with markers - broadsides and riptides do the killing. Kabalite warriors? Nope, venoms are doing all the job and warriors do like <20% of total damage. Termagaunts/Hormagaunts? Yep, they can tarpit but the killing is done by mc spam. Am i seeing it wrong somehow? Correct me than.
I've tried playing lots of games without op units and can tell you, this games are much more enjoyable and ballanced than 'top tier' bull@$#t. The moment serpentspam, riptides, wraithknights and nightscythes come into play - the game's ruined and becomes boring to play.
Now that u're talking bout 'competitive' meta, all troops don't do much against current op stuff. What's the last time ETC was won by a heavy-on-troops list?
U see, there SHOULD be stuff that regular troops can't handle. But it sholdn't be so spam-friendly not to loose all the fun.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: I agree. They are nowhere near Movie Marine power (Movie Marines basically each have Relentless 36" Assault Cannons on every model, as well as a 3++, a 3+ rerollable, T6, S6...) and I'd argue that they are pretty much in between.
It is a massive change for sure, but that is no issue in itself. It's not like any rules designed here can hope to end up as anything more than house rules anyway. Our meta is already rewriting lots of things.
I do agree that other races become skewed. My stats would make Marine strength compared to, say, Guardsmen more accurate to fluff, but it skews the balance against, say, Banshees, who I imagine at least should be able to equal a Marine in combat.
We could try playtesting it... Though our playtesting queue is looooong.
Even amassing a total of 50 guardsman (ignoring any plasma weapons and pretending like there are no sergeants, and lets put it in rapid fire range), approximately 6 SM would die.
Lols, that is down to opinion. If you kill 6 SM with 250 points of Guardsmen, you'll have to remember that those 6 SM are 6x35=210 points of models removed in one shooting phase. That is not even close to bad, and the current way that Guardsmen kill Marines (Or Eldar, for that matter. Or Necrons. Or Daemons. Or...) just seems out of character with both factions to me. My meta is agreeing, so we are looking at developing 'fluff marine' stats. It's a complex job and it will be hard to please everyone since few can agree on just how powerful they actually are... But we'll do our best, and in our meta at least, we don't think Movie Marine stats are nearly as ludicrous as people say (Though may need tweaking, especially removing obvious things like stunt doubles)
Honestly the lasguns are admittedly not that big of a thing, just a basic note. My real problem comes that it just really amps up everything.Fluffwise, Eldar are better as they live long and specialize so you need to raise them. Orks, fluff wise are known to toss them self back together and continue a suicidal charge and be ripping guardsman apart like jokes whilst war bosses face down SM and make chapter masters sweat. Nid MC, genestealer, and many other units would thee need to be scaled up. (Oh and DE same as E), Nurgle CSM would need to be rebalanced, the daemon prince would need a big buff, Necrons would need a buff to bring them up, and daemons would need a massive buff for pretty much every unit they have (except furies ). Along with that, plasma would need a bluff to keep it fluffy and other weapons might as well and it would buff the uncommon S10 even more. That being said, I wish you luck . It'll be hard but if you all have fun it shall be worth it!
People need to realize they start having to play space marines how they are needed instead of how they are wanted. If its a fun friendly casual game, sure play them how you want. In a competitive tournament seeing you need to play them how they have to be.
Marines used to be the army that you just stand and shoot or move and shoot or assault. They are no longer that simple or basic. They require skill and strategy now. Also don't base how good an army is going against someone using allies, that is a bad way to compare a armies useful ness. Any army will crumble going against a cheese ally.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: It's obvious that when Tau or Heldrake firepower has taken out all your tacticals by turn 3, you just lack skill. You should have gone to ground!
Oh wait lol.
But some of us do not fight Chaos Marines and Tau every battle.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: It's obvious that when Tau or Heldrake firepower has taken out all your tacticals by turn 3, you just lack skill. You should have gone to ground!
Oh wait lol.
But some of us do not fight Chaos Marines and Tau every battle.
The problem is the answer seems to be "suck it up" or "time to army hop"
Personally, my idea for increasing Marine durability:
1. Baleflamer is AP4 except the turn it uses daemonforge.
2. Riptides cannot be joined by ICs 3. Markerlights go back to 1 token to remove 1 level of cover save (ie: 3 marker light tokens to remove the cover save from regular ruins).
4. Something something serpent shield.
BrotherHaraldus wrote: It's obvious that when Tau or Heldrake firepower has taken out all your tacticals by turn 3, you just lack skill. You should have gone to ground!
Oh wait lol.
But some of us do not fight Chaos Marines and Tau every battle.
The problem is the answer seems to be "suck it up" or "time to army hop"
Personally, my idea for increasing Marine durability:
1. Baleflamer is AP4 except the turn it uses daemonforge.
2. Riptides cannot be joined by ICs 3. Markerlights go back to 1 token to remove 1 level of cover save (ie: 3 marker light tokens to remove the cover save from regular ruins).
4. Something something serpent shield.
The Bale Flamer is child's play compared the carnage that Eldar and Tau can dispense from 30" away starting turn 1. Helldrakes have to roll reserves and then you can game the flier movement system and/or game wound allocation with a 2+ armored IC in a squad.
C:SM is demonstrably superior to CSM. Note that the gap here is not as large, because this is meq vs meq. CSM have a similiar problem as C:SM because of lack of body count. They just have a helldrake crutch, but good C:SM will overcome the helldrake. There is no overcoming 50+ wounds a turn from Eldar at long range. You can't hide, you can't get away and cover doesn't help.
Leave it in perma defense mode. A transport you must hull point out is still nasty. But now the Dire Avengers actually have to get out to do damage. Boohoo.
and a slight buff to the no longer cool Bolter sound fine to me.
Heavy Bolters?
. As much as I'd love to be evil and deploy T6 Nurgle armies and T7 bikers.... I'm going to have to say this is probably a bad idea 