OrkaMorka wrote:
That's why it's rare (in my local area) for anyone to take it. Throw it in the war bosses group maybe, but at best it's giving you a chance for trukk explosions to hurt less. That's why as an ork player the only ap that concerns me is ap 2, because my Mega's are the only thing in that armour range.

But 3+ is stil giving you more surviviabilty than most other troops. Guard are only 5+ if I recall (I'm at work so I have no codex's on me), tau 4+ for warriors? And iirc, your marine is stronger and tougher than the squisher races anyways.

Survivability, yes, but no punch. They can ignore the tacs, kill all the competent units and then finish the tabling once all the threats are elimininated

 OrkaMorka wrote:
Would the improvement of marines go ham in hand with maybe improvements with the bolter? Speaking from the ork side of the house, I have to pay 11pts for a hard boy with a shoota. So that gives me a str 4 ap5 shot and armour save of 4+. No added benefits anything. From what I see in marines, you're getting a 3+ sv and unlike orks they don't try and kill each other whenever they lose a few guys.

Maybe instead of making marines cheaper, they up the stats of the bolter by pushing its range up or increasing it's str/ap.

Not an entirely justified comparison as I feel 'ard boyz are kind of lacking as well.

Except if you run them in a trukk, I guess.

 OrkaMorka wrote:
But 3+ is stil giving you more surviviabilty than most other troops. Guard are only 5+ if I recall (I'm at work so I have no codex's on me), tau 4+ for warriors?

But who cares about single-model durability? What matters is durability per point, and the three 5-point guardsmen have better total durability than the single 15-point MEQ model, especially when you're talking about objective campers that can easily go to ground behind an ADL for a 2+ cover save.

I think they'd be better if they had the option to have more attacks. Units with single attacks are brutal. At least against my friends who all play heavy CC type armies. It's why I chose Space Wolves over vanilla.

Akiasura wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Weird, my Tacticals perform well in all my games and are almost always worth their points. Must be something I do then.

More likely it's your meta..

Hmm nah, it´s because I know how and where to apply them for full effect.

 Peregrine wrote:

Given your previous comments about how "balanced" 40k's rules are and how little improvement they need I think we can safely conclude that you play in a very casual environment where nobody ever brings good lists and everyone always cooperates to forge a narrative and ensure that even the worst units get their opportunity to be useful.

I´ve never stated 40K´s rules are balanced, do cite your source on this before taking further things out of your ass. Seeing as you have a need to completely make things up from thin air I now consider you even less credible than before, which wasn´t much to beginwith.

Copypaste where I say 40K´s rules are balanced, and do it now, thanks.

Next to that I play in a very competitive enviroment and mostly tournaments, so next to making things up you are also incorrect.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Weird, my Tacticals perform well in all my games and are almost always worth their points. Must be something I do then.

More likely it's your meta..

Hmm nah, it´s because I know how and where to apply them for full effect.

It's a combination of both most likely. Tacticals work better than they could in my area too due to the low vehicle meta, if it were higher they'd start to under perform.

 n0t_u wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Weird, my Tacticals perform well in all my games and are almost always worth their points. Must be something I do then.

More likely it's your meta..

Hmm nah, it´s because I know how and where to apply them for full effect.

It's a combination of both most likely. Tacticals work better than they could in my area too due to the low vehicle meta, if it were higher they'd start to under perform.

I play in 3 different groups and mostly tournaments as I´ve stated before. ( Not that you could know that, not saying that. ) Only one group is a bit more casual, the other two are pretty much "do your worst" and there is pretty much nothing that´s not allowed aslong as it´s within the rules. Occasionally we practice with the BAO comp for upcoming tourneys, accompanied by a deathclock.

My tacticals work the other way around to yours. The more vehicles on the table, the more bang for buck I get. Only vehicles with Ceramite Plating shut them down a bit.

Tacticals can be used in a way that they bring back their points and way more. They can also be used poorly. Usually I only use tacticals in an alpha strike list ( which is what I mostly play ) but occasionally I just go for 5man objective sitting scouts if I´m going with a more "traditional" approach, meaning using all possible points to something more effective than Troops in general.

Games rarely come down to Troops scoring an objective over a non-Troop unit anyway in my experience ( meaning Objective Secured in itself rarely decides the game. ) It´s usually about last turn objective caps, non-scoring units capping, or someone getting tabled.

 Peregrine wrote:

 OrkaMorka wrote:
But 3+ is stil giving you more surviviabilty than most other troops. Guard are only 5+ if I recall (I'm at work so I have no codex's on me), tau 4+ for warriors?

But who cares about single-model durability? What matters is durability per point, and the three 5-point guardsmen have better total durability than the single 15-point MEQ model, especially when you're talking about objective campers that can easily go to ground behind an ADL for a 2+ cover save.

If we're talking about durability-per-point, don't we need to add the cost of the ADL to the cost of the guardsman squad?

It isn't free, after all.

I wonder if the root of the problem is that marines have become too popular. This is my theory; tear it apart at will.

There was a time, in the relatively early days of 40k, that basic tactical marines were the mutt's nuts. You didn't have all the extreme chapter variation that you get now, and bolters, stats and power armour were a big deal.

Marines were very much a beginner's army, being easy to paint and tough/powerful enough to not have to worry too much about the tactical decisions that other armies would have to make if they didn't want to die in droves to bolter fire, e.g. using cover or concentrating those lasgun shots. This made them very popular, because not every new player will move on to another army afterwards.

This became a problem because the prevalance of Marines in actual games of 40k far outweighed their supposed rarity in the fluff, meaning that even Space Marine players had to design their lists to be anti-Space Marine in order to be effective against 90% of the armies they would face in games. It also created a demand for new anti-marine weapons and units. The result? T4 3+ armour save is the new norm, not the exception it was supposed to be. These days, I would argue that Ork boyz are, ironically, far superior in terms of their capacity to take punishment and still pose a threat *as a unit*.

 Krusha wrote:
I wonder if the root of the problem is that marines have become too popular. This is my theory; tear it apart at will.

There was a time, in the relatively early days of 40k, that basic tactical marines were the mutt's nuts. You didn't have all the extreme chapter variation that you get now, and bolters, stats and power armour were a big deal.

Marines were very much a beginner's army, being easy to paint and tough/powerful enough to not have to worry too much about the tactical decisions that other armies would have to make if they didn't want to die in droves to bolter fire, e.g. using cover or concentrating those lasgun shots. This made them very popular, because not every new player will move on to another army afterwards.

This became a problem because the prevalance of Marines in actual games of 40k far outweighed their supposed rarity in the fluff, meaning that even Space Marine players had to design their lists to be anti-Space Marine in order to be effective against 90% of the armies they would face in games. It also created a demand for new anti-marine weapons and units. The result? T4 3+ armour save is the new norm, not the exception it was supposed to be. These days, I would argue that Ork boyz are, ironically, far superior in terms of their capacity to take punishment and still pose a threat *as a unit*.

1+ This. Just... Aaaaaall of this.

Nowadays I guess it depends on meta - My meta is AM heavy, so anti-infantry and flamers are the bees knees, while we have, like, a quarter of a SM player somewhere... Maybe it's just because there's so many SM factions that it gets more and more popular, and therefor more prevelant in most metae. I don't know, it looks like it to me.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Can you link that article? I am REALLY curious what he said.

He mostly talks garbage, doesn't he?

One easy way to buff tactical marines, would be to give sergeants access to an auspex.

 Crimson wrote:
One easy way to buff tactical marines, would be to give sergeants access to an auspex.

What does auspex do?

vipoid: instead of shooting, pick an enemy within 12" and give it -1 to cover saves .


I wish they were better since they are so bad ass fluffwise, as said earlier, a large part of the problem is that everything else has gotten too good at dealing with them and that they dont put out a lot of hurt.

The thing that usually beats me up is my friend fielding units of 30 Orkz with a Painboy. That starts to get out of hand really quickly. Emperor help you if they get to assault you.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Weird, my Tacticals perform well in all my games and are almost always worth their points. Must be something I do then.

More likely it's your meta..

Hmm nah, it´s because I know how and where to apply them for full effect.

 Peregrine wrote:

Given your previous comments about how "balanced" 40k's rules are and how little improvement they need I think we can safely conclude that you play in a very casual environment where nobody ever brings good lists and everyone always cooperates to forge a narrative and ensure that even the worst units get their opportunity to be useful.

I´ve never stated 40K´s rules are balanced, do cite your source on this before taking further things out of your ass. Seeing as you have a need to completely make things up from thin air I now consider you even less credible than before, which wasn´t much to beginwith.

Copypaste where I say 40K´s rules are balanced, and do it now, thanks.

Next to that I play in a very competitive enviroment and mostly tournaments, so next to making things up you are also incorrect.

Forgive me if I find this a bit hard to believe. Their "full effect" is too small for me to take them seriously. I still think it's your opponents. What loadout are you using on tactical squads to make this happen?

Honestly, a buff to boltguns (Shred?) and maybe an extra attack or a point or two drop would make them more competitive. Outside of a Mech Khan List, there's not much point in taking them over 55pt objective camping scouts or 105pt (before special weapon) 5man bike units.

220pts in Tactical Marines gets you 10 marines in a rhino, with a Combi-Plas, Plasma Gun, and a Lascannon.

For 50pts more, you can get 10 Marines on bikes, with 4 Grav/Plasma guns.

Or, if you are going to focus into your elites/heavy support, 110pts fills your scoring, leaving 1390/1740pts for your stuff that actually does the heavy lifting (like that Grav Star with Draigo and Tigurius)

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 RunicFIN wrote:
Weird, my Tacticals perform well in all my games and are almost always worth their points. Must be something I do then.

More likely it's your meta..

Hmm nah, it´s because I know how and where to apply them for full effect.

Then please explain how they are applied to this full effect. I can easily come up with situations where many decent units are useful, so far no one has come up for one with tacticals that isn't pod in and die, which can be done better by sternguard regardless.

 RunicFIN wrote:

I play in 3 different groups and mostly tournaments as I´ve stated before. ( Not that you could know that, not saying that. ) Only one group is a bit more casual, the other two are pretty much "do your worst" and there is pretty much nothing that´s not allowed aslong as it´s within the rules. Occasionally we practice with the BAO comp for upcoming tourneys, accompanied by a deathclock.

If your meta is this competitive, then it should be easy for you to come up with situations that tacticals are useful in. I play in an extremely competitive meta, though we do not allow unbound or knights for the most part, and nobody takes tacticals.

 RunicFIN wrote:

My tacticals work the other way around to yours. The more vehicles on the table, the more bang for buck I get. Only vehicles with Ceramite Plating shut them down a bit.

How? Bolters do not hurt the vast majority of vehicles in this game, as was demonstrated earlier. Special weapons and heavies, if they don't move, can do some damage, but aren't very point efficient in doing so. Even podding in a marine squad with 2 meltas and a multi-melta isn't likely to do pop a tank, and your unit is most likely dead the following turn. Sure, you can dedicate 2 squads to it, but then you are applying 400 points to down under 200.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Tacticals can be used in a way that they bring back their points and way more. They can also be used poorly. Usually I only use tacticals in an alpha strike list ( which is what I mostly play ) but occasionally I just go for 5man objective sitting scouts if I´m going with a more "traditional" approach, meaning using all possible points to something more effective than Troops in general.

Akiasura wrote:

Isn't this admitting that you take tacticals as a handicap? How can they be used to bring back their points and more? I have yet to see an example that works that isn't hugely specific and relies on the other portions of the army doing the heavy lifting, while tacticals get the last wound of HP.

Not at all, they are absolutely great in a drop pod alpha strike list, which is my most frequent build when playing loyalists. And ofcourse other portions of the army do the heavy lifting, there´s not many armies where this isn´t the case. But that varies a bit. In your meta you said Knights are banned, in mine they are not. My tactical squads are responsible for destroying a Knight 60% of the time.

Akiasura wrote:
I can easily come up with situations where many decent units are useful, so far no one has come up for one with tacticals that isn't pod in and die, which can be done better by sternguard regardless.

If one is podding them in and dying ( all the time, ofcourse it´s not always avoidable ) then one is doing something wrong. Sternguard also costs more, they are not a great choice for suicides. Threat saturation is a great way to increase survivability for one, among other things like smart positioning and co-operating with the rest of the army in a way that whatever could kill them just isn´t going to be there next turn. Even if they do get killed it depends on what they did before dying if it was worth it in the end. If you destroyed a Rhino, too bad. If you blew apart an Imperial Knight and got killed, great.

Martel732 wrote:
What loadout are you using on tactical squads to make this happen?

Drop Pod with Meltaguns + Combimelta, occasionally Combat Squaded to divide fire ( but never when there´s a risk of them giving FB. ) There´s frequently a Sternguard pod with Combimeltas going with them, and the opponent usually starts the game with a Callidus assassin on their face/too near for comfort. Often this translates to the rest of the army doing what they want as the opponent has to focus on clearing his own table edge first, but not always.

Akiasura wrote:

If your meta is this competitive, then it should be easy for you to come up with situations that tacticals are useful in.

Umm... yes? And I do.

"Drop Pod with Meltaguns + Combimelta,"

Since the vehicle damage nerf, this is incredibly unreliable. Why do all tac marine glory stories rely on getting lucky? That doesn't make them good in a general sense.

There's also the issue of bubble wrapping because your opponent can see a priori what's in your drop pods. This is the exact same reason why I'm not crazy about infernus pistols.

"they are absolutely great in a drop pod alpha strike list"

If by great, you mean drop in and fail to do anything, you are correct. I've played against loyalist drop lists. They are not that great. SW do it 5X better, because they don't implode when I assault them.

" co-operating with the rest of the army"

I see what you did there.

Martel732 wrote:
Since the vehicle damage nerf, this is incredibly unreliable.

In a vacuum, sure. In practice not so much, if your army is blistering with melta and supporting antitank fire.

Martel732 wrote:
bla bla I reject your reality and substitute my own while automatically having an opposite view on anything you say, including green being a colour

Ok, I can see where this is going ( nowhere. ) Live in the world where your Tacticals do nothing. Mine will continue to thrive in competitive and tournament enviroments. Must be magic.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Since the vehicle damage nerf, this is incredibly unreliable.

In a vacuum, sure. In practice not so much, if your army is blistering with melta and supporting antitank fire.

Two meltas per tac squad is not "blistering". And I suspect the "supporting anti-tank fire" is taking away far more HPs than the tac squads are.

 RunicFIN wrote:
In a vacuum, sure. In practice not so much, if your army is blistering with melta and supporting antitank fire.

IOW, "as long as the rest of my army can do the job without much help my tactical marines are great for stripping a random HP or two".

 Peregrine wrote:


IOW, "as long as the rest of my army can do the job without much help my tactical marines are great for stripping a random HP or two".

Nah.

I don't think the proponents of the tac marines are really debating in good faith here. What makes tacs marines themselves good *in a vacuum*? They don't get assists from the rest of the list for this question. DA don't need assists to shred my marines. Tac squads don't get assists for this analysis. Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RunicFIN wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


IOW, "as long as the rest of my army can do the job without much help my tactical marines are great for stripping a random HP or two".

Nah.

Yup. That's basically what you said. You just won't admit it. See my above post about debating in good faith.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think the proponents of the tac marines are really debating in good faith here. What makes tacs marines themselves good *in a vacuum*? They don't get assists from the rest of the list for this question. DA don't need assists to shred my marines. Tac squads don't get assists for this analysis. Try again.

And quite frankly you don´t get to make rules regarding in what context anyone thinks of anything as good or bad, sorry.

Martel732 wrote:
Yup. That's basically what you said. You just won't admit it. See my above post about debating in good faith.

Nope, said they rarely fail to bring back their points which is completely not what you say I am saying, next to being a fact that won´t change despite you saying anything. Have fun accepting this. Also, reading comprehension, get some.

Conclusion: When I employ Tactical Marines I do well with them and they perform 90% of the time. For some reason you are struggling to get any use out of them, and you are also having difficulty accepting that someone else is without having a compulsive need to base it on their meta/alignment of the planets/colour of the opponents socks. Alternatively you´re just looking to argue about pretty much anything just like Peregrine, translating to some sort of personal issues I guess. In the end however, Tacticals work for me in practice and have done so for atleast 40 games this year, apparently for you they don´t. And that´s pretty much it, nothing the other one says obviously won´t change it one way or another, hence I´m done talking about this particular subject with you in particular, despite the obviously incoming bait to continue after this post. Have a great day.

Taking a HP off a rhino is getting their points back? Because I don't believe you are wrecking Knights with two melta shots.

In order to convince me that tacs are good, and that I should spend points on them, or anyone else for that matter, you should be able to show how they are good ON THEIR OWN. A loyalist drop melta list wasn't even good against my 5th ed BA. I can't imagine it will be any better with the new codex.

The unit that is average at everything shouldn't cost double the points of a specialized unit. I would even suggest that being average should be cheaper than specialized given that min/mixing is the most competitive option in a game featuring strong quantitative elements.

Why would anyone waste a DP for a tactical squad in alpha strike...It makes your alpha strike much weaker than it could have been and then your objective secured units are destroyed too boot. It's a really dumb way to play them. In reality you know you are pigeonholed into using them at something they aren't really effective at because they are bad at everything else.

Trust me dude. If you have to use a marine squad just because you have to. 5 man with laz cannon is their best load out - if it blows up a tank with a lucky 6 you win the game, lol. What is sad is I can get a land speeder for 75 that more than doubles that squads firepower it's also more mobile and versatile - there are very few things in the game it can't kill. It can also grab objectives 30 inches away. It's almost guaranteed to pay for itself or draw important fire off of other important squads.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Isn't this admitting that you take tacticals as a handicap? How can they be used to bring back their points and more? I have yet to see an example that works that isn't hugely specific and relies on the other portions of the army doing the heavy lifting, while tacticals get the last wound of HP.

Not at all, they are absolutely great in a drop pod alpha strike list, which is my most frequent build when playing loyalists. And ofcourse other portions of the army do the heavy lifting, there´s not many armies where this isn´t the case. But that varies a bit. In your meta you said Knights are banned, in mine they are not. My tactical squads are responsible for destroying a Knight 60% of the time.

Many armies have troops do a lot of the fighting. Orks and IG for example, rely heavily on troops. Other armies this is not the case, but you won't seem them denying it.

How are they destroying knights 60% of the time? Melta's are very short ranged, and knights cripple units in melee, which is what will happen. If you throw 600 points of tacticals at a knight you are likely to see, at best 6 meltas, 4 of which will hit, then you need to do actual damage. That is assuming you can get 30 marines within 6" for the extra d6.
It seems you are a very lucky person, which is fine. I have a friend who rules so absurdly above average that it defies belief. I record most of the dice rolls for statistical analysis, and considering the number of 6's he rolls, rending is overpowered. This doesn't make genestealers good, but I would expect him to take 10 genestealers and wipe 5 terminators.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
I can easily come up with situations where many decent units are useful, so far no one has come up for one with tacticals that isn't pod in and die, which can be done better by sternguard regardless.

If one is podding them in and dying ( all the time, ofcourse it´s not always avoidable ) then one is doing something wrong. Sternguard also costs more, they are not a great choice for suicides. Threat saturation is a great way to increase survivability for one, among other things like smart positioning and co-operating with the rest of the army in a way that whatever could kill them just isn´t going to be there next turn. Even if they do get killed it depends on what they did before dying if it was worth it in the end. If you destroyed a Rhino, too bad. If you blew apart an Imperial Knight and got killed, great.

Sternguard pay 28 points (I believe? don't have my codex handy, it could be more but it won't matter) for a plasma gun. So let's say an even 60 points for 2 guns. Pods don't matter since each squad is taking them.
Marines have to take a at least 5, (70 points), plus a plasma gun, plus a sarge, plus a combi weapon, putting them at nearly double points. They then need to buy another whole squad and drop pod to do this again, while all sternguard need are another 2 bodies.
Sternguard are one of the best suicide squads in the game.
You can smart position all you want, but in a game with true LoS, and weight of fire being a thing and marines not being overly concerned about cover saves, it's hard to completely hide them in a drop AND target an enemy with enough tacticals to bring them down. Unless your enemy leaves a squad unprotected way out by it's lonesome, suggesting they are bad players.
You have yet to demonstrate a way that marines are effective other than pod and die. You pretty much suggested they pod in and the rest of the army deals with the enemy, while the tacticals serve as distractions. If people are distracted by tacticals, they are probably bad players.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What loadout are you using on tactical squads to make this happen?

Drop Pod with Meltaguns + Combimelta, occasionally Combat Squaded to divide fire ( but never when there´s a risk of them giving FB. ) There´s frequently a Sternguard pod with Combimeltas going with them, and the opponent usually starts the game with a Callidus assassin on their face/too near for comfort. Often this translates to the rest of the army doing what they want as the opponent has to focus on clearing his own table edge first, but not always.

Surely you mean a meltagun and combi? Unless you play wolves (I doubt anyone thinks GreyHunters are terrible) or something.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

If your meta is this competitive, then it should be easy for you to come up with situations that tacticals are useful in.

Umm... yes? And I do.

So far you have not. Knights do not die to tacticals easily as you have suggested, and I have yet to hear a scenario from you.
You even suggested that sternguard are worse at dropping than tacticals, which is objectively false.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think the proponents of the tac marines are really debating in good faith here. What makes tacs marines themselves good *in a vacuum*? They don't get assists from the rest of the list for this question. DA don't need assists to shred my marines. Tac squads don't get assists for this analysis. Try again.

And quite frankly you don´t get to make rules regarding in what context anyone thinks of anything as good or bad, sorry.

Martel732 wrote:
Yup. That's basically what you said. You just won't admit it. See my above post about debating in good faith.

Nope, said they rarely fail to bring back their points which is completely not what you say I am saying, next to being a fact that won´t change despite you saying anything. Have fun accepting this. Also, reading comprehension, get some.

Conclusion: When I employ Tactical Marines I do well with them and they perform 90% of the time. For some reason you are struggling to get any use out of them, and you are also having difficulty accepting that someone else is without having a compulsive need to base it on their meta/alignment of the planets/colour of the opponents socks. Alternatively you´re just looking to argue about pretty much anything just like Peregrine, translating to some sort of personal issues I guess. In the end however, Tacticals work for me in practice and have done so for atleast 40 games this year, apparently for you they don´t. And that´s pretty much it, nothing the other one says obviously won´t change it one way or another, hence I´m done talking about this particular subject with you in particular, despite the obviously incoming bait to continue after this post. Have a great day.

Video bat reps showing tacticals being good please. Preferably a full video with rolls, not a turn-recap. If they perform well 90% of the time for you, then this shouldn't be asking much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and against an army not using tacticals as well. For science and all that.

I had a thought - Why do we measure Tactical Squads on how good they are in a vacuum, and as a stand-alone squad? No Troops, or other models for that matter, are great taken in singles, as a single model is easy to deal with for an enemy player. He doesn't need to think about what unit he needs to kill or doesn't need to kill - One Doom Scythe is easy to focus fire (relatively), but three is a bother, as you can focus one and still have two that is Death Raying your men. You can try and split out your fire, which will do nought. It is a general rule about 40K that everything is better taken in pairs or in threes, especially with Troops - No one is gonna argue that one squad of Sluggas is good, but many will say that three or four is.

My point is that many squads are harder to remove than one - You can easily remove any squad in the game in a turn, but it's hard to remove four or five - Not that you can't still remove one, but the rest will still be firing on you for the next turns, and you can't just spread out fire and think you can destroy three in a round, or at least that isn't easy to do.

On that note, Tacticals aren't exactly the most expensive models out there for their points - A Necron Warrior is just one point less, has lower Armour, same weapon, but can glance vehicles, have 10 Ld and a sorta-FNP, where a Tac has one point extra Armour, which can be huge depending on meta, grenades of different kinds, higher I and a sorta-Fearless ability.

Sure, they can't be taken in numbers like 20, but you can do that in a circumvent way by choosing more Squads, which will also make it harder to total all squads with a weapon designed to kill Tacs, as it can only focus on hitting one.

This is my thoughts on this - I'm not saying that this is the be-all end-all truth of how to play Tacs, but I think it's a valid idea - What's your thoughts? Are multiple full squads without any upgrades actually kinda useful, if you have enough? Their weapons aren't actually bad (far from it, they are some of the better troop weapons out there), they are resilient as feth (compared to other, non Necron Troops), and really, they aren't all that expensive. 14 pt? It's not even a Plasma Pistol!

Just like with Anpu, tacticals probably "work" for him because his opponents let them work for him. I have difficulty accepting what you claim because you provide no details.

Anyone else want to set up to the pump?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I had a thought - Why do we measure Tactical Squads on how good they are in a vacuum, and a s a stand-alone squad? No Troops, or other models for that matter are great taken in singles, as a sigle model are easy to deal with for an enemy player, as he doesn't need to think about what he unit he needs or doesn't need to kill - One Doom Scythe is easy to focus fire (relatively), but three is a bother, as you can focus one and still have two that is Death Raying you, or you can split out your fire, which will do nought. It is a general rule about 40K that everything is better taken in pairs or in threes, especially with Troops - No one is gonna argue that one squad of Sluggas is good, but many will say that three or four is quite good.

My point is that many squads are harder to remove that one - You can easily remove any squad in the game in a turn, but it's hard to remove four or five - Not that you can't still remove one, but the rest will still be firing on you for the next turns, and you can't just spread out fire and think you can destroy three in a round, or at least that isn't easy to do.

On that note, Tacticals aren't exactly the most expensive models out there for their points - A Necron Warrior is just one point less, has lower Armour, same weapon, but can glance vehicles to dirt, have 10 Ld and a sorta-FNP, where a Tac has one point extra Armour, which can be huge depending on meta, grenades of different kinds, higher I and a sorta-Fearless ability.

Sure, they can't be taken in numbers like 20, but you can do that in a circumvent way by choosing more Squads, which will also make it harder to total all squads with a weapon designed to kill Tacs.

This is my thoughts on this - I'm not saying that this is the be-all end-all truth of how to play Troops, but I think it's a valid idea - What's your thoughts? Are multiple full squads without any upgrades actually kinda useful, if you have enough? The weapons aren't actually bad (far from it, they are some of the better troop weapons out there), they are resilient as feth, and really, they aren't all that expensive. 14 pt? It's not even a Plasma Pistol!

The problem is that they are still 14 pts/model before gear and their killing power is very, very poor. Necron warriors and DA both have special schemes that make them very effective against certain targets. That gives them a job they do well. Tacticals do nothing well.

Martel732 wrote:
Just like with Anpu, tacticals probably "work" for him because his opponents let them work for him. I have difficulty accepting what you claim because you provide no details.

Anyone else want to set up to the pump?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I had a thought - Why do we measure Tactical Squads on how good they are in a vacuum, and a s a stand-alone squad? No Troops, or other models for that matter are great taken in singles, as a sigle model are easy to deal with for an enemy player, as he doesn't need to think about what he unit he needs or doesn't need to kill - One Doom Scythe is easy to focus fire (relatively), but three is a bother, as you can focus one and still have two that is Death Raying you, or you can split out your fire, which will do nought. It is a general rule about 40K that everything is better taken in pairs or in threes, especially with Troops - No one is gonna argue that one squad of Sluggas is good, but many will say that three or four is quite good.

My point is that many squads are harder to remove that one - You can easily remove any squad in the game in a turn, but it's hard to remove four or five - Not that you can't still remove one, but the rest will still be firing on you for the next turns, and you can't just spread out fire and think you can destroy three in a round, or at least that isn't easy to do.

On that note, Tacticals aren't exactly the most expensive models out there for their points - A Necron Warrior is just one point less, has lower Armour, same weapon, but can glance vehicles to dirt, have 10 Ld and a sorta-FNP, where a Tac has one point extra Armour, which can be huge depending on meta, grenades of different kinds, higher I and a sorta-Fearless ability.

Sure, they can't be taken in numbers like 20, but you can do that in a circumvent way by choosing more Squads, which will also make it harder to total all squads with a weapon designed to kill Tacs.

This is my thoughts on this - I'm not saying that this is the be-all end-all truth of how to play Troops, but I think it's a valid idea - What's your thoughts? Are multiple full squads without any upgrades actually kinda useful, if you have enough? The weapons aren't actually bad (far from it, they are some of the better troop weapons out there), they are resilient as feth, and really, they aren't all that expensive. 14 pt? It's not even a Plasma Pistol!

The problem is that they are still 14 pts/model before gear and their killing power is very, very poor. Necron warriors and DA both have special schemes that make them very effective against certain targets. That gives them a job they do well. Tacticals do nothing well.

But does that make them bad?! I can't freaking see how they can be bad, when they have all this going for them - It's in their name, really. Tactical. You need to bloody think with them - Necrons just shoot Vehicles and endure everything, Avengers go for small, elite Squads and other small targets, but Tacticals can, in theroy, deal with both, via Krak Grenades, Bolters and a good glorious amount of special gear. More Elite killing? Plasma! Vehicles? Melta! Hordes? Heavy Bolter! Freaking MCs?! Gravs!

I can't, or rather refuse, to see it - Tacticals can't be bad with all that going for them. Resilient, versatile, cheap transport... They have it all.

Something that requires a significant effort to use effectively < something which does something well effortlessly.

Ergo, yes, Tac Squads are bad.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I had a thought - Why do we measure Tactical Squads on how good they are in a vacuum, and as a stand-alone squad? No Troops, or other models for that matter, are great taken in singles, as a single model is easy to deal with for an enemy player. He doesn't need to think about what unit he needs to kill or doesn't need to kill - One Doom Scythe is easy to focus fire (relatively), but three is a bother, as you can focus one and still have two that is Death Raying your men. You can try and split out your fire, which will do nought. It is a general rule about 40K that everything is better taken in pairs or in threes, especially with Troops - No one is gonna argue that one squad of Sluggas is good, but many will say that three or four is.

The reason that things are taken in multiples in 40k is that the balance is poor. If something is good, chances are it's good against a slew of targets and there is no reason to take anything else (grav bikes for example, plague marines, FMC).
The rest of your argument doesn't hold up either. If someone takes a doom scythe, I can take a unit of sternguard to kill it. If he takes 3, 3 units of sternguard will obliterate all 3. Granted, 2 are only guaranteed to do it first turn, but I doubt the last one will destroy the other 2 squads before the last one pods in and destroys it. You are comparing 1 squad (200 points) against 1 tank, then 3 tanks without upping the squad size. Of course 200 points performs worse than 600 points.

The issue with tacticals is that I need 600 points of them to deal with 200 points of something else. So they are bad.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

My point is that many squads are harder to remove than one - You can easily remove any squad in the game in a turn, but it's hard to remove four or five - Not that you can't still remove one, but the rest will still be firing on you for the next turns, and you can't just spread out fire and think you can destroy three in a round, or at least that isn't easy to do.

Again, you are assuming one side gets to take 4 or 5 squads while the other side has 1. Compare 1 squad of dire avengers firing at a squad of tacticals. Now take 5 of each. What difference does it make? Things like cover might matter for the marines due to rending, the eldar will like it for protection against plasma, but that is it. It's why you compare equal points, and why things have a point value in the first place.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

On that note, Tacticals aren't exactly the most expensive models out there for their points - A Necron Warrior is just one point less, has lower Armour, same weapon, but can glance vehicles, have 10 Ld and a sorta-FNP, where a Tac has one point extra Armour, which can be huge depending on meta, grenades of different kinds, higher I and a sorta-Fearless ability.

You list all these things but how many matter in gameplay?
The lower armor matters (you then note marines have an extra point of armor, kinda double dipping the chip there), but more weapons are Ap 2, 3, and 5 then they are 4. Often if tacticals get a save, so do necrons.
Necrons are better at killing all vehicles that aren't AV 10. So, the vast majority of them.
Ld 10 is fine. Often you want to break in combat if charged, and it is a rare day when either squad is charging.
The FnP makes them tougher than marines for less points.
Higher I and grenades only matter if you are charging, which is extremely rare for either unit to do. If marines had knives, this would matter, and against MC's grenades helped...but we already showed in general that shooting is nearly always the better call.

Also, keep in mind, the special options of the marines raise their cost per model a lot more than the necrons get access to. The difference is often something like 2 or 3 points ppm, not 1.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

Sure, they can't be taken in numbers like 20, but you can do that in a circumvent way by choosing more Squads, which will also make it harder to total all squads with a weapon designed to kill Tacs, as it can only focus on hitting one.

What? So occasionally you waste a shot killing tacticals but don't against necrons? How many armies have access to weapons that kill 5 marines in a single salvo? You often don't need to kill a tactical squad until the end of the game when everything else is dead anyway. They aren't fast, and don't put out damage. Just ignore them. What's to stop the necron player from spamming 10 man squads? Marines need more bodies to unlock different options, otherwise we would all use 5 man las/plas.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

This is my thoughts on this - I'm not saying that this is the be-all end-all truth of how to play Tacs, but I think it's a valid idea - What's your thoughts? Are multiple full squads without any upgrades actually kinda useful, if you have enough? Their weapons aren't actually bad (far from it, they are some of the better troop weapons out there), they are resilient as feth (compared to other, non Necron Troops), and really, they aren't all that expensive. 14 pt? It's not even a Plasma Pistol!

They aren't tough per point (acolytes out perform them) they aren't damaging per point (acolytes out perform them again), their weapons are terrible relatively speaking, and plasma pistols are one of the most overpriced option in the game, so do not serve as a useful goal post.

No takers on the video batrep to show off them "masterfully" playing tacticals?

Just last night I decided to run a new BA jump list. Dante, priest, 9 SG, 2 units of 7 Jp DC, one sword and fist in each, 2 full assault squads with 2x melta and power weapon vet sarge, 5 sniper cloak scouts, and 5 melee scouts in a Baal strike force, along with that meteoric impact formation with naked vanguard, and 2 5 man double melta asm squads, with another priest from the strike force detachment with angel's wing joined to the vanguard.

Opponent is my friend with salamander ct, lots of combat squaded tacticals with flamer in half, with power weapon sarge, and missile in the other half, couple assault termie squads, asm squad, chapter master terminator, some burning blade captain, couple razorbacks and a storm talon.

He left the termies and asm (and flyer, obv) in reserve, and pretty much just had a couple razors and a bunch of 5 man tactical squads on his edge. So I deployed everyone other than the impact formation and charged full speed, knowing that tacticals are like, zero threat. Sadly, even with Dante's reroll trait, the formation waited til turn 4 to come in, because I am MASTER of failing rerollable reserve rolls.

All my jump pack dudes proceeded to slaughter tacticals, including a couple multiassaults. Chapter master termie got charged after his deep strike by Dante and the SG. The other termies got murdered after coming in when impact formation showed up next to them with 4 meltas. The 5 melee scouts performed admirably in holding up his full assault squad.

Long story short, he was tabled except for the talon on my t4, and had to hover to do anything other than fly uselessly around, after which it got charged and killed.



Playing against a ton of tactical marines is like 40k easy mode.

 The Wise Dane wrote:
My point is that many squads are harder to remove than one - You can easily remove any squad in the game in a turn, but it's hard to remove four or five - Not that you can't still remove one, but the rest will still be firing on you for the next turns, and you can't just spread out fire and think you can destroy three in a round, or at least that isn't easy to do.

Sure, target saturation is a thing, but that just means you should have lots of MEQs in general, not tactical squads specifically. If you want to take a ton of MEQs in an army you take the bare minimum tactical squads and then spend the rest of your points on the specialist units. For example, if you want an objective camper you take a devastator squad. If you want an offensive threat you take an assault or sternguard squad. Etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
Tacticals can, in theroy, deal with both, via Krak Grenades, Bolters and a good glorious amount of special gear. More Elite killing? Plasma! Vehicles? Melta! Hordes? Heavy Bolter! Freaking MCs?! Gravs!

Who cares if they can theoretically deal with those roles, they aren't good at any of them. Unless you're lucky enough to get one of GW's balance mistake units (Wave Serpents, for example) that are great at everything the way you win a 40k game is by bringing specialized units and delivering them to their appropriate targets. Units that are mediocre at several different roles are a waste of points.

I can't, or rather refuse, to see it - Tacticals can't be bad with all that going for them. Resilient, versatile, cheap transport... They have it all.

They aren't all that resilient (especially relative to their cost), they aren't versatile (they are mediocre at best at every role), and their transport is cheap because it sucks.

 The Wise Dane wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Just like with Anpu, tacticals probably "work" for him because his opponents let them work for him. I have difficulty accepting what you claim because you provide no details.

Anyone else want to set up to the pump?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The Wise Dane wrote:
I had a thought - Why do we measure Tactical Squads on how good they are in a vacuum, and a s a stand-alone squad? No Troops, or other models for that matter are great taken in singles, as a sigle model are easy to deal with for an enemy player, as he doesn't need to think about what he unit he needs or doesn't need to kill - One Doom Scythe is easy to focus fire (relatively), but three is a bother, as you can focus one and still have two that is Death Raying you, or you can split out your fire, which will do nought. It is a general rule about 40K that everything is better taken in pairs or in threes, especially with Troops - No one is gonna argue that one squad of Sluggas is good, but many will say that three or four is quite good.

My point is that many squads are harder to remove that one - You can easily remove any squad in the game in a turn, but it's hard to remove four or five - Not that you can't still remove one, but the rest will still be firing on you for the next turns, and you can't just spread out fire and think you can destroy three in a round, or at least that isn't easy to do.

On that note, Tacticals aren't exactly the most expensive models out there for their points - A Necron Warrior is just one point less, has lower Armour, same weapon, but can glance vehicles to dirt, have 10 Ld and a sorta-FNP, where a Tac has one point extra Armour, which can be huge depending on meta, grenades of different kinds, higher I and a sorta-Fearless ability.

Sure, they can't be taken in numbers like 20, but you can do that in a circumvent way by choosing more Squads, which will also make it harder to total all squads with a weapon designed to kill Tacs.

This is my thoughts on this - I'm not saying that this is the be-all end-all truth of how to play Troops, but I think it's a valid idea - What's your thoughts? Are multiple full squads without any upgrades actually kinda useful, if you have enough? The weapons aren't actually bad (far from it, they are some of the better troop weapons out there), they are resilient as feth, and really, they aren't all that expensive. 14 pt? It's not even a Plasma Pistol!

The problem is that they are still 14 pts/model before gear and their killing power is very, very poor. Necron warriors and DA both have special schemes that make them very effective against certain targets. That gives them a job they do well. Tacticals do nothing well.

But does that make them bad?! I can't freaking see how they can be bad, when they have all this going for them - It's in their name, really. Tactical. You need to bloody think with them - Necrons just shoot Vehicles and endure everything, Avengers go for small, elite Squads and other small targets, but Tacticals can, in theroy, deal with both, via Krak Grenades, Bolters and a good glorious amount of special gear. More Elite killing? Plasma! Vehicles? Melta! Hordes? Heavy Bolter! Freaking MCs?! Gravs!

I can't, or rather refuse, to see it - Tacticals can't be bad with all that going for them. Resilient, versatile, cheap transport... They have it all.

Yes, math makes them bad. They can't take enough of the weapons that matter, and all the other gear you listed is largely worthless in a typical game. No amount of thinking makes them efficacious for their point cost. That's the entire problem. They shoot, and nothing dies. They assault, and nothing dies.

Akiasura wrote:
Melta's are very short ranged, and knights cripple units in melee, which is what will happen.

And again, they are not at it alone. Also take into account I said 60% of the time, not 98%.

Akiasura wrote:

You have yet to demonstrate a way that marines are effective other than pod and die.

And I´ve never said they are effective in an enviroment other than Drop Pods, hence this demonstration you are speaking of isn´t going to happen. I have only said my Tactical squads perform, and they perform well, and explained how I use them. I disagree about the dying part, they can be played with just "drop" instead of "drop and die."

Akiasura wrote:

You pretty much suggested they pod in and the rest of the army deals with the enemy, while the tacticals serve as distractions. If people are distracted by tacticals, they are probably bad players.

Hmm no, I plain wrote that I use a Sternguard pod to support them along with the rest of the army, and I almost always have a Callidus Assassin in an enemy weak spot at the start of the game. And there are, infact, times when you can´t ignore a melta kitted tactical squad.

Akiasura wrote:
Surely you mean a meltagun and combi?

Eh? I wrote Meltaguns and a Combimelta, I don´t know what you mean now. I was talking about multiple units incase you´re wondering about the plural.

Akiasura wrote:

So far you have not. Knights do not die to tacticals easily as you have suggested, and I have yet to hear a scenario from you.
You even suggested that sternguard are worse at dropping than tacticals, which is objectively false.

And again I´ve not said they die to Tacticals alone. And I didn´t say Sternguard are worse at dropping, said I find them worse as a suicide squad which are two completely different things. Are you deliberately misinterpreting? Seems to be pointless discussing with you, you´ve made up your mind, and you don´t accept anything else than what you think even if it´s based on experience far surpassing yours in practice ( unless, ofcourse, you´ve played more than me which is around 74 games this year. ) So yeah, I don´t think there´s a way to change your mind even if you say there is, you´ll surely always find a way.

Infact the whole discussion seems pretty pointless, you´ve made up your minds.



So yeah, I´ll continue with my Tacticals that bring back their points 90% of the time in actual played games and in practice, and you lot can continue with yours that never ever do. I like the squirming attempts to try and deem it impossible though, it´s like it ticks you off and you want to force it to be impossible by any means necessary. Unfortunately it´s never gonna work, as reality can´t be changed with words in this case.

Thinking about it, despite the Black Templars chapter tactic not being particularly good, Crusader squads aren't as bad as Tacticals. Five man, melee weapons on most of them. Sword Brother with combi-melta, meltagun and multi-melta in a pod.

niv-mizzet wrote:
No takers on the video batrep to show off them "masterfully" playing tacticals?

Just last night I decided to run a new BA jump list. Dante, priest, 9 SG, 2 units of 7 Jp DC, one sword and fist in each, 2 full assault squads with 2x melta and power weapon vet sarge, 5 sniper cloak scouts, and 5 melee scouts in a Baal strike force, along with that meteoric impact formation with naked vanguard, and 2 5 man double melta asm squads, with another priest from the strike force detachment with angel's wing joined to the vanguard.

Opponent is my friend with salamander ct, lots of combat squaded tacticals with flamer in half, with power weapon sarge, and missile in the other half, couple assault termie squads, asm squad, chapter master terminator, some burning blade captain, couple razorbacks and a storm talon.

He left the termies and asm (and flyer, obv) in reserve, and pretty much just had a couple razors and a bunch of 5 man tactical squads on his edge. So I deployed everyone other than the impact formation and charged full speed, knowing that tacticals are like, zero threat. Sadly, even with Dante's reroll trait, the formation waited til turn 4 to come in, because I am MASTER of failing rerollable reserve rolls.

All my jump pack dudes proceeded to slaughter tacticals, including a couple multiassaults. Chapter master termie got charged after his deep strike by Dante and the SG. The other termies got murdered after coming in when impact formation showed up next to them with 4 meltas. The 5 melee scouts performed admirably in holding up his full assault squad.

Long story short, he was tabled except for the talon on my t4, and had to hover to do anything other than fly uselessly around, after which it got charged and killed.



Playing against a ton of tactical marines is like 40k easy mode.

This is one of the worst examples I've seen ITT. Your opponent took tac squads in 5s put them on his board edge and footslogged them with no firesupport against one of the fastest assault based lists in the game? That isn't an example of tacs being used skillfully to maximize their capabilities, as we are saying they should be. Hell, sallies have some of the best options to equip tacs with. That isn't even an example of an average game that has a couple tac squads in it. That's just a really, really bad player.

Tacticals suck when you run them up the board and expect them to tank all of the incoming firepower. They also suck when you take two barebones squads just to make your minimum troop requirements. However, when you build your list around them then they shine. Drop pod assaults are devastating especially when supported with grav centurions and TFCs. Rhino rushes are great but not as good.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Tacticals suck when you run them up the board and expect them to tank all of the incoming firepower. They also suck when you take two barebones squads just to make your minimum troop requirements. However, when you build your list around them then they shine. Drop pod assaults are devastating especially when supported with grav centurions and TFCs. Rhino rushes are great but not as good.

They are great in drop pods because drop pods are great at making things great. There are many other squads that would do better in their place.

I still would like to see a video batrep of tacticals used "well." Out of hundreds of video bat reps that I've watched, and maybe thousand games I've seen over the last couple decades, I have NEVER seen a moment where I was like "oh good thing those guys are tactical marines and not something else!"

And if you do post a video, don't just drop pod spam in an attempt to make them look good. I have pods myself. I know that even mediocre units can shine when they're suddenly placed at optimal range with no damage.

Oh, I'm not saying Tac squads are stellar units. I'm just saying they aren't completely worthless.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Melta's are very short ranged, and knights cripple units in melee, which is what will happen.

And again, they are not at it alone. Also take into account I said 60% of the time, not 98%

Strawmanning is a logical fallacy. I would ask that you refrain from doing it.
I never said 98% was required, and you have yet to prove that 60% is a viable number they can achieve. If they aren't at it alone (you are already at 600 points of tacticals before reaching anywhere near a decent chance), why don't you take a unit that can do it better?
You need to prove that marines can do something, and do it well, otherwise why bother taking them at all save as a handicap?
To be fair, I did use 600 points and still didn't hit your 60%. You threw out a number slightly larger than half and walked away, without any reasoning behind it other than you said so.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

You have yet to demonstrate a way that marines are effective other than pod and die.

And I´ve never said they are effective in an enviroment other than Drop Pods, hence this demonstration you are speaking of isn´t going to happen. I have only said my Tactical squads perform, and they perform well, and explained how I use them. I disagree about the dying part, they can be played with just "drop" instead of "drop and die."

Explain how you can get within 12" of a target and cripple it to the point they can't destroy the marines right back. You have yet to prove that Drop doesn't lead to drop and die unless you cripple the target, and you have yet to prove that tacticals can cripple any target unless taken in a way where they get a massive point advantage, in which case, what is the rest of the enemies army doing to the tacticals?
Besides, I have already proven that, points wise, Sternguard are a much better choice, suggesting tacticals are handicapping yourself. You have yet to prove otherwise.

You can not just say that "I have used them and not had them killed by a extremely good meta, and often" and expect anyone to take your word for it.
Would you take my word for it if I said I had a pet pony, and it's blood keeps me eternally young? Of course not, you'd demand proof.
If you want to claim something, you need to back it up to have anyone accept what you're saying.

You are not a world famous 40k master who can just walk in, say "tacticals are great, I use them", drop the mic, and walk away. In warmachine, such players exist, but in 40k they do not. Sadly, this means the burden of proof is on you. I have already shown, using math and situations detailed out, how they are terrible in a host of ways. Please do the same.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

You pretty much suggested they pod in and the rest of the army deals with the enemy, while the tacticals serve as distractions. If people are distracted by tacticals, they are probably bad players.

Hmm no, I plain wrote that I use a Sternguard pod to support them along with the rest of the army, and I almost always have a Callidus Assassin in an enemy weak spot at the start of the game. And there are, infact, times when you can´t ignore a melta kitted tactical squad.

By support them, do you mean do the heavy lifting? Sternguard do not grant tacticals extra toughness, firepower, chances to hit, or anything. The only "support" they offer is killing the enemy better than the tacticals. Why not take more sternguard?
Please explain a situation where a tactical marine squad with meltaguns is threatening that doesn't result from another squad already damaging something to the point where a tactical marine squad can kill it. Because, if that is so, why not take two of that squad and just destroy it completely instead of another tactical squad? They aren't cheap.
Again, I am asking for a specific situation, rather than a general statement from you I am suppose to accept despite my own evidence to the contrary.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Surely you mean a meltagun and combi?

Eh? I wrote Meltaguns and a Combimelta, I don´t know what you mean now. I was talking about multiple units incase you´re wondering about the plural.

So you don't know what I mean but address exactly what I meant within the same line?
Okay...
Yes, the plural. It suggests multiple units. If you are taking 600 points of tacticals, or 400, and putting them against a 200 point something from an enemy, sure. They may look okay in that situation.
But you are allowing yourself to have a huge point advantage to make them so, when it is not needed. Many other units, at comparable points, would destroy the enemy without needing a 2 or 3 to 1 point advantage.
A good opponent would not allow you to use 4-600 points to destroy a squad without a counter attack on deployment. If he sees pods, he needs to set up his army in such a way that allows that. Given the bad range of most marine weapons (which, you claim to be meltas. They have a very short effective range) this isn't difficult, and you have yet to demonstrate how this is accomplished.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

So far you have not. Knights do not die to tacticals easily as you have suggested, and I have yet to hear a scenario from you.
You even suggested that sternguard are worse at dropping than tacticals, which is objectively false.

And again I´ve not said they die to Tacticals alone. And I didn´t say Sternguard are worse at dropping, said I find them worse as a suicide squad which are two completely different things. Gotta ask, are you thick or deliberately misinterpreting? Seems to be pointless discussing with you, you´ve made up your mind and your own reality, and you don´t accept anything than what you think even if it´s based on experience far surpassing yours in practice ( unless, ofcourse, you´ve played more than me which is around 74 games this year. )

Okay, let's break this down.
1) I am claiming any drop pod squad can expect to die, unless the enemy army is crippled to the point that it can not counter attack. You have yet to refute this, and using tacticals provides a massive point disadvantage.
2) Sternguard can put out more firepower for cheaper than a tactical squad, making them better at a suicide squad. How are they worse?
3) You didn't "have to ask" this, you are being rude. Please be polite. A personal attack is the last refuge of a failing argument.
4) I am willing to accept counter arguments. In another thread, I said the BA codex was weak and someone pointed out their formations made them strong. They posted the information, and I agreed they were right. Have you ever changed your mind? (please cite if so).
5) This is an appeal to authority, which is another logical fallacy (I can link them if you are unsure what they are and why they are important). Your experience is meaningless, because we do not know the conditions of your experience.
But, for arguments sake, I average about 5-8 games a month, giving nearly as much experience as you, if not more.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Infact the whole discussion seems pretty pointless, you´ve made up your minds.

Again, please do not be rude. We are asking for specific examples or some numerical evidence that they are worth taking. You have yet to provide any. If you feel the argument is useless, please go. But don't expect people to accept your opinions as fact, or that your meta is in anyway challenging.

 RunicFIN wrote:

So yeah, I´ll continue with my Tacticals that bring back their points 90% of the time in actual played games and in practice, and you lot can continue with yours that never ever do. I like the squirming attempts to try and deem it impossible though, it´s like it ticks you off and you want to force it to be impossible by any means necessary. Unfortunately it´s never gonna work, as reality can´t be changed with words in this case.

Again, please do not be rude. I would hardly call using mathematics, situations common in game play, and asking for sources while addressing your points one at a time "squirming". If anything, making sweeping generalizations, insulting the opposite side, and avoiding providing any evidence what so ever is "squirming".

You are also posting in this thread, mainly because people are suggesting your meta isn't very developed I would gather. It still seems that it is rather weak, and without any examples that you can provide, we all will most likely continue to believe this. If this bothers you, post a battle report somewhere of tacticals doing good. I'd be interested to learn I've been using them wrong this entire time, I own several hundred dollars worth.

 Las wrote:


This is one of the worst examples I've seen ITT. Your opponent took tac squads in 5s put them on his board edge and footslogged them with no firesupport against one of the fastest assault based lists in the game? That isn't an example of tacs being used skillfully to maximize their capabilities, as we are saying they should be. Hell, sallies have some of the best options to equip tacs with. That isn't even an example of an average game that has a couple tac squads in it. That's just a really, really bad player.

I didn't say he was good. He just started in 7th. I guess maybe you were godlike when you first started the game, but most of us had to learn a little first. In our group, it's very bad form to insult newbies. I guess it's not in yours.

It should be pretty obvious how new he is, given that his two vehicles there aren't painted, one's actually a rhino proxying for a razorback, and his army is full of tacticals and tactical terminators, mainly because he hasn't learned for himself how bad those units are yet.

He at least did steal some assaults from me, like I told him to do against BA. That helped him put up more of a fight.

But the main point of that pic is to show that there could be a literal green tide of tacticals, and I'd still charge right at them, because tacticals literally don't scare any of my dudes at all. Not even the 5 man melee scout squad (not in the pic, was further east) that was also running right at them. I just accept that the odd heavy weapon shot will nix a guy, and the salamander flamer will hurt some, and then I'll murder them. And that's what happened.

I'd be more afraid of an army of just fire support like devs, predators, tfc's, centurion devs and the like.

Akiasura 627259 7444166 wrote:
You are also posting in this thread, mainly because people are suggesting your meta isn't very developed I would gather. It still seems that it is rather weak, and without any examples that you can provide, we all will most likely continue to believe this. If this bothers you, post a battle report somewhere of tacticals doing good. I'd be interested to learn I've been using them wrong this entire time, I own several hundred dollars worth.

Let's add some context here - RUNIC's flag implies he's posting from Finland.

Finland is one of the least densely populated countries in Europe, it's total population is slightly over half of just London.

Now, being a niche hobby, even if he belonged to a club that had every single Finnish 40K player who currently plays as a member, the numbers we're looking at are probably barely different from the catchment of one busy game store in say LA, New York or Dallas.

If you were to take every single thing he declares at face value, one can hardly class his experiences as representative, so I think the point that the meta isn't well developed is a very valid one.

The problem is simply that there is too much high S and low AP flying around this days.

When a fire warrior to marine kill ratio is 1-2, but Fire warrior has a much better gun and costs half, in a dice game its always better to field fire warriors, they are much more consistent and versatile.

 RunicFIN wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Melta's are very short ranged, and knights cripple units in melee, which is what will happen.

And again, they are not at it alone. Also take into account I said 60% of the time, not 98%.

Akiasura wrote:

You have yet to demonstrate a way that marines are effective other than pod and die.

And I´ve never said they are effective in an enviroment other than Drop Pods, hence this demonstration you are speaking of isn´t going to happen. I have only said my Tactical squads perform, and they perform well, and explained how I use them. I disagree about the dying part, they can be played with just "drop" instead of "drop and die."

Akiasura wrote:

You pretty much suggested they pod in and the rest of the army deals with the enemy, while the tacticals serve as distractions. If people are distracted by tacticals, they are probably bad players.

Hmm no, I plain wrote that I use a Sternguard pod to support them along with the rest of the army, and I almost always have a Callidus Assassin in an enemy weak spot at the start of the game. And there are, infact, times when you can´t ignore a melta kitted tactical squad.

Akiasura wrote:
Surely you mean a meltagun and combi?

Eh? I wrote Meltaguns and a Combimelta, I don´t know what you mean now. I was talking about multiple units incase you´re wondering about the plural.

Akiasura wrote:

So far you have not. Knights do not die to tacticals easily as you have suggested, and I have yet to hear a scenario from you.
You even suggested that sternguard are worse at dropping than tacticals, which is objectively false.

And again I´ve not said they die to Tacticals alone. And I didn´t say Sternguard are worse at dropping, said I find them worse as a suicide squad which are two completely different things. Are you deliberately misinterpreting? Seems to be pointless discussing with you, you´ve made up your mind, and you don´t accept anything else than what you think even if it´s based on experience far surpassing yours in practice ( unless, ofcourse, you´ve played more than me which is around 74 games this year. ) So yeah, I don´t think there´s a way to change your mind even if you say there is, you´ll surely always find a way.

Infact the whole discussion seems pretty pointless, you´ve made up your minds.



So yeah, I´ll continue with my Tacticals that bring back their points 90% of the time in actual played games and in practice, and you lot can continue with yours that never ever do. I like the squirming attempts to try and deem it impossible though, it´s like it ticks you off and you want to force it to be impossible by any means necessary. Unfortunately it´s never gonna work, as reality can´t be changed with words in this case.

People have provided you MATH to prove you wrong. How can one be this dense? If you want suicide, Sternguard/LotD do it better. If you want Special Weapons, Bikers get more bang for their buck. This is math speaking. Seriously.

Hey! Hey! Everyone just needs to relax and take it down a notch.
Look, tacticals are not the one stop shop. I picture them working to harass, steal objectives, and support units. I expect them to die and kill horde (weaker units). I kit them out to specialize in assisting other units in tasks (anti-horde/anti-MEQ/anti-TEQ). I wouldn't use a ten man tactical squad to take out a 5 man terminator squad and expect to win.

At any rate all this frustration can be channeled constructively. Let's open another thread about GW prices!

 Inkubas wrote:
Look, tacticals are not the one stop shop. I picture them working to harass, steal objectives, and support units. I expect them to die and kill horde (weaker units). I kit them out to specialize in assisting other units in tasks (anti-horde/anti-MEQ/anti-TEQ). I wouldn't use a ten man tactical squad to take out a 5 man terminator squad and expect to win.

And this is exactly why they suck: the only thing you can do with them is hope that they can help out a bit while your better units do all of the real work.

xxvaderxx wrote:
The problem is simply that there is too much high S and low AP flying around this days.

When a fire warrior to marine kill ratio is 1-2, but Fire warrior has a much better gun and costs half, in a dice game its always better to field fire warriors, they are much more consistent and versatile.

Well if everyone loves fire warriors so much then that sounds like the perfect way to fix tactical Marines. Make bolters S5 AP5, remove the ability to take special/heavy weapons to bring them more in line with the much superior fire warriors, and what the hell, knock 2 points off their cost, too (they should still cost more because of their awesome special rules and superior stat line to fire warriors).

There. Now they're OP.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Tacticals suck when you run them up the board and expect them to tank all of the incoming firepower. They also suck when you take two barebones squads just to make your minimum troop requirements. However, when you build your list around them then they shine. Drop pod assaults are devastating especially when supported with grav centurions and TFCs. Rhino rushes are great but not as good.

Exactly.

How do bolters not hurt the vast majority of vehicles on the game? Most vehicles have 10AV rear armour, and 10 tacs shooting at that in double-tap range should take off a little over 2 HPs a turn.

Alcibiades wrote:
How do bolters not hurt the vast majority of vehicles on the game? Most vehicles have 10AV rear armour, and 10 tacs shooting at that in double-tap range should take off a little over 2 HPs a turn.

Yes, but getting into rear arc with a tactical squad can safely be approximated as "not going to happen" for list-building purposes. You'll take the shot if you can get it obviously, but it's not something you can count on at all. A viable anti-tank unit is one that can kill a tank without needing extreme optimism just to have a chance to roll dice. Bolter marines are not that kind of unit.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Let's add some context here - RUNIC's flag implies he's posting from Finland.

Finland is one of the least densely populated countries in Europe, it's total population is slightly over half of just London.

Now, being a niche hobby, even if he belonged to a club that had every single Finnish 40K player who currently plays as a member, the numbers we're looking at are probably barely different from the catchment of one busy game store in say LA, New York or Dallas.

If you were to take every single thing he declares at face value, one can hardly class his experiences as representative, so I think the point that the meta isn't well developed is a very valid one.

Did you just really blatantly dismiss a whole country based on it´s population? I don´t even know where to begin with this, you are probably the most arrogant person I´ve ever witnessed existing, anywhere.

You said you have life experience in another thread: You now seem like a pompous 30 year old who probably hasn´t traveled the world too much, living inside a bubble based on his own presumptions. The amount of hobbyists is completely irrelevant to staying up to date regarding the competitive scene of a wargame. With your logic, the smaller the countrys population, the less developed it is. And oh my god is that incorrect if anything ever was.

The wargamers of a population of any size can easily keep up with the current meta thanks the wonders of the modern world and ease of communication. Especially a highly developed country ( infact having atleast the following aspects more developed than your own; technology, medical care, education system, social security. )

The competitive meta here is completely up to date. Thanks for your almost laughable take on things however. Jesus on a stick I can´t fathom how skewed your view of the world must be. Just, wow. I´ll be waiting on evidence regarding this, the burden of proof is on you.

 Peregrine wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
How do bolters not hurt the vast majority of vehicles on the game? Most vehicles have 10AV rear armour, and 10 tacs shooting at that in double-tap range should take off a little over 2 HPs a turn.

Yes, but getting into rear arc with a tactical squad can safely be approximated as "not going to happen" for list-building purposes. You'll take the shot if you can get it obviously, but it's not something you can count on at all. A viable anti-tank unit is one that can kill a tank without needing extreme optimism just to have a chance to roll dice. Bolter marines are not that kind of unit.

Should they be, though? Why should an army's basic troops choice ever be a viable anti-tank unit? Isn't that what anti-tank units are for?

Just sounds to me more like an argument for going back to 5th edition rules where hull points weren't a thing. Being able to glance vehicles wouldn't matter then and you'd need to take dedicated anti-tank weaponry to do jack gak to them.

Or you could just make bolters S5 AP5 and get rid of the ability to take specials/heavies in tactical squads, since apparently the ability to do that is pointless anyway and no one cares because you can't "specialize" at anything.

Maybe it´s their meta that´s underdeveloped instead.

It's nice that we have this place where we can all talk about our toy soldiers in a mature fashion without insulting each other.

I think we're done here.