9892
Post by: Flashman
So nobody likes taking Tactical Squads, what tweaks would you make to improve them?
My suggestions...
Bolter Drill - Steal Lysander's special rule and apply it to Tactical Squads. They're supposed to be the most highly trained Marines after all.
Priority Target - Let the Heavy Weapon fire at a different target to the other members of the squad. Short of leaving it behind in the 2nd combat squad, it's the only it will get to fire.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Tactical squads look very good on paper. Splitting them into combat squads means that the ML will always get to fire while the sarge and flamer dude gets in close and personal. It's everything else that took two steps in badass that makes them look bad in comparison.
37943
Post by: CageUF
Um who doesn't like tact squads?
They will obliterate any other troop choice while within double tap range and have the ability to combat squad themselves into specific roles.
Other than being limited to 10 models and being on the pricier side, whats wrong with em?
34439
Post by: Formosa
nothing, Tac sqauds are good, but not great.
Here is the kick in the teeth though, Grey hunters have CA, multiple special weapons acute senses and 2 cc weapons... all for LESS points than a normal marine, who has NONE of those skills, internet fanboy junk is the SW codex.
by GW reasoning my Tac marine should be 13pts
29408
Post by: Melissia
Flashman wrote:So nobody likes taking Tactical Squads, what tweaks would you make to improve them?
Tell people to stop being morons and realize how good tactical squads are?
Yes, certain Marine codices have arguably better variants, but frankly Tacticals themselves (when compared to all non-Marine troops choices) are pretty damned good and cheap.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Melissia wrote:Flashman wrote:So nobody likes taking Tactical Squads, what tweaks would you make to improve them?
Tell people to stop being morons and realize how good tactical squads are? Yes, certain Marine codices have arguably better variants, but frankly Tacticals themselves (when compared to all non-Marine troops choices) are pretty damned good and cheap.
there is no arguing, SW tac sqauds ARE better and BA ones are about the same unless the get furious charge, but that may or may not be a good thing depending on what you intended for them lol. other than that i agree mell, Tac sqauds are good, I mean just for the sheers hell of it i like to run 60 marines in rhino's and a captain.... Tac sqaud SWARM??
29408
Post by: Melissia
Sure I can argue it. SW squads don't have heavy weapons options, don't have combat squads, and don't have combat tactics. They also don't have any heavy weapons choices. So while Grey Hunters are definitely better assault troops, they are not simply better.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Melissia wrote:Sure I can argue it. SW squads don't have heavy weapons options, don't have combat squads, and don't have combat tactics. They also don't have any heavy weapons choices. So while Grey Hunters are definitely better assault troops, they are not simply better.
They dont need heavy weapons, they dont need combat sqauds, no do they need combat tactics, they have all there neat little skills for less points than a tac marine. that is what makes them better, they are identical stats wise, that means they should be 15pts each BASE, then add 3pts for all there abilities. I think you would be very hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think Grey hunters are better. That being said tac marines are still good
29408
Post by: Melissia
Formosa wrote:They dont need heavy weapons, they dont need combat sqauds, no do they need combat tactics
That's arguable. Certainly I bet they're wanting combat tactics against genestealers, banshees, bloodletters, and so on.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Flashman wrote:So nobody likes taking Tactical Squads,
You should amend this to something like "So I don't like taking Tactical Squads despite how excellent they are."
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Grey Hunters would be somewhere along the lines of 21 points or so a piece if done in the 4th edition (+3 points for the skills, +1 point for the Frag Grenade, +2 for the Krak Grenade). However Marines are still well priced if you get them at max squads (150 points for all 10 marines, 5 points for the flamer, 15 points for the Sarge's extra attack, and you get the ML for free).
38176
Post by: Griever
Melissia wrote:Formosa wrote:They dont need heavy weapons, they dont need combat sqauds, no do they need combat tactics
That's arguable. Certainly I bet they're wanting combat tactics against genestealers, banshees, bloodletters, and so on.
How does Combat Tactics help you there? You need somebody to shoot at the marines for them to be allowed to fail a morale check.
+1 attack base, Counter Attack, 2 Special Weapons, cheap CC wargear (Standard, Wulfen), cheaper. Grey Hunters are just so much better.
Heavy Weapons in a Tactical Squad is a waste. Am I really going to sit my 170 point unit on the back table edge so one guy can fire one puny little heavy weapon? That's totally point inefficient. Tactical Squads are garbage in assault. Since their role is close range shooting, they'll often get assaulted and 10 attacks won't even scare a guardsmen squad. Not to mention, the most common enemy in the game (other space marines) laugh at bolter fire. Combat Squads just gives you two smaller versions of the same crappy squad. What is 5 marines with a flamer going to accomplish? What about one missile launcher and four bullet catchers?
Tactical Squads are bad, real bad.
I would say, just give Tactical Squads a close combat weapon, so they're slightly better in assault, and the ability to take either two assault (melta, flamer, plasma) or two heavy weapons in a ten man squad.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Griever wrote:Melissia wrote:Formosa wrote:They dont need heavy weapons, they dont need combat sqauds, no do they need combat tactics
That's arguable. Certainly I bet they're wanting combat tactics against genestealers, banshees, bloodletters, and so on.
How does Combat Tactics help you there? You need somebody to shoot at the marines for them to be allowed to fail a morale check.
+1 attack base, Counter Attack, 2 Special Weapons, cheap CC wargear (Standard, Wulfen), cheaper. Grey Hunters are just so much better.
Heavy Weapons in a Tactical Squad is a waste. Am I really going to sit my 170 point unit on the back table edge so one guy can fire one puny little heavy weapon? That's totally point inefficient. Tactical Squads are garbage in assault. Since their role is close range shooting, they'll often get assaulted and 10 attacks won't even scare a guardsmen squad. Not to mention, the most common enemy in the game (other space marines) laugh at bolter fire. Combat Squads just gives you two smaller versions of the same crappy squad. What is 5 marines with a flamer going to accomplish? What about one missile launcher and four bullet catchers?
Tactical Squads are bad, real bad.
I would say, just give Tactical Squads a close combat weapon, so they're slightly better in assault, and the ability to take either two assault (melta, flamer, plasma) or two heavy weapons in a ten man squad.
Marines can loose combat and take a morale test to break from combat, which they can elect to fail. Combat Tactics allows them to get away whereas Grey Hunters will likely stay in combat until they're wiped out. On the other end, Combat Squads means that you only sit half of your 170 unit to fire the ML, while the other half (with the flamer and the Sarge with 3 attacks mind you) go about in a razorback for some close-quarter goodness. A ML combat squad with 4 normal marines can sit on an objective for a rather cheap cost, as well as it lets you have 12 scoring units max. Devastators have higher cost MLs and cannot claim objectives.
37886
Post by: Goddard
If they decided to buff Tactical Squads, I'm not complaining. I think they are fine how they are though.
9892
Post by: Flashman
DarknessEternal wrote:Flashman wrote:So nobody likes taking Tactical Squads,
You should amend this to something like "So I don't like taking Tactical Squads despite how excellent they are."
Actually, I do like Tactical Squads, but I never see people use more than a squad or two at most. But maybe it was an over generalisation.
19247
Post by: Ed_Bodger
The only amendment I would like to see for tactical squad is the following
wargear: Boltgun, boltpistol, CCW, Frag + Krak
No increase in points necessary I just think this would round them out a bit as one attack in cc or 2 on the charge is a bit pathetic.
For the record IMO Grey Hunters are better in every respect I don't like combat squads apart from in BA and a heavy weapon is not a great asset when it restricts half your squads firepower or more. However I respect Melissa's opinion that Tac squads can be better I suppose it is down to your style of play.
Tac squads are great but I believe my earlier amendment would allow them to fulfill a little bit more of their potential. There is a case however for allowing them to take two special weapons rather than 1+ a heavy weapon but that would make them too much like SW and BA. Although it works with the fluff.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Ed_Bodger wrote:wargear: Boltgun, boltpistol, CCW, Frag + Krak
Only true Marines who follow the ways of choas should have this option.
Loyalist Marines are arguably good enough already, certainly for the points, and certainly compared to most other armies troop choices.
34680
Post by: yeenoghu
If they got ccws, or split fire, the GreyHunters wouldn't be superior for cheaper, which is against the theme of their codex, so that will never fly.
I don't mind tac squads, I love them in fact, despite their cost showing the age of the codex a bit. They do alright, just not as exceptional as GH. They do expecially alright with razorbacks for the assault half of the squad, and they are pretty cool to spam in low point games. It was fun to throw 50 marines and a HQ against 1000 points and not be outnumbered for once.
33048
Post by: Chinchilla
I think marines should have ccw... I mean, gray hunters have everything smurf has + ccw and counterattack, and is still cheaper!!! So why wouldn't they have ccw? They would still be more expensive (especially with sarge)...
But nevertheless, I love tac squads... With proper support, they can do marvelous things... I never use them same way, and in every game they do something to return their points (if nothing less, they are scoring)...
34439
Post by: Formosa
me and Mellisia do agree that Tac sqauds are good.
we just diagree that GH are better, it really does bog down to this, Tac sqauds can do everything but nothing excels, this is why they are good.
If you give Tac sqauds a extra cc weapon, where does that leave Assault marines?
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
In the same boat as Chaos Raptors. One that's going downstream at mach 5.
25543
Post by: TyraelVladinhurst
simple way to make tac squads better, give them auto cannons
36588
Post by: Footsloggin
TyraelVladinhurst wrote:simple way to make tac squads better, give them auto cannons
I agree with this, if my Tactical Squads could take Autocannons, I would take them in every squad and use until my hearts content.
34439
Post by: Formosa
damn... such a simple idea but bloody brilliant.
hats of to ya TyraelVladinhurst
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
Flashman wrote:Actually, I do like Tactical Squads, but I never see people use more than a squad or two at most. But maybe it was an over generalisation.
You see people using scouts? In a competative context?
25543
Post by: TyraelVladinhurst
*bows* thank you, seemed like the easiest solution
36588
Post by: Footsloggin
You must be a tactical genius... *looks at "5000 Points of IG"* TYRAEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL!!
25543
Post by: TyraelVladinhurst
Footsloggin wrote:You must be a tactical genius... *looks at "5000 Points of IG"* TYRAEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELL!!
lol, i make Horus blush when it comes to being a tactical genius
34680
Post by: yeenoghu
The problem isn't that tactical squads are bad, its that other armies are imbalanced comparatively, with more options, less rigid structure, and cheaper better variations and force structures. Fix tactical marines by fixing the broken divergent lists that make SM seem weak.
34565
Post by: TheRedArmy
yeenoghu wrote:The problem isn't that tactical squads are bad, its that other armies are imbalanced comparatively, with more options, less rigid structure, and cheaper better variations and force structures. Fix tactical marines by fixing the broken divergent lists that make SM seem weak.
Amen. Beautifully written. Remember the new Tyranid codex? How nice and shiny and awesome it was?
Yeah. Tyranids are REAL good now.
It's the same thing - the new shiny stuff gets outclassed by newer, shinier stuff. I mean, the IoM.
23257
Post by: Praxiss
I wish CSM squads were as good as normal Tac marines.
No-one has mentioned ATSKNF yet either. they get that on top of free ML's etc.
33048
Post by: Chinchilla
Well must say ATSKNF rarely works for me, because if they start falling back from assault, they will never get 6'' away from enemy:p
But works great for shooty combat-squaded part of tac squad, since even if there is just ML left and fails ld, he can still regroup and be scoring 
23257
Post by: Praxiss
Why not? 6" over 2D6. The marine players i play almost ALWAYS get beyond the 6" barrier.
34680
Post by: yeenoghu
Praxiss wrote:I wish CSM squads were as good as normal Tac marines.
No-one has mentioned ATSKNF yet either. they get that on top of free ML's etc.
If I recall you get more flexibility with CSM, none of this must-have-ten-models-to-get-a-weapon-upgrade frustration, and a lot more variations for equipping the squad. Free MLs go along with the mandatory sergeants at +10 points a pop, and the fact that we cost a point more than others. I would gladly pay 10 points for a ML if I had the option not to have to pay 10 points for an extra chainsword attack.
33616
Post by: Xyon
My personal thoughts about tac squads run along the lines of: first 5 marines can choose a flamer/melta/plasma for 5 points or a heavy weapon at the pts they are now but maybe +5 or 10 pts, second group of 5 can choose a heavy weapon at the pts they are now. Reduce the cost of some upgrades for the sgt. Like 10 pts for plasma pistol/power weapon, 5 pts for combi weapons and storm bolter, 20 for power fist. Maybe add an option so that maybe... 3 marines can swap boltgun for storm bolter at 5 pts each. Adding in heavy flamer/autocannon options would be pretty cool too.
25543
Post by: TyraelVladinhurst
Xyon wrote:My personal thoughts about tac squads run along the lines of: first 5 marines can choose a flamer/melta/plasma for 5 points or a heavy weapon at the pts they are now but maybe +5 or 10 pts, second group of 5 can choose a heavy weapon at the pts they are now. Reduce the cost of some upgrades for the sgt. Like 10 pts for plasma pistol/power weapon, 5 pts for combi weapons and storm bolter, 20 for power fist. Maybe add an option so that maybe... 3 marines can swap boltgun for storm bolter at 5 pts each. Adding in heavy flamer/autocannon options would be pretty cool too.
or just let them replace their missile launcher for an autocannon for the same cost and replace their heavy bolter for a heavy flamer also for the same cost
34680
Post by: yeenoghu
I wouldn't mind if they didn't have to have a full 10 marines in order to be allowed to take any special/heavy weapon. That would make me happy. I could see the free ML/flamer for a full squad of 10 (like grey hunters second special), but I would like to run less than 10 for points reasons occasionally and not be stuck with just overpriced sarge and bolters. Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind sarge being an option for only a 10 man squad, instead of mandatory even in a 5 man squad.
29408
Post by: Melissia
yeenoghu wrote:Praxiss wrote:I wish CSM squads were as good as normal Tac marines.
No-one has mentioned ATSKNF yet either. they get that on top of free ML's etc.
If I recall you get more flexibility with CSM, none of this must-have-ten-models-to-get-a-weapon-upgrade frustration, and a lot more variations for equipping the squad. Free MLs go along with the mandatory sergeants at +10 points a pop, and the fact that we cost a point more than others. I would gladly pay 10 points for a ML if I had the option not to have to pay 10 points for an extra chainsword attack.
What do you mean extra? You basically get that for free with how undercosted tacticals are for what they get.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
yeenoghu wrote:Free MLs go along with the mandatory sergeants at +10 points a pop, and the fact that we cost a point more than others.
Champions in Chaos Marine squads are +15 points (although they are not mandatory), so quit yer jibba jabba.
38926
Post by: Exergy
Formosa wrote:nothing, Tac sqauds are good, but not great.
Here is the kick in the teeth though, Grey hunters have CA, multiple special weapons acute senses and 2 cc weapons... all for LESS points than a normal marine, who has NONE of those skills, internet fanboy junk is the SW codex.
by GW reasoning my Tac marine should be 13pts
Tactical squads are fine, good but not great. Grey Hunters are too good, they need the nerf stick rather than tac squads needing a buff stick.
28390
Post by: nevertellmetheodds
People saying tactical squads are bad don't know how wrong they are until they play guard and have a 10 man squad rapid firing at there unit. Personally i think they are just fine.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Tacticals get a better deal for it's wargear Overall, but whether or not you want these deals is another matter entirely.
Comparing a CSM Squad numbering 10 with a ML and Flamer to a max tactical squad (basically they both have the same weapons in this case):
The CSM squad comes to 180 points (15 for the champ, 5 for the flamer and 10 for the ML) and has 2 CCWs, but if broken will flee off the table, can be caught and destroyed in a sweep advance, and can never elect to flee combat.
The Tact Marine squad comes to 170 points (ML, Flamer and Sarge comes free), gets only 1 attack each (minus the sarge, who may have 3 due to 2 CCWs and sarge status) but will always rally and can elect to disengage from combat. They can also split into two squads.
This changes when you want to split them up into small units of 5. Ideally for Tacts, you HAVE to buy a full squad or pay extra points as a penalty. However this means you get a heavy weapon and a special weapon, whereas a CSM squad can easily split down into 2 MSUs, each possessing a special weapon, for a very cheap set of points. Grey Hunters does this even better as they can have more special weapons and additional rules. Tacticals do have quite a few perks going for them though: they can give you scoring "minidevastator" squads in the form of combat squaded MLs while the sarge goes off in his razorback with another 4 marines armed with a melta gun to go pop tanks, and they do this very cheaply compared to the alternatives (Two CSM squads doing this with one armed with a ML and one armed with a Melta comes to a total of 170 points, not including the rhino, the same as the tactical squad, but they lack the sarge/champ, who the marines basically get for free and can take additional tankbusting weapons).
34172
Post by: Magister187
I honestly think the issue most people (including myself) have with Tactical Squads is that, despite their ironic name, they are very tactically inflexible.
Yes, at full size they aren't terrible compared to their direct counterparts (Grey Hunters and CSM Squads respectively), the issue comes down to tactical flexibility. You can have small dedicated units, or slightly larger units. You can have a Wolf Guard (Champion), or not. You can field only a couple of small troops choices and leave plenty of room for other toys, or you can field a couple of solid rock units.
Now, have you ever seen a competitive Codex Space Marines army without 2-4 full tactical squads? Probably not. Certainly not one with 2x 5 man tactical squads. And I would highly doubt you would use 6 Tactical Squads... nope, 2-4 depending on army (usually 2 or 3, sometimes 4). Always full 10 man. You end up sinking somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of your points on troops that in the end have no really effective role in your army.
Contrast that with nearly every other 5th or 4th troop choice, where you at least will find a few options with what you want from your troops. MSU? Defined Roles? Huge numbers of cheap dudes? Tactical Squads provide none of those options (MSU with Combat squads really doesn't count. You end up with a sole heavy weapon in one squad, a sole special weapon in another and only 1 vehicle. Still, the best way to use a Tactical Squad however).
I just don't see the options to adjust them to the strategy of your army.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
They're tactically flexible on the tabletop, but options wise you kinda have to run them one way (full squad with heavy and special weapons).
29408
Post by: Melissia
I think a lot of the complaints people have about them is more to do with the fact that C:SM is a shooty codex at heart. and the players want an assaulty army.
34172
Post by: Magister187
No, its just that the kind of shooty tactical squads tend to do, lends itself to being assaulted, which means having the unit be weak in assault (which its really not compared to other weak assault units) hurts it more then say, the terribly combat ability of Devastator Squads (lol, surprise, same combat ability!). Having to get 12" from your foe to do any real damage means you ARE going to get assaulted unless you manage to bring them so low you can beat them in CC.
Anyway, as people have said, they aren't a bad unit, they just limit army design. Why do you think one of the most competitive C:SM armies doesn't use any (uses Bikes instead). You just get to adjust your army to better handle the meta. Tacticals, as they are right now, only go so far in either direction (anti-horde effectiveness or anti-mech effectiveness), and cost the same as a full dedicated troops unit from another dex.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Actually they tend to cost less for what they get unless you use solely Marine codices.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Best way to improve them: stop making broken marine codexes to compete with the basic marine codex.
33048
Post by: Chinchilla
What you miss is flexibility of tailoring squad as you like it... You wont take only 5 marines (or rarely will), certainly not 6 or 7... But when you talk about flexibility, you can't go more flexible than tacs at tabletop... They can do literally anything, from tank hunting with PF sarge and granades, ML guarding points, anti-horde flaming to melta hunting squads... It depends on wargear...
The way I field them is PF, combi-flamer and flamer (Usually I drive with rhino to infantry, burn the hell out of them FROM rhino, and then next round disembark, pistol shots, flamers and charge... Works against anything... While ML part of squads guards objective).... And wouldn't trade them for anything... Not to mention survivability of even small squads... I had lots of games where my 5-man ML sqad was wiped to 1 marine, who hid in 3'' of objective still holding it...
With tacs, there are no single two matches where they repeat their role... Every army, every battle and different strategy, they will have new role... They don't excel in anything, but being little above average in everything makes them dangerous because they can use their above-average skill to attack opponents weakness...
You just have to play them right... And they certainly don't suck then...
34680
Post by: yeenoghu
Why the heck would anyone put a heavy weapon in a squad with an assault weapon other than that is the only option? What you call tactically flexible actually means they can do 2 different things that in no way overlap each other. So essentially you are doing one thing or the other. Split into combat squads and get stuck with low numbers if assaulted, keep them all together and you are either using them one way or the other but never both.
Also the only reason you don't see competative armies of SM without them is because, well there's only one alternative and they are lame.
I like my tactical squads, but I am not deluded into thinking they are 'flexible' at all, not compared to the amount of leeway about squad composition seen in every other SM variant army.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Quite frankly while a Tactical squad does have some contradictory choices, bottom line is that you will never sit ther thinking "Man I really wish I had *insert weapon or wargear name here*". In a pinch they really can handle anything. This is only good for beginners though, since they tend to not know what the hell they're doing. For veteran gamers, you kinda want a specific purpose for each unit, accomplish that purpose and be done with it. Compare 10 tactical marines to, say, banshees. There's no way the Tact squad can match the sheer horde and MEQ-killing output of the Banshees, but when faced with a Dreadnought, Leman Russ or Raider, a Tactical squad will stand a much better chance at blowing it up than the banshee, who has literally no chance. Similarly, a squad of fire Dragons will fry a MC in a turn or two, but charge a horde of 30 termagaunts or hormagaunts at them, and they're pretty screwed. Tactical squads will not be as good killing that beastie, but they can do it, and they certainly wont be in for the anal raping the Fire Dragons are in that case.
*I'm deliberately using Eldar Examples as they're the perfect example of "pure purpose for a single unit".
34172
Post by: Magister187
yeenoghu wrote:Why the heck would anyone put a heavy weapon in a squad with an assault weapon other than that is the only option? What you call tactically flexible actually means they can do 2 different things that in no way overlap each other. So essentially you are doing one thing or the other. Split into combat squads and get stuck with low numbers if assaulted, keep them all together and you are either using them one way or the other but never both.
Also the only reason you don't see competative armies of SM without them is because, well there's only one alternative and they are lame.
I like my tactical squads, but I am not deluded into thinking they are 'flexible' at all, not compared to the amount of leeway about squad composition seen in every other SM variant army.
Pretty Much.
Just the tiniest bit of overlap in purpose between the heavy/special weapon slot. Consider:
A tactical squad that numbers 10 marines, 1 marine can replace his bolter or bolt pistol with one of the following:
Flamer for 0 points.
Melta Gun for 5 Points
Plasma Gun for 10 Points
Autocannon or Heavy Bolter for 15 Points.
In addition, 1 marine may replace they bolter with one of the following:
Missile Launcher or Multi Melta for 0 Points.
Plasma Cannon or Heavy Flamer for 10 Points.
Lascannon for 15 Points.
With this setup, you could field 2 heavy weapons (though one is a simple autocannon or Heavy Bolter). Or you could field 2 assault weapons (though only a Heavy Flamer as a second option). Now you have true tactical flexibility. You can take a Melta Gun and a Heavy Flamer and play them aggressively, with enough firepower to deal with a horde or a Land Raider. You can play them with a Heavy Bolter and Missile Launcher to deal with infantry while plopped on a backfield objective. You could alternately give it an autocannon, for a solid transport hunting squad. Plasma Gun/Plasma Cannon lets you tear apart Termies or MC's.
This makes the tactical squad ACTUALLY able to handle a variety of tasks.Right now you get a limited squad that can kinda do one job or the other, but at pretty significantly reduced levels then other squads can.
2548
Post by: jmurph
Tacs not having a CCW is just silly. They are supposed to be flexible and forgetting your chainsword is anything but. All colors of base Space Marine (whether they be spikey or not) should be carrying Bolter/BP/CCW and grenades. Otherwise they are fine. Adding in autocannons or assault cannons as a heavy weapon choice for them and devs seems reasonable, but GW seems to keep the AssCans on Termies so that they have a role. A squad that doesn't take a heavy weapon should be able to take a second assault weapon.
Comparing to CSM is not a good idea- that codex has its own issues (such as overpriced Aspiring Champs!).
40557
Post by: Der Blaue Wolf
The main trouble with any sort of comparrisson is that codices always get better: Blood Angels is better than Space Wolves, SW is better than Standard Marines, and Marines are better than chaos.
But at least Matt Ward kept tacticle marines the same (apart from red thirst) in C:BA, and even for a Blood Angels commander, they are some of the most useful units you can have, especially against any form of hoard army. I now almost always field at least one, which seems to throw most opponants: Blood Angels with tact marines are rare.
The main reason why I might not take them is because of Sternguard actually: I can usually make up two troops easily, so the (admittedly more expensive) sternguard make a lot of sense. The ability to take all the same options and more is nice, as is the special ammunition.
As such, it's not so much that TMs are over-priced in general, it's just that unfortunately much stuff that fills the same/equivalent role is underpriced. But compare them point to point for, say, guardsmen, and they will easily come out on top: such you don't have as much firepower, but you still churn out a fair bit.
38926
Post by: Exergy
Magister187 wrote:
Contrast that with nearly every other 5th or 4th troop choice, where you at least will find a few options with what you want from your troops. MSU? Defined Roles? Huge numbers of cheap dudes? Tactical Squads provide none of those options (MSU with Combat squads really doesn't count. You end up with a sole heavy weapon in one squad, a sole special weapon in another and only 1 vehicle. Still, the best way to use a Tactical Squad however).
Because taking a look at DE troops you have wyches(great assault unit) or you have KW which have less options than Tac Squads. They can be 5-20 with or without sarg. They can have 1 special weapon per squad and 1 heavy weapon per 10, all of them but the splinter cannon being overpriced. They dont have any grenades, they dont even have pistols, so you have to choose shoot or assault in n assault army. Just a few more options might have made them so much more flexible.
Or Orks, you can have slugga boys or shoota boys. Same cost, not much difference. One squad in the army can have an armor save. They got all kinds of options.
How about eldar guardians. Their heavy weapon platform synergizes so well with the rest of the squad that has 12" guns.
34680
Post by: yeenoghu
As you said, DE have wyches (assault) AND warriors (shooty) both as troop choices.
Orks have much more variance actually, as a 30 boy blobmob is played a lot differently than a 10 boy mob, and sluggas vs shootas means you have a choice of a defined role. You aren't forced to take half sluggas half shootas and split their assigned role so as to be not good at either but capable of both.
Eldar Guardians cost half of what SMs cost, and should be noted, can also be made into cc troops and use assault weapons instead of weapon platforms.
All three of your case-in-point examples are more flexible in how they are set up for a defined role than a marine tac squad.
33048
Post by: Chinchilla
I still think they're ok... Only thing I'd add is that you can take flamer for 5-man squad:p
29408
Post by: Melissia
yeenoghu wrote:sluggas vs shootas means you have a choice of a defined role.
... you don't know orks very well.
7551
Post by: Fexor
Wow I see alot of SW whine/hate going on in here.
I mean if you compare the units to each other Tacticals to Grey Hunters then yes point for point Grey Hunters do come out on top.
However, if you look at the codex as a whole, you know, as they were intended to be. you'll notice that SW don't have "every" option available to C:SM.
Do we get cheap TH+SS Termies, not really, how about Sternguard 2+ Poinsoned weapons, nope. The codex's differ to provide a different play experience. So what, that when you compare one squad to squad one is a bit better, that's the variance in the codex and play style, otherwise what the hell would be the point of playing SW if they're EXACTLY THE SAME as SM? BORING!!!
As for SM tacticals, give them an option for a second heavy weapon, but not at a reduced price and no Autocannon, otherwise why on earth would you take Terminators if I can get a cheaper version with a 3+ save vs. a 2+ save.
33048
Post by: Chinchilla
But you do get your devastators with ml's for 115pts, while we pay for exact same thing 150pts, you have 2 attacks on default and can take 5-man squad with free flamer and still you are cheaper for one pts... All the vehicles are the same cost and stats as SM vehicles... So only difference is in terminators:p
And it's not the point that you should be he same... Point is that you shouldn't be better than vanilla in every way... Try to find out single example that SM can do (competitive one) and SW can't do it better...
20901
Post by: Luke_Prowler
There's honestly nothing wrong with tac squads. They just require more thinking to use, unlike Grey Hunters who are a big (cheap) bludgeon to beat things over the head.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Meh, they still get more for their points than every non-Marine codex out there as far as infantry goes.
8944
Post by: Jackmojo
I like the suggestion for a close combat weapon (as the lack makes them a cherry target for specialist assault troops in any army and thus not very good at holding objectives which is their primary function). A better choice would have been the old true grit rule, but since that's gone the way of the dodo this is the easier choice. EDIT: on further thought, forget the close combat weapon, counter attack would help achieve the improved defensive stats more along the lines of what I am thinking (although it is still dumb they get no chainswords)
Additionally, rather then changing the classic tactical squad image (10 marines, one special, one heavy) I would love to see suspensors on Space Marine heavy weapons, cribbing from the old psycannon and Deathwatch rules I'd let the heavy weapons fire with their range halved as assault weapons (devastators might become a more valid option with this as well).
Jack
38926
Post by: Exergy
yeenoghu wrote:As you said, DE have wyches (assault) AND warriors (shooty) both as troop choices.
Orks have much more variance actually, as a 30 boy blobmob is played a lot differently than a 10 boy mob, and sluggas vs shootas means you have a choice of a defined role. You aren't forced to take half sluggas half shootas and split their assigned role so as to be not good at either but capable of both.
Eldar Guardians cost half of what SMs cost, and should be noted, can also be made into cc troops and use assault weapons instead of weapon platforms.
All three of your case-in-point examples are more flexible in how they are set up for a defined role than a marine tac squad.
seems to me that C: SM has another troop choice with lots of options.... O right scouts.
34172
Post by: Magister187
Exergy wrote:yeenoghu wrote:As you said, DE have wyches (assault) AND warriors (shooty) both as troop choices.
Orks have much more variance actually, as a 30 boy blobmob is played a lot differently than a 10 boy mob, and sluggas vs shootas means you have a choice of a defined role. You aren't forced to take half sluggas half shootas and split their assigned role so as to be not good at either but capable of both.
Eldar Guardians cost half of what SMs cost, and should be noted, can also be made into cc troops and use assault weapons instead of weapon platforms.
All three of your case-in-point examples are more flexible in how they are set up for a defined role than a marine tac squad.
seems to me that C: SM has another troop choice with lots of options.... O right scouts.
Really? I was pretty sure C: SM only had 1 other troops choice, with few useful options which cost almost the same as their other one, but with greatly reduced stats... O right scouts.
Also, Autocannons l= Assault Cannon. You wouldn't be stepping on the toes of Terminators at all (in fact, the only things with Autocannons in the SM codex are Dreadnoughts and Predators.
Melissa, either you are A) comparing tactical squads to exclusively non-5th edition codices, in which case you aren't really giving them a fair shake, or B) are ignoring that every other 5th edition codex has either more troops choices filling more roles (which is what I and many others are advocating for Tactical squads, just allow them to fill roles) or simply superior troops then Tactical squads.
SW: GH squads are simply better. More narrow role, but cheaper and with better upgrade options.
BA: Assault squads to fulfill assault role, Tac or Scouts to fulfill ranged support role (though typically this is done through their expanded FA or HS options at a discount)
Nids: Tervigons as troops options for objective holding/support. Genestealers for assault. Gaunts for cannon fodder. Shooting not their strong point in general, and not from troops.
IG: 3 different troops selections with a myriad of roles. Vets bring 3 special weapons, HWS bring 3 heavy weapons, Power blobs bring CC punch. Any role needing filled, generally for a reasonable price.
DE: 3 different troops selections with different roles. Fast assault squad (wyches), special or heavy weapon squads (Warriors), Tough assault squad (Wracks). Again, much of their ranged support is supplied cheaply through other slots, so the troops role is slanted towards assault.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
The Tactical Squad entry should read (changes underlined):
Tactical Squad........80 points (15x5 + 5 for the Sgt)
Options: May include up to 5 additional space marines: +15 points per model.
Wargear:
- Power Armor
- Bolter
- Bolt Pistol
- Close Combat weapon
- Frag & Krak grenades
For every 5 models, one Space Marine may replace his boltgun with one of the following:
- Flamer (free)
- Meltagun (+5 pts)
- Plasma gun (+10 pts)
- Heavy bolter, missile launcher, or Multi-melta (free)
- Lascannon (+ 10 pts)
- Plasma Cannon (+ 5 pts)
*The rest is the same*
Basically, this gives them the opportunity to take 2x special OR 2x heavy weapons, making them TACTICALLY FLEXIBLE. They also should be priced similarly to Grey Hunters and CSM, and like every other Marine, come with Bolter, Bolt pistol, and CCW.
Still not as good as SW but at least there's a reason to take them. BA can get rage (hence the cost), SW can get a ton of specific upgrades, CSM have higher LD and have access to 2 specials and marks, etc.
34439
Post by: Formosa
sorry nuggz, but hell no 
2 FREE HB/ ML or MM... no... bad nuggz... tellin on you
1 Free, 2nd costs
like this (example)
HB Free/5pts
ML Free/10 pts
Lascannon 10pts/15pts
2 free HW/ SW is craaazy lol
the CC weapon aint a bad idea though
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Formosa wrote:sorry nuggz, but hell no
2 FREE HB/ ML or MM... no... bad nuggz... tellin on you
1 Free, 2nd costs
like this (example)
HB Free/5pts
ML Free/10 pts
Lascannon 10pts/15pts
2 free HW/ SW is craaazy lol
the CC weapon aint a bad idea though
Meh. Compared to other things out there, it really isn't bad at all. I wrote it that way to keep misinterpretations to a minimum. It's 2 heavy, 2 special, or 1 heavy and 1 special.
BTW Grey Hunters can get 2 free Special Weapons without a problem, are cheaper, have CA, and a bunch of other upgrades. And they don't need heavy weapons because they have the cheapest ML platform in the game elsewhere in the codex, with very little competition for HS slots.
20774
Post by: pretre
Hehe 10 Marines, 2 ML, Sgt with PF/Combi about 200 points. One squad with BP/CCW/Bolter in the Rhino, 2 ML in the backfield. Kinda wrong.
Drastic increase in usefulness above what they are now. I think that is a little too far.
34597
Post by: Lord_Osma
I run tactical squads, but usually I don't split into 2 combat squads in my BA army. Think I may start doing this and using a transport to get the sarge and marine with the and melta/flamer up close and leaving the ML/PC back to fire at armour.
Otherwise I feel like the squads have those 2 rolls and the rapid fire rules keep them from being truly versitile. If thry could fire and assault in the same turn that would be a big improvement.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
pretre wrote:Hehe 10 Marines, 2 ML, Sgt with PF/Combi about 200 points. One squad with BP/CCW/Bolter in the Rhino, 2 ML in the backfield. Kinda wrong.
Drastic increase in usefulness above what they are now. I think that is a little too far.
225 w/ a Rhino. Net effect: 2 static missile launchers and a scoring Rhino w/ a hidden fist. The 2 MLs can fire at 1 target.
Hmm let's see...
230 pts for 2 5-man Long Fang packs, 4 ML each. For 5 points more, that's 8 missile launchers that can fire at 4 different targets. lol! Of course, it's not scoring but SW have far better Troops choices for that.
What I'm trying to show you is just how much you would have to buff tactical squads to make them competitive choices when compared with 5th edition Marine codices.
20774
Post by: pretre
Compare scoring to scoring, Nuggz.
225 (off the top of my head) gets you 10 GH, Meltagunx2, Rhino, MotW, Banner
Better close in, but only one scoring unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and Tactical squads are a 5th Edition Marine Codex.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
34439
Post by: Formosa
i see what you mean nuggz, and i see what your trying to explain too.
if tactical sqauds have to do crazy or stupid things just to come IN LINE with the other codexii troops choices... then they have been designed wrong and need a long hard look at.
ps... SW is the Daemon book from fantasy, its stupid and ott... but cool
20774
Post by: pretre
What 'crazy or stupid' things do Tacticals have to do?
With current rules: 10 Tacticals, Rhino or RB, Combi on Sgt, ML and Meltagun. Combat Squad. Yay. What's wrong with that?
I have one ML and 5 man squad on home objective and one mobile squad with two meltas and 5 bodies in the field.
That is a good thing.
34439
Post by: Formosa
they dont "have" to do anything crazy as is.
im talking about, if you want to make them eqaul to SW or BA. that when you have to radically change the SM tac sqaud, prob useing some of the sugestions here
20774
Post by: pretre
I think that's your problem, flawed premise. My contention is that they are fine as is. Combat Squad and Tactics, along with long range weapons make them pretty decent. Not to mention the whole rest of the codex.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Che-Vito wrote:
Can they be knocked out by specialist units? Yeah. But against the rank and file of most armies, they'll come out on top.
Really though? Let's look at what you can get for the price of a barebones Tactical Squad in a Rhino (205 pts).
Let's see...
Guard:
Vet squad with 3 Melta Guns in a Chimera: 155. Cheaper, and with a better transport and better access to special weapons. Sure, they aren't as good in H2H, but Tactical Marines aren't really so hot in H2H anyway.
CSM:
Min-max PM squads are 170, 5 guys in a Rhino with 2 meltaguns. Cheaper, fearless, shootier (double Special Weapons), defensive grenades, bolter bolt pistol and CCW. One less initiative. Meh.
We've already been over Blood Angels and SW. Both are obviously better.
Orks:
28 Boyz with a Nob with a Power Klaw is 203 points. Less mobile, but a FAR higher body count, better in H2H, you have to kill almost 30 Boyz before you get to the Fist and it's fearless until it takes 19 casualties. The crappy save hardly comes into play as cover is everywhere in 5th edition, and unless you're riding the shortbus, you'll spread them out so templates hardly effect them.
Tau: Firewarriors and Kroot both suck but this much is well known.
Eldar: 10 Dire Avengers with an Exarch w/ Bladestorm are generally a *different* choice, not necessarily better or worse. But generally they're more mobile, pack more of a one-hit-wonder (rapid fire vs. bladestorm), and if in Serpents, are far more survivable.
Dark Eldar: Again, different. The whole squad has poisoned weapons, though. Ugly. Plus you can choose between warriors, wyches, etc. Marines have Tactical Marines, and scouts, which are both very mediocre.
Nids: 30 Hormogaunts costs less than that Tactical Squad. Again different but not necessarily worse.
What we see is that Tactical Marines are not necessarily better than Xenos troop choices. They're either markedly different, or markedly worse.
20774
Post by: pretre
The difference is that a barebones tac squad will have 5xGuys with a Flamer and 5xGuys with a ML.
In a lot of ways, that is more flexible and useful than a lot of other options.
They'll demech the other troop choice (none of the ones you listed has long range fire), shoot up the troops at max range and finish off at 24". Plus they are two units, so are resistant to things that take out one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is also why you can't take troop choices in a vaccuum and have to look at the whole codex.
No one is going to run just 30 boyz walking against marines. (okay, not unless they are doing green tide) Same with Dire Avengers without a transport. Just as no one is going to run an HQ and 6x Tac Marine squads.
Units are balanced around the codex not their entry alone.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
34172
Post by: Magister187
pretre wrote:The difference is that a barebones tac squad will have 5xGuys with a Flamer and 5xGuys with a ML.
In a lot of ways, that is more flexible and useful than a lot of other options.
And in a lot of ways less flexible, as you are limited to 1 special and 1 heavy, despite the stategy of the rest of your army. How useful is footslogging 5 man team of marines with a flamer when you are a gunline army? What about an immobile Plasma Cannon when you are trying to engage your enemy in h2h asap? Neither are optimal, right? and yet you are forced to take them with a tactical squad. Not to mention to get ANY use out of both weapon, you have to greatly sacrifice survivability, because even 5 power armored troops die as fast as 10 guardsman (guardsman get beaten up because of AP, but Space Marines have to deal with a bigger downside from hidden power weapons/fists; basically a wash).
pretre wrote:They'll demech the other troop choice (none of the ones you listed has long range fire), shoot up the troops at max range and finish off at 24". Plus they are two units, so are resistant to things that take out one.
Single Missile launchers that cost 90 points aren't demeching anything reliably or efficiently. And two small units are almost always weaker then one larger unit, though ATSKNF mitigates some of it, wiping out an entire squad on the first turn of CC. Forcing saves onto important models earlier, etc. Also of note, only one has a sergeant for Ld 9.
pretre wrote:
This is also why you can't take troop choices in a vaccuum and have to look at the whole codex.
That is why you don't. Tactical marines synergize with absolutely ZERO successful competitive tactics in the Vanilla codex. One even discards them in favor of bikes because they work better for their armies strategy.
pretre wrote:
No one is going to run just 30 boyz walking against marines. (okay, not unless they are doing green tide) Same with Dire Avengers without a transport. Just as no one is going to run an HQ and 6x Tac Marine squads.
Good point, no one is going to run troops in a way that does not synergize with the rest of their army. Why didn't anyone else care to mention that...
pretre wrote:Units are balanced around the codex not their entry alone.
and in this case balanced poorly. That is the crux of the argument, not that they are a bad unit. They just do not blend with any of the other elements in the army, at all. Look at how Blood Angels and Space Wolves use their troops to support their strategy. Look at the customization options of the IG codex. Look at the choices you have if running DE (and to a lesser extent Nids). In all of those cases you can ether pick the best troop for the job, customize your troop to perform a specific role well, or rely on your troops to support a theme that the rest of your army list balance out. IMO Tactical Squads can do none of those things effectively.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Magister187 wrote:Melissa, either you are A) comparing tactical squads to exclusively non-5th edition codices
And you're comparing them exclusively to SM codices, so we're even.
Take ten IG vets with carapace for example, which are ten points apiece. Add in an ML and flamer for fifteen more points to account for the free ML and flamer tacs get, raising them to 11.5 points per model. So, what do tacs get over gets for those 5.5 points? +1 WS, +1S, +1T, +1I, +1Ld, Power Armor, Bolters instead of lasguns, Bolt Pistols for assaulting, ATSKNF and Combat Tactics for leadership (guard gets Orders, which aren't as reliable), and Combat Squadding, which makes that flamer/ ML vastly more useful. The only thing the vet squad has over the tactical is its ability to take more special weapons, but even that is countered by the fact that Tacticals get FAR more bonus in stats alone (nevermind special rules) than the difference in points value between the two units-- arguably twice as much stats and wargear as the differnce between points cost.
Tacticals don't suck, it's the other Marine codices that are overpowered with their troops choices.
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Melissia wrote:Magister187 wrote:Melissa, either you are A) comparing tactical squads to exclusively non-5th edition codices
And you're comparing them exclusively to SM codices, so we're even.
Take ten IG vets with carapace for example, which are ten points apiece. Add in an ML and flamer for fifteen more points to account for the free ML and flamer tacs get, raising them to 11.5 points per model. So, what do tacs get over gets for those 5.5 points? +1 WS, +1S, +1T, +1I, +1Ld, Power Armor, Bolters instead of lasguns, Bolt Pistols for assaulting, ATSKNF and Combat Tactics for leadership (guard gets Orders, which aren't as reliable), and Combat Squadding, which makes that flamer/ ML vastly more useful. The only thing the vet squad has over the tactical is its ability to take more special weapons, but even that is countered by the fact that Tacticals get FAR more bonus in stats alone (nevermind special rules) than the difference in points value between the two units-- arguably twice as much stats and wargear as the differnce between points cost.
Tacticals don't suck, it's the other Marine codices that are overpowered with their troops choices.
Putting carapace armor on Vets is basically throwing your points away. Power Armor is almost never worth it given the ubiquity of cover saves in 5th edition. If cover saves were 5+, then it may be worth it. As it is, Guardsmen will almost always have a functional 4+ anyway.
Vets are cheaper, have significantly better weapons options, access to more special weapons in a squad, and the ability to take far superior transports to the Rhino. All this in the context of having better Heavy Support and Fast Attack choices.
Tactical Marines are a slightly better speedbump, with slightly better but still crappy basic weapons. The truth is, special weapons are far more important than armor saves and basic weapons in 5th edition.
29408
Post by: Melissia
NuggzTheNinja wrote:Putting carapace armor on Vets is basically throwing your points away. Power Armor is almost never worth it given the ubiquity of cover saves in 5th edition.
Assault.
Huh, I guess you're wrong. It's almost ALWAYS worth it.
6979
Post by: Nicorex
How about this.
Tactical Squad........80 points (15x5 + 5 for the Sgt)
Options: May include up to 5 additional space marines: +15 points per model.
Wargear:
- Power Armor
- Bolter
- Bolt Pistol
- Close Combat weapon
- Frag & Krak grenades
if the unit numbers 5 models, one Space Marine may replace his boltgun with one of the following:
- Flamer (free)
- Meltagun (+5 pts)
- Plasma gun (+10 pts)
- Heavy Flamer (+10 pts)
If the unit = 10 members you make take one of the following.
- Heavy bolter, missile launcher, Heavy Flamer or Multi-melta (free)
- Lascannon (+ 10 pts)
- Plasma Cannon (+ 5 pts)
- AutoCannon (+5 pts)
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ugh.
So basically you want to just add an extra flamer to the unit at no extra cost. Or hell, one combat squad with two heavy flamers and one with a free missile launcher. I can see this going over well.
I can understand the desire for either two special weapons or two heavy weapons, but this is a bit overdoing it.
6979
Post by: Nicorex
Do you not see its ONE per 5 right???? So Yes you could make a squad with 2 heavy flamers. Or a squad with a melta gun and a HFlamer. Nowhere does that say you can take 2 heavy flamers and a missle launcher.. You cant even take two heavy weapons.. Heavy flamers are Assault class weapons, they are just named Heavy...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NM i see what you are readning.. Let me fix it...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fixed
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yes. What was previously suggested was one assault weapon per five members, and then a heavy weapon at ten members. And flamers were always free. So that would mean that people would inevitably take a ten man squad combat squadded into a sergeant and two flamers and a second squad with a missile launcher, and honestly I couldn't blame them as with that you're basically giving them five more points of wargear for free and the ability to carry a third weapon in a squad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think, honestly, the best option, if a change has to be made, is thus:
For every five members in the squad, you may take one special weapon OR one heavy weapon.
No changes in actual heavy weapons options, combat squadding still effective. So that means people could have two flamers if they wanted to, or two plasma cannons. Or two combat squads with missile launchers to camp on objectives, or a combat squad of two missile launchers and one meat shield squad with sergeant.
That would cure most of the whining about tacs, aside from the people who inevitably want tacticals to be assault-oriented and thus want to give them close combat weapons, but for them I say go pick an assault oriented codex instead.
6979
Post by: Nicorex
I actually think your idea is the best solution Mellisa. Except for the added diversity of weapon options. I would like to see as many as possible. Mabye that isnt exactly fluffy but it does give someone like me(who likes to create his/her own fluff) as much choice as I want and I think haveing lots of choices adds to the diversity of our game. You might like all your squads with plasma guns and autocannons, I like the idea of two heavy flamers, Someone else might want meta guns and plasma cannons. I dont see anything worng with that.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I don't particularly care either way, they're just Marines. Though I would rather avoid letting every single fething Marine player have twin heavy flamers in their squad, as that would step on the Sisters' toes. already bad enough Guard does it (two flamers and heavy flamer).
34439
Post by: Formosa
i dont think i explained myself properly last post.
Tac sqauds Are fine, but IF you you want to bring them in line with the other marine codexii, then they need to radically change.
despite what everyone else thinks, i run 30 marines in a gunline list,
30 tacs
15 Devs with missiles, the rest i just chop and change
i only lost once to BA, and that is because i had never played them before, and every time i play SW, they lose
Btw this is a kantor list, so its a bit better than normal in CC
34172
Post by: Magister187
Well, not to crap all over your anecdotes of awesomeness, but if you played Blood Angels or Space Wolves instead of Vanilla Marines, that same exact army would end up about 200 points less, and all your normal guys would have jump packs or more attacks/better wargear. I'm trying to focus on the C: SM strategies that are actually consider more or less uniquely theirs, which typically involves some Assault Terminators, Vulcan, Bikes, a Librarian and/or Drop Pods. In none of those lists do tactical squads do more then provide a better drop pod assault (3 useful things in pods and 2 Tac Pods) or objective camping.
And @Melissa,
I am absolutely considering other armies troops, though I am not really considering non-5th edition troops, as they are typically in need of tweaking to bring them up close to the 5th edition codices (even Tactical Squads). I just believe they dropped the ball with them and that they could have easily been easier to synergize with the overall army. I don't feel any troops choice is defined by their basic weapon or armour save, but generally by their ability to do something essential for their army, whether support it where it lacks (such as GH, Assault Squads, or Wyches), contribute to its winning strategy (Vets, Blobs, Genestealers, Warriors, GH, Assault Squads) or be incredibly tough to take off objective (Blobs, Tervigons: honorable mention of Plague Marines, who are beefcakes; Wracks).
Tactical Squads are apparently supposed to provide the last part, and while they do it better then some, they aren't nearly as durable as Plague Marines or blobs; but still are priced like they are. Wracks have almost identical stats and are 2/3 the points. Even with a Haemonculous they are cheaper then a 10 man Tac squad, though they lack any long range firepower at all (making it an easier choice to go to ground! ). And that is the only thing they provide an army; they are below average in assault and can't provide fire support.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Magister187 wrote:Well, not to crap all over your anecdotes of awesomeness, but if you played Blood Angels or Space Wolves instead of Vanilla Marines, that same exact army would end up about 200 points less, and all your normal guys would have jump packs or more attacks/better wargear. I'm trying to focus on the C: SM strategies that are actually consider more or less uniquely theirs, which typically involves some Assault Terminators, Vulcan, Bikes, a Librarian and/or Drop Pods. In none of those lists do tactical squads do more then provide a better drop pod assault (3 useful things in pods and 2 Tac Pods) or objective camping. And @Melissa, I am absolutely considering other armies troops, though I am not really considering non-5th edition troops, as they are typically in need of tweaking to bring them up close to the 5th edition codices (even Tactical Squads). I just believe they dropped the ball with them and that they could have easily been easier to synergize with the overall army. I don't feel any troops choice is defined by their basic weapon or armour save, but generally by their ability to do something essential for their army, whether support it where it lacks (such as GH, Assault Squads, or Wyches), contribute to its winning strategy (Vets, Blobs, Genestealers, Warriors, GH, Assault Squads) or be incredibly tough to take off objective (Blobs, Tervigons: honorable mention of Plague Marines, who are beefcakes; Wracks). Tactical Squads are apparently supposed to provide the last part, and while they do it better then some, they aren't nearly as durable as Plague Marines or blobs; but still are priced like they are. Wracks have almost identical stats and are 2/3 the points. Even with a Haemonculous they are cheaper then a 10 man Tac squad, though they lack any long range firepower at all (making it an easier choice to go to ground! ). And that is the only thing they provide an army; they are below average in assault and can't provide fire support.
well i never! lol rude dude. I are Teh awsomz, is not what i was saying. what i was trying to say was, if tac sqauds are so bad, how could i possibly win when taking 30? and i am a good player, as several Dakkaites can attest to, good.. not amazing. Tac sqauds do everything i want them to do, i dont expect them to shine, they are there to support the devs and termies, which they do bloody well sir! (posh english accent)
20677
Post by: NuggzTheNinja
Melissia wrote:NuggzTheNinja wrote:Putting carapace armor on Vets is basically throwing your points away. Power Armor is almost never worth it given the ubiquity of cover saves in 5th edition.
Assault.
Huh, I guess you're wrong. It's almost ALWAYS worth it.
Not really, no. The big advantage to having Tactical Marines in hand to hand is Combat Tactics: the option to run away, leaving the rest of your army free to shoot the enemy unit in your turn. You don't need power armor to do this. You simply need to not be locked in combat with that unit.
Odds are, your tactical marines are going to get facebeaten by most things that would ever want to assault them (and since they only have 2A on the charge, they're worthless for assaulting nearly anything), so when you run away, you're freeing up the enemy unit to be shot. You aren't going to be saving the squad. A pre-requisite for using Combat Tactics is that the squad can optionally fail its morale check, so it's already involved in a losing proposition.
For that purpose, Vets with Flak Armor accomplish the same thing: if they get assaulted, they typically don't last one round of H2H. I don't WANT them to last one round of H2H because they certainly aren't going to last 2. Only they've got better access to special weapons and wargear and better transports. And they're cheaper.
34172
Post by: Magister187
Formosa wrote:
well i never! lol
rude dude.
I are Teh awsomz, is not what i was saying. what i was trying to say was, if tac sqauds are so bad, how could i possibly win when taking 30?
and i am a good player, as several Dakkaites can attest to, good.. not amazing.
Tac sqauds do everything i want them to do, i dont expect them to shine, they are there to support the devs and termies, which they do bloody well sir! (posh english accent)
I didn't say tac squads were so bad, stop misrepresenting my point. Yes, the vanilla codex can win with them. Yes, they server some purposes, but they are not on par with what I believe a troop choice should give, REAL support (which, despite what you have said, I can think of no way in which 30 tactical marines would support your army in the real sense of the word; they may provide some turns of bubble wrap and short range anti-infantry, but hardly help you win or cover the weaker part of your army, assault). I just believe that, as they laid them out, they are ineffective at significantly impacting the game in any sense but "Hey, at least they aren't shooting/assaulting my good units!", or killing weakened/bad units.
29408
Post by: Melissia
What do you mean SUPPORT your army?
Troops ARE your army. The rest is supporting THEM.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Quite frankly, instead of trying to make Tact squads just as outragous as their other counterparts, maybe nerf the other ones instead. CSM squads have free CCWs because they dont have ATSKNF nor have combat tactics. For their meager reroll they have to pay extra points for an icon and have an overcosted Aspiring champ. Wolves should be bumped up a few points due to having two extra special rules on top of ATSKNF and having 2 CCWs and BAs should have their Assault Marines decrease in cost on a by-marine-basis when taking Jump Packs off rather than a flat cost decrease on a transport.
34172
Post by: Magister187
Melissia wrote:What do you mean SUPPORT your army?
Troops ARE your army. The rest is supporting THEM.
I guess we can agree to disagree then. I think your ARMY is your ARMY and that everything in it should serve a purpose of either adding to your armies effectiveness or minimizing its weaknesses. And no amount of hollering about how good they are changes the fact that Tactical squads are filler in the majority of vanilla marine lists. I am 100% honest when I tell you I would take Veteran IG squads 100% of the time if given the choice between them and a tactical squad. If Mr. 30 tactical marines thinks otherwise, that's totally fine. This is just my opinion in the discussion.
33048
Post by: Chinchilla
Plus you add combi-flamer and voila 
Marines are still great units... Too bad that they don't have ccw... It would make them pain in the ass... They can do anything, but will get locked in combat with even easiest foes...
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
People seem to be missing that standard marines are pretty much the "allcomers" of the 40K universe. They can do all jobs OK with a good chance of surviving and killing whatever it is they need to kill.
The whole point of tactical marines is you need to use them tactically. If you are getting wiped out by dedicated CC units, why are you putting marines in that position?
If you are getting shot to bits by dedicated shooting units, why are you putting marines in that position?
There is nothing tactical about buffing a generic allrounder unit like the tactical squad so that it can do everything excellently. Most other armies have to choose: Do I want a CC squad, or do I want a shooty squad? Because the army doesn't have an allrounder unit like the space marines do.
Probably the closest would be the CSM standard troop choice, but they pay more points for their options and get less rules for a slight increase in ability to do shooting and CC at the same time.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Right it's really only compared to Grey Hunters that tacticals suddenly look bad.
This is a fault of the Space Wolves codex, not the Space Marines codex.
34439
Post by: Formosa
Magister187 wrote:Formosa wrote:
well i never! lol
rude dude.
I are Teh awsomz, is not what i was saying. what i was trying to say was, if tac sqauds are so bad, how could i possibly win when taking 30?
and i am a good player, as several Dakkaites can attest to, good.. not amazing.
Tac sqauds do everything i want them to do, i dont expect them to shine, they are there to support the devs and termies, which they do bloody well sir! (posh english accent)
I didn't say tac squads were so bad, stop misrepresenting my point. Yes, the vanilla codex can win with them. Yes, they server some purposes, but they are not on par with what I believe a troop choice should give, REAL support (which, despite what you have said, I can think of no way in which 30 tactical marines would support your army in the real sense of the word; they may provide some turns of bubble wrap and short range anti-infantry, but hardly help you win or cover the weaker part of your army, assault). I just believe that, as they laid them out, they are ineffective at significantly impacting the game in any sense but "Hey, at least they aren't shooting/assaulting my good units!", or killing weakened/bad units.
Humour:dude take a joke lol
to anyone who has played mass effect
Understanding response: I can see what you are getting at, I just dont expect alot from my tac sqauds.
polite Attempted explanation: I find that the 3 plasma cannons and 3 plasma guns help support my Dev sqauds by not tying up there HW slots.
secondly, like you said, they halp bubble wrap my immportant units, also when they get attacked in combat and "normally" hold due to stubborn, i get to counter attack with my 3 Attack
TH/ SS unit (i keep kantor well out of combat), this is me is a good way of supporting the rest of my army
hey maybe we should all write like that, as writing normally does not convey intent
24267
Post by: akaean
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Not really, no. The big advantage to having Tactical Marines in hand to hand is Combat Tactics: the option to run away, leaving the rest of your army free to shoot the enemy unit in your turn. You don't need power armor to do this. You simply need to not be locked in combat with that unit.
Odds are, your tactical marines are going to get facebeaten by most things that would ever want to assault them (and since they only have 2A on the charge, they're worthless for assaulting nearly anything), so when you run away, you're freeing up the enemy unit to be shot. You aren't going to be saving the squad. A pre-requisite for using Combat Tactics is that the squad can optionally fail its morale check, so it's already involved in a losing proposition.
For that purpose, Vets with Flak Armor accomplish the same thing: if they get assaulted, they typically don't last one round of H2H. I don't WANT them to last one round of H2H because they certainly aren't going to last 2. Only they've got better access to special weapons and wargear and better transports. And they're cheaper.
Uh, as an Eldar player, I can attest to assaulting things with DIRE AVENGERS. you know t3, s3, 4+ save models with 2 attacks each on the charge and no grenades. There are plenty of reasons for doing this. Enemy squad on an objective that shooting didn't wipe out, or I want to try to push them off and take it for myself. This happens fairly often, really there are tactical opportunities where cc becomes preferable to staying in the open- even if you are not using specialized cc units or dedicated ranged units. And let me tell you, I'd rather assault onto an objective with Tactical Space Marines then with Dire Avengers or Storm Guardians! That said, I do agree that the space wolf codex went OTT with its grey hunter squads- between Counter Attack, Mark of the Furry, ATSKNF, and pistols + ccw included on the profile, and the ability to take 2 special weapons... it really makes them like a sick hybrid cross between all the advantages of Tactical Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines... for a DISCOUNT... for what wolf players get they really should be paying around 18 ppm. All told I do think its telling that most of the space marine army reviews I've seen note that you shouldn't take very many tactical squads. What with combat squading you can usually get by with 2 or 3 squads and still be fine on objective based games. Saving your points for smashy things like LRs and hammernators and Typhoons. At any rate from what I've seen about space marines, I would think the best way to run them would be 10 man, ML + melta, and combi melta sarge (or flamers), with a razor dedicated transport. That way you still get 2 special weapons, and the heavy weapon can happily plunk away.
29408
Post by: Melissia
The reason people take those choices is because they're still used to lasplas, meh.
34439
Post by: Formosa
I love my plasma cannon and plasma gun, the sheer ammount of Meq at my FLGS is... well normal i guess.
i have noticed a distinct lack of any real AT (at my FLGS) though, even the guard player rarely runs alot of tanks. I seem to be the only one with any ammount of AT, and most of that goes to killing MeQ or 12 kraks a turn at transports (even land raiders are stopped by this) then i plasma the crap out of the occupents
8620
Post by: DAaddict
Tacticals only pale in comparison to BA assault marines and SW grey hunters.
They do offer the advantage of a discounted heavy weapon and reasonable ability to stand and take anything.
Definitely preferable to having devastators or sterngard getting shot up. They even offer an ability to stand up and take a round of CC due to having 3+ armor and T4.
Sure they will get owned by bloodcrushers or termies or some hoard of power weapons but even a mass of high strength non-power weapon attacks will not guarantee that tacs will run. Now they may inevitably lose the combat but this also puts a risk on an opponent. It also gives you an opportunity to field a counterattack unit that can come in and save the day.
Alternatively you have the combat tactics and the ability to auto run and avoid combats. So much so that orcs don't necessarily want to shoot+ charge you because you have the potential to take 3 casualties in the shooting phase and run.
CSM have dedicated troops and they certainly are better but also are paying a 50% penalty for all that awesomeness. Wounds do count. So while a bunch of berzerkers will be more awesome in CC or plague marines will stand up better, they will be fielding 7 to your squad of 10 WITH heavy weapon.
So we are left with grey hunters and BA assault marines.
The grey hunters while better than SM in CC, are inferior to the tacs in reach - due to HW and to a degree cost.
While an army of 6 tacs versus 6 greyhunters will invariably lead to the SW win. Remember he does have to pay for all of that, so hopefully - rather than sinking pointing into a PW for your sgt, you will take the points savings and increase your firepower advantage by taking a unit of devastators or two dakka preds or you will take a unit of something that will own him in CC like 5 TH/SS termies or the like.
39468
Post by: Sixalicious
It seems a lot of peoples' problems with tacs are to do with either weapons choices or 'lack of flexibility,' which generally translates to 'only have one attack.'
You're getting a ML, MM, flamer etc. for FREE. That's more or less like having your cake and eating it.
Plus, I once saw a ten man tac squad take an assault from 20 stealers and win. Granted, only the sarge and two others were left, but they still won.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Sixalicious wrote:
Plus, I once saw a ten man tac squad take an assault from 20 stealers and win. Granted, only the sarge and two others were left, but they still won.
And I had Guardians beat a Carnifex in a assault, doesn't make them good at all.
Anecdotal evidence from a statistical outlier is only going to feed the idiots who don't think Tac Squads are good. It'd be more useful to point out something they're likely to do that was useful, like having 5 of a 10 man combat squad get wrecked by genestealers only to have the other 5 chop them into haggis after they were out of assault.
34439
Post by: Formosa
like i said i love my tac sqauds, as a DA player it cost me 15 points for just a plasma gun and a further 15 for the cannon, now i get all the plasma goodness for HALF the price.
I hate to say this, but.. if you think Tac sqauds are not a good support unit, then your not useing them properly
4977
Post by: jp400
Best way to improve Tac Squads?
Nerf hammer some of the cheese out of newer space marine codex's.
34439
Post by: Formosa
jp400 wrote:Best way to improve Tac Squads?
Nerf hammer some of the cheese out of newer space marine codex's.
lolzzzzzzzzzz
you would have to nerf hammer alot more than that if you ask some of the people who have posted lol
new tac sqaud cost... 13 pts per model lol
scouts become 8... hmm actually that dont sound bad.. make em pay 5pts for sniper rifle though 
13920
Post by: Duce
I'd allow them a single special or hevy weapon per 5 and the other at 10 man. Maybe even allow them to pick up to 2 heavies or specials or a mix, so they can be kitted out as needed.
Also the best suggestion i've seen for Tact marines was someone saying give them true grit or whatever it is that lets them use bolters as CC weapons, means constant 2 attacks and no bonus for charging, so they can still shoot as well and won't become 3 attacks on the charge grey hunters thus keeping things sweet.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Formosa wrote:you would have to nerf hammer alot more than that if you ask some of the people who have posted lol
That's because a lot of these people aren't playing an army that suits their playstyle.
12620
Post by: Che-Vito
4977
Post by: jp400
Melissia wrote:Formosa wrote:you would have to nerf hammer alot more than that if you ask some of the people who have posted lol
That's because a lot of these people aren't playing an army that suits their playstyle.
Fully agree.
People need to stop trying to change an army to fit their style, and instead change their style to fit their army or change armies.
I mean hell, if you play Space Marines, all you have to do is change their color from Blue, to red, gray, green, black ect ect and you get an entirely "different" army. How hard is that?!?
40537
Post by: hehe FAIL!
tac squads are awesome! split em into combat squads sgt goes into 1 with two flamers while the other has 2 heavy boltersor something like tht
29408
Post by: Melissia
Meh, in my case, if I were to play Marines, I'd play Marines tac-heavy. Four tac squads, one or two assault squads, three preds, and a jump pack chappie... or four tacs, three preds, and a TH/SS termie squad with a termie captain.
But then my idea on what makes a good army is different because I've never actually OWNED a Space Marine army before... I just own Sisters, Orks, and Guard. Which means I don't have all that stupid baggage from previous editions and previous codices as far as Marines go.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
If I played marines, I would play BA and use CSM models.
An entire army of Raptors? Yes please
7192
Post by: BloodQuest
hehe FAIL! wrote:tac squads are awesome! split em into combat squads sgt goes into 1 with two flamers while the other has 2 heavy boltersor something like tht
Not in my codex!
34439
Post by: Formosa
hmm a thought occures, why bother trying to improve the tac sqaud when other stuff in the marine codex needs it more
Like Tactical termies
|
|
