Title pretty much says it all. This is a spawn of the "how to CC" thread. Of course, there are the magic exceptions to this, like seer council and screamerstar. But for your grunt space marine of even striking scorpion, they are being charged a lot for gear they will likely never be able to use. Because they will get shot to death.

Not really much tactics.

I don't see how grunt space marines are being charged for assault capabilities. they come with grenades for free, and 5 points for a melta bomb is not that over priced. (unless by grunt your talking about assault marines or blood angels)

Well. I mean marines are charged for grenades (I doubt they are free) S4, WS 4, and a bolt pistol. Marines don't even get one thing that would actually be worth paying for: an extra CC weapon.

The S4, WS 4, grenades and bolt pistol are all ignored by shooting armies.

A marine is 14ppm that includes grenades bolt pistols s4 ws4. it also however includes t4 and bs4 which is great for shooting as well as a 3+ which isnt even remotely bad. i don't see how they are over costed/charged for the extras. (im trying to remember the costs of grenades from the old BT codex but i cant find a copy :/ at least compared to one of the better shooting things around being Tau (fire warrior) at 5 points less per model and having -1 stats slashed across the board.

I agree that is completely bonkers that you cant buy a butter knife for a marine to affix to his bolt gun even though the kits come with them.

After the price drop, I still feel that marines are not worth 14 ppm. They are just dying too quickly against Xeno shooting. Part of the problem is that they are easy to put on foot, and then they are just victims.

I'm probably up against too many netlists. And Xeno lists just have better gimmicks for their troops right now. And things like the helldrake barbecue all troops equally well, making it so the Tau are just losing 5 pts less per barbeque victim.

But for something even worse, look at a TH/SS terminator. Way overcosted.

Perhaps its the meta indeed. at 35 points, a drop or a rhino. moving across the the field on T-1 does really well. even if wrecked in the previous turn as 18" then a following 6" should be kissing the enemy DZ even better with scout.

I agree that Terminators in general are way overcosted at the moment especially with the number of AP2 running around now.

The problem is that scoot and shoot trumps this strategy.

For example, savvy Eldar keep their shields up to blunt a drop alpha strike, and then catapult hilarity ensues, because the marines can't assault the turn they drop. They are stuck in "shoot my face off" limbo.

Dude, this thread is a rant, not a tactical discussion. I think this should be in general discussion, not tactics.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Dude, this thread is a rant, not a tactical discussion. I think this should be in general discussion, not tactics.

True, how do I move it?

now THIS I can agree with. Many of the old, no brainers have simply become obsolete with the new 6th edition and newer editions of the codexes. I might be wrong, but I suspect this is on purpose to force us to buy more models. lol

that being said, I feel that there are some units that stand out as being new no brainers when trying to decide what assault units to take (if you are wanting to use assault units).
you will also note that some units have become more well rounded. Forexample, in earlier editions chaos marines had to choose bolter OR bolt pistol and CCW. Now, they get BOTH.so that while before, it was geared for one role or the other, it can now do both to a degree.

you could PM an admin and ask them to move the thread to where you want it or to where they think it is more appropriate.

I think the current SM assault marines are fairly costed, and so are their upgrades. It's just how they work inside of 6th. With even the lowly firewarrior blowing this kind of unit out of the water with a massive 36'' threat range wounding on 3's.... it's tough to push multiple squads into combat.

And honestly the payoff isn't great, usually takes multiple turns to get into combat plus I'd wager at least another to actually finish a MEQ unit off.

Also shooting really synergizes with scoring, you can't assault something and hold an objective most of the time.

On a side note I really feel not being able to disembark from rhino's hurt 6th. A LOT of armies would change if that wasn't true.

Khorne berserkers really want vengeance!

 EVIL INC wrote:
now THIS I can agree with. Many of the old, no brainers have simply become obsolete with the new 6th edition and newer editions of the codexes. I might be wrong, but I suspect this is on purpose to force us to buy more models. lol

that being said, I feel that there are some units that stand out as being new no brainers when trying to decide what assault units to take (if you are wanting to use assault units).
you will also note that some units have become more well rounded. Forexample, in earlier editions chaos marines had to choose bolter OR bolt pistol and CCW. Now, they get BOTH.so that while before, it was geared for one role or the other, it can now do both to a degree.

you could PM an admin and ask them to move the thread to where you want it or to where they think it is more appropriate.

You actually have to pay an extra cost for the ccw which then ruins the one slight thing that CSM had that made them better than Marines (that being said CSM are better than SM in general What I mean is giving them ccw either makes them cost equal or more than loyalists despite all the benefits they get over them)

What about scouts? They're obviously not as survivable or powerful as marines but they do get access to ccw. Coming out of a storm? No?

I'm curious as I'll be fielding two storms in my bike list and am still debating On the scouts loadouts.

 StarTrotter wrote:

You actually have to pay an extra cost for the ccw which then ruins the one slight thing that CSM had that made them better than Marines (that being said CSM are better than SM in general What I mean is giving them ccw either makes them cost equal or more than loyalists despite all the benefits they get over them)

CSM are better than marines? For 1pt per model they get ATSKNF and chapter tactics, have no compulsory sergeant and better transport options. Loyalists are far superior troops, but that's an aside.

I don't think assault units are overpriced across the board I just think that they are more prone to being the turkey (of the non Hell variety) of the dex. Do your Chosen want a power weapon and no access to an assault vehicle aside from a separate heavy purchase or a Plasma Gun?

Compare this to the prices of units you do see, Seekers and Khorne Dogs being the best examples. Much more reasonable prices for what you get. A unit capable of delivering itself to combat reliably and doing significant damage when there.

A seeker is cavalry, +6" run, rending, 3 attacks and hits marines on 3 and scores in one mission.
A banshee is infantry, +3" run, AP3, 2 attacks and hits marines on a 4.

Yet the Banshee, despite coming from the new top dog book, is more expensive.

Now, melee units don't have the monopoly on being overcosted (Oh Pyrovore why do you keep hurting me so) but I can agree with Martel that they have some of the worst examples.

It's less that units are charged to much for assault, and more this edition pretty much screws all assault over, especially MEQ based assault.

Not to mention there's some things that are even worse in this edition as well, terminators are still overcosted when it comes to shooting platforms as well.

A seeker is cavalry, +6" run, rending, 3 attacks and hits marines on 3 and scores in one mission.

A banshee is infantry, +3" run, AP3, 2 attacks and hits marines on a 4.

Yet the Banshee, despite coming from the new top dog book, is more expensive.

You also forget the other capabilities of the Banshee, like ignoring AP3, 4+ armour, and the scream.

Of course the problem is they have no way of getting to combat unlike seekers, which makes them worthless.


The problem with this edition is the inability to GET TO COMBAT. Most assault units are either fast deathstars (Screamstar, Jetstar), or rushing with multiple things at once (Flying Circus), or just absurdly tough (Tyranids with full iron arm units)

 EVIL INC wrote:
now THIS I can agree with. Many of the old, no brainers have simply become obsolete with the new 6th edition and newer editions of the codexes. I might be wrong, but I suspect this is on purpose to force us to buy more models. lol

that being said, I feel that there are some units that stand out as being new no brainers when trying to decide what assault units to take (if you are wanting to use assault units).
you will also note that some units have become more well rounded. Forexample, in earlier editions chaos marines had to choose bolter OR bolt pistol and CCW. Now, they get BOTH.so that while before, it was geared for one role or the other, it can now do both to a degree.

That was last Editions codex, now we have to pay a pretty penny for that ccw/ Swap out our boltgun for it.

Like others have said ATSKNF is well worth that 1 more point if you ask moi.

 Aijec wrote:
I think the current SM assault marines are fairly costed, and so are their upgrades. It's just how they work inside of 6th. With even the lowly firewarrior blowing this kind of unit out of the water with a massive 36'' threat range wounding on 3's.... it's tough to push multiple squads into combat.

And honestly the payoff isn't great, usually takes multiple turns to get into combat plus I'd wager at least another to actually finish a MEQ unit off.

Also shooting really synergizes with scoring, you can't assault something and hold an objective most of the time.

On a side note I really feel not being able to disembark from rhino's hurt 6th. A LOT of armies would change if that wasn't true.

Khorne berserkers really want vengeance!

If they don't work correctly within the edition, that means they are overcosted still. If they are being blown out of the water, their price point needs to reflect this.

You don't take tactical marines for assault purposes.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It's less that units are charged to much for assault, and more this edition pretty much screws all assault over, especially MEQ based assault.

Not to mention there's some things that are even worse in this edition as well, terminators are still overcosted when it comes to shooting platforms as well.

A seeker is cavalry, +6" run, rending, 3 attacks and hits marines on 3 and scores in one mission.

A banshee is infantry, +3" run, AP3, 2 attacks and hits marines on a 4.

Yet the Banshee, despite coming from the new top dog book, is more expensive.

You also forget the other capabilities of the Banshee, like ignoring AP3, 4+ armour, and the scream.

Of course the problem is they have no way of getting to combat unlike seekers, which makes them worthless.


The problem with this edition is the inability to GET TO COMBAT. Most assault units are either fast deathstars (Screamstar, Jetstar), or rushing with multiple things at once (Flying Circus), or just absurdly tough (Tyranids with full iron arm units)

So shouldn't non-fast deathstars be a lot cheaper to field, then? If this edition screws over assault, that's a good argument for assault being cheaper isn't it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wilytank wrote:
You don't take tactical marines for assault purposes.

But they pay for assault stats.

But they pay for assault stats.

no they don't . marines don't pay for half the rules they have .

Makumba wrote:

But they pay for assault stats.

no they don't . marines don't pay for half the rules they have .

So WS 4, S4, I4, bolt pistol, and grenades are all free? I find that dubious.

Martel732 wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
You don't take tactical marines for assault purposes.

But they pay for assault stats.

Who says that price isn't for shooting stats instead? A Bolter at BS4 plus decent toughness and a 3+ armor and ATSKNF. Most of their options are shooting options anyway.

 Wilytank wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
You don't take tactical marines for assault purposes.

But they pay for assault stats.

Who says that price isn't for shooting stats instead? A Bolter at BS4 plus decent toughness and a 3+ armor and ATSKNF. Most of their options are shooting options anyway.

What about assault marines then?

Martel732 wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
You don't take tactical marines for assault purposes.

But they pay for assault stats.

Who says that price isn't for shooting stats instead? A Bolter at BS4 plus decent toughness and a 3+ armor and ATSKNF. Most of their options are shooting options anyway.

What about assault marines then?

Remove bolter for CCW and add 4 points in exchange for a jump pack? Probably worth it in the end. My original point still stands, Tactical Marines were never intended to be an assault unit.

I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

 Wilytank wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
You don't take tactical marines for assault purposes.

But they pay for assault stats.

Who says that price isn't for shooting stats instead? A Bolter at BS4 plus decent toughness and a 3+ armor and ATSKNF. Most of their options are shooting options anyway.

The only save I usually get in this edition has been cover saves with my CSM.

Mainly because there's either so much that ignores my 3+ save, or things that just break it anyways (Eldar Wave Serpents and Rending assault guns..)

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Wilytank wrote:
You don't take tactical marines for assault purposes.

But they pay for assault stats.

Who says that price isn't for shooting stats instead? A Bolter at BS4 plus decent toughness and a 3+ armor and ATSKNF. Most of their options are shooting options anyway.

The only save I usually get in this edition has been cover saves with my CSM.

Mainly because there's either so much that ignores my 3+ save, or things that just break it anyways (Eldar Wave Serpents and Rending assault guns..)

Oh I still get *tons* of saves with meqs, in fact, I get so many saves I fail them and my meq die like slime anyway.

Martel732 wrote:

Oh I still get *tons* of saves with meqs, in fact, I get so many saves I fail them and my meq die like slime anyway.

A 2/3 chance to save doesn't mean anything if your opponent gets 2/3 more the shooting.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

Min-maxing lists isn't enough? Now people want to min-max individual units? Oh lord...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

Min-maxing lists isn't enough? Now people want to min-max individual units? Oh lord...

Not really. I'm pointing out how marines are likely charged for stats that most of them never get to use because of being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Oh I still get *tons* of saves with meqs, in fact, I get so many saves I fail them and my meq die like slime anyway.

A 2/3 chance to save doesn't mean anything if your opponent gets 2/3 more the shooting.

Actually, it would be 200% more shooting, but we get the idea.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

Min-maxing lists isn't enough? Now people want to min-max individual units? Oh lord...

Tyranids used to do this back in 4th edition.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

Min-maxing lists isn't enough? Now people want to min-max individual units? Oh lord...

Not really. I'm pointing out how marines are likely charged for stats that most of them never get to use because of being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle.

But what if they find themselves on the wrong end of a Chaos bolter, or lasgun, or a splinter rifle? Then they may well get to use their assault stats. Do you really want a Marine to be about equal to a Guardsman in combat? That's what would happen if they lost Str and WS 4 and their pistol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

Min-maxing lists isn't enough? Now people want to min-max individual units? Oh lord...

Not really. I'm pointing out how marines are likely charged for stats that most of them never get to use because of being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle.

But what if they find themselves on the wrong end of a Chaos bolter, or lasgun, or a splinter rifle? Then they may well get to use their assault stats. Do you really want a Marine to be about equal to a Guardsman in combat? That's what would happen if they lost Str and WS 4 and their pistol.

Except they'd still have the same number of attacks if they lost their pistol. 1

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not saying they were. So can I sell back my assault stats and gear then to make them cheaper?

Min-maxing lists isn't enough? Now people want to min-max individual units? Oh lord...

Not really. I'm pointing out how marines are likely charged for stats that most of them never get to use because of being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle.

But what if they find themselves on the wrong end of a Chaos bolter, or lasgun, or a splinter rifle? Then they may well get to use their assault stats. Do you really want a Marine to be about equal to a Guardsman in combat? That's what would happen if they lost Str and WS 4 and their pistol.

Except they'd still have the same number of attacks if they lost their pistol. 1

They lose one Str 4 AP 5 swing in the shooting phase (if you want to think about it that way) before they charge.

Can someone explain to me the purpose of Close Combat Weapons in the first place? I asked around and someone said that if you didn't have a close combat weapon, you could still fight in close combat. Well most of these units (like CSM) only have 1 attack anyways AND they already have a bolt pistol too, so they're getting +1 attack.

It becomes even more insulting when you look at a unit like Havocs and you see "Combat Weapons 2pts per model." Why? Wtf for?!

My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheRedWingArmada wrote:
Can someone explain to me the purpose of Close Combat Weapons in the first place? I asked around and someone said that if you didn't have a close combat weapon, you could still fight in close combat. Well most of these units (like CSM) only have 1 attack anyways AND they already have a bolt pistol too, so they're getting +1 attack.

It becomes even more insulting when you look at a unit like Havocs and you see "Combat Weapons 2pts per model." Why? Wtf for?!

Pistols don't give +1 attack.

Martel732 wrote:
My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.

Well the Guardsmen are paying lots of points for assault stuff too. Sergeants can't even have lasguns, and pay for an extra attack.

so by making units not dedicated to combat pay less for random combat stuff, you're only making shooting better (by making shooting units like tactical marines and guardsmen cheaper) and not helping the problem.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.

Well the Guardsmen are paying lots of points for assault stuff too. Sergeants can't even have lasguns, and pay for an extra attack.

so by making units not dedicated to combat pay less for random combat stuff, you're only making shooting better (by making shooting units like tactical marines and guardsmen better) and not helping the problem.

No, it helps my problem, because now I have more wounds to give in the shooting phase. If assault marines were even cheaper, because they don't work at their current price, then some might actually live to swing at a Tau.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.

Well the Guardsmen are paying lots of points for assault stuff too. Sergeants can't even have lasguns, and pay for an extra attack.

so by making units not dedicated to combat pay less for random combat stuff, you're only making shooting better (by making shooting units like tactical marines and guardsmen better) and not helping the problem.

No, it helps my problem, because now I have more wounds to give in the shooting phase. If assault marines were even cheaper, because they don't work at their current price, then some might actually live to swing at a Tau.

People will simply buy more shooting units with the points saved by WS3, STR3, no pistol tactical marines. So they will also have more guns to shoot your assault marines down with.

Martel732 wrote:


Pistols don't give +1 attack.

They do if you already have another close combat weapon.
Relevant page in BRB is 51, paragraph "Pistols as Close Combat Weapons" and "More Than One Weapon"

But yeah, iin Red Wing's example he needs to buy the ccw unless the guys have 2 pistols to get the extra attack.

You're right, Red Wing, that you can hit without a ccw, but you still only get the baseline amount of attacks for your first ccw. You need a second one. (so yeah, those two points are an extra attack. Cheap, imho)

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.

Well the Guardsmen are paying lots of points for assault stuff too. Sergeants can't even have lasguns, and pay for an extra attack.

so by making units not dedicated to combat pay less for random combat stuff, you're only making shooting better (by making shooting units like tactical marines and guardsmen better) and not helping the problem.

No, it helps my problem, because now I have more wounds to give in the shooting phase. If assault marines were even cheaper, because they don't work at their current price, then some might actually live to swing at a Tau.

People will simply buy more shooting units with the points saved by WS3, STR3, no pistol tactical marines. So they will also have more guns to shoot your assault marines down with.

Then assault marines would have to be even cheaper I understand what you are saying. I'm primarily saying that specifically models with only 12" pistols are overcosted in this edition. Although I still think that 14 pt tactical marines don't perform like 14 pt models.

Howling Banshees are charged for everything and will never get to do any of it outside of Killteam because they are useless in the current environment. At least Space Marines have SOME role to play that is functional. No need to rant.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
Howling Banshees are charged for everything and will never get to do any of it outside of Killteam because they are useless in the current environment. At least Space Marines have SOME role to play that is functional. No need to rant.

I agree that banshees got completely hosed. There should be no units hosed like that; banshees should be very cheap in this edition.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
My tactical marines almost always lose CC anyway, so why not pay less for the same result? They even lose to guardsmen and the like because of being outnumbered/shot up.

Well the Guardsmen are paying lots of points for assault stuff too. Sergeants can't even have lasguns, and pay for an extra attack.

so by making units not dedicated to combat pay less for random combat stuff, you're only making shooting better (by making shooting units like tactical marines and guardsmen better) and not helping the problem.

No, it helps my problem, because now I have more wounds to give in the shooting phase. If assault marines were even cheaper, because they don't work at their current price, then some might actually live to swing at a Tau.

People will simply buy more shooting units with the points saved by WS3, STR3, no pistol tactical marines. So they will also have more guns to shoot your assault marines down with.

Then assault marines would have to be even cheaper I understand what you are saying. I'm primarily saying that specifically models with only 12" pistols are overcosted in this edition. Although I still think that 14 pt tactical marines don't perform like 14 pt models.

Making dedicated assault units cheaper is not as bad as making tactical squads cheaper.

That's my primary point. Tactical squads are getting shafted a *lot* less than the poor guys stuck with pistols. Tactical squads are shafted with respect to say dire avengers or fire warriors, because they pay for essentially useless stat boosts, but not nearly as bad as ASM or banshees. ASM and banshees should be very cheap, as they mostly function as target practice.

Martel732 wrote:
That's my primary point. Tactical squads are getting shafted a *lot* less than the poor guys stuck with pistols. Tactical squads are shafted with respect to say dire avengers or fire warriors, because they pay for essentially useless stat boosts, but not nearly as bad as ASM or banshees. ASM and banshees should be very cheap, as they mostly function as target practice.

The only problem with making them cheap is that they are still bad. Other fast attack options are better, cheapness aside.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's my primary point. Tactical squads are getting shafted a *lot* less than the poor guys stuck with pistols. Tactical squads are shafted with respect to say dire avengers or fire warriors, because they pay for essentially useless stat boosts, but not nearly as bad as ASM or banshees. ASM and banshees should be very cheap, as they mostly function as target practice.

The only problem with making them cheap is that they are still bad. Other fast attack options are better, cheapness aside.

Marines, due to their cost, rarely fill their FOC. I'd be grateful for some cheap non-scoring bullet catchers.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's my primary point. Tactical squads are getting shafted a *lot* less than the poor guys stuck with pistols. Tactical squads are shafted with respect to say dire avengers or fire warriors, because they pay for essentially useless stat boosts, but not nearly as bad as ASM or banshees. ASM and banshees should be very cheap, as they mostly function as target practice.

The only problem with making them cheap is that they are still bad. Other fast attack options are better, cheapness aside.

Marines, due to their cost, rarely fill their FOC. I'd be grateful for some cheap non-scoring bullet catchers.

Why not cheap scoring bullet catchers who are still cheaper? (Scouts)

They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

Not sure. The bolt pistol/CC combo is not as good as a bolter in 6th. Not even close, really. Maybe the same as tacticals. Maybe even 13. They really, really stink.

Like in games like Starcraft, ideally you keep lowering the price until people start using them. This is best done by real time point values using data from games.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

Not sure. The bolt pistol/CC combo is not as good as a bolter in 6th. Not even close, really. Maybe the same as tacticals. Maybe even 13. They really, really stink.

Sisters are 12, and have -1WS, -1Str, -1T, -1Ld, no jump capability. All of that loss for only a one point decrease?

good god man

EDIT: Also no ATSKNF

EDIT2: Also no deepstrike

Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

Not sure. The bolt pistol/CC combo is not as good as a bolter in 6th. Not even close, really. Maybe the same as tacticals. Maybe even 13. They really, really stink.

Sisters are 12, and have -1WS, -1Str, -1T, -1Ld, no jump capability. All of that loss for only a one point decrease?

good god man

EDIT: Also no ATSKNF

Sisters are scoring and have an effective range of 30", whereas the Assault Marines have an effective range of 19" (which can fail, leaving them standing around like buffoons) and can't choose to ignore blocking units.

As a person who played both assault strong and shooting strong armies in 5th and 6th, both casually and competitively - I disagree.

I can see how players who did not play a lot of different armies in 5th edition could disagree - I honestly do.

Assault was amazingly powerful in 5th....I loved it - once my nids or marines got into combat, enemies were just toast - they could get zero support from any other unit that was not in counter assault range - this combined with resolution rules and the amazing abilities of ATSKNF - it was the glory days of assault.

However, I also saw many players become over dependent upon it - instead of honing their tactical skill or mastering movement and deployment - (many winning competitive players still say the game is won in the movement phase) they unknowingly hampered their own game by relying upon assault.

Now, in 6th, that things are more balanced - tragically, those players who had become to rely upon it, find themselves feeling very under powered, which is not the case - its just what they have learned is no longer viable.

Assault was OP in 5th, and no longer is.
Has the pendulum swung too far the other way?
I honestly don't feel it has. Sure, a few specific units in some of the new books might make it feel this way (serpent shield, gravgun, etc.) but overall I think that assault, shooting, and more specifically, marines are just fine.

if you want to venture down the path of "paying for abilities not used" then;

* necron ctan shards should get a massive rebate - with only a 4++ save they never last more than a turn.
* Kroot, Guardsmen, termagants, raveners, pathfinders, or any model with 5 or 6 save should get a big points rebate - when the common side arm in the game is S4AP5, a 5+ save is pointless.
* six man squads of firewarriors don't want defensive grenades - their job is to die in the opponents assault - they need a refund.
* a tervigon almost never lives to assault - he could use a refund.
* drednaughts get hull pointed out very quickly due to no armor save - doe they get a refund too?

As far as "being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle" - it will take time, but just as Necrons, GK and wolves before them players will learn how to beat them - either by learning their armies better or just learning tau.

EDIT:
Maybe I am interpreting this wrong...

Marines have an amazing baseline unit, that is good at everything, and gets specialized from there (options make you better at assault, shooting, etc. from the baseline).

If you are saying you don't like the fact that the baseline is so strong, and possibly expensive - then well....sounds like you prefer something other than marines.
thats the point of marines - even their basic guy is an elite compared to other armies basic guy.

Sisters are overcosted as well. There's no denying that for me. A sister should not cost more than a fire warrior I think. Because of the way 6th ed rolls.

ATSKNF has actually lost a lot of its efficacy in my experience. Between marines dying wholesale instead of getting morale rolls and WANTING to be swept by daemons, I actually don't much care for this rule.

davethepak wrote:

Assault was OP in 5th, and no longer is.

See my sig.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

davethepak wrote:
As a person who played both assault strong and shooting strong armies in 5th and 6th, both casually and competitively - I disagree.

I can see how players who did not play a lot of different armies in 5th edition could disagree - I honestly do.

Assault was amazingly powerful in 5th....I loved it - once my nids or marines got into combat, enemies were just toast - they could get zero support from any other unit that was not in counter assault range - this combined with resolution rules and the amazing abilities of ATSKNF - it was the glory days of assault.

However, I also saw many players become over dependent upon it - instead of honing their tactical skill or mastering movement and deployment - (many winning competitive players still say the game is won in the movement phase) they unknowingly hampered their own game by relying upon assault.

Now, in 6th, that things are more balanced - tragically, those players who had become to rely upon it, find themselves feeling very under powered, which is not the case - its just what they have learned is no longer viable.

Assault was OP in 5th, and no longer is.
Has the pendulum swung too far the other way?
I honestly don't feel it has. Sure, a few specific units in some of the new books might make it feel this way (serpent shield, gravgun, etc.) but overall I think that assault, shooting, and more specifically, marines are just fine.

if you want to venture down the path of "paying for abilities not used" then;

* necron ctan shards should get a massive rebate - with only a 4++ save they never last more than a turn.
* Kroot, Guardsmen, termagants, raveners, pathfinders, or any model with 5 or 6 save should get a big points rebate - when the common side arm in the game is S4AP5, a 5+ save is pointless.
* six man squads of firewarriors don't want defensive grenades - their job is to die in the opponents assault - they need a refund.
* a tervigon almost never lives to assault - he could use a refund.
* drednaughts get hull pointed out very quickly due to no armor save - doe they get a refund too?

As far as "being on the wrong end of a pulse rifle" - it will take time, but just as Necrons, GK and wolves before them players will learn how to beat them - either by learning their armies better or just learning tau.

Assault was never OP in 5th. I never feared it with razorspam BA, nor did many other power lists in 5th.

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters are overcosted as well. There's no denying that for me. A sister should not cost more than a fire warrior I think. Because of the way 6th ed rolls.

ATSKNF has actually lost a lot of its efficacy in my experience. Between marines dying wholesale instead of getting morale rolls and WANTING to be swept by daemons, I actually don't much care for this rule.

Your opinion on ATSKNF is wrong, imo. But to each his own.

So a sister should be what, 11 points?

that's only one point more than carapace armored vets, who are 10 pts but have -1 save and a lasgun

EDIT: And no faith points.

And now we're back around to making shooting units cheaper again.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

They still are. It's just that their OPness with respect to other meqs doesn't matter because the Taudar just kill them with S6 shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters are overcosted as well. There's no denying that for me. A sister should not cost more than a fire warrior I think. Because of the way 6th ed rolls.

ATSKNF has actually lost a lot of its efficacy in my experience. Between marines dying wholesale instead of getting morale rolls and WANTING to be swept by daemons, I actually don't much care for this rule.

Your opinion on ATSKNF is wrong, imo. But to each his own.

So a sister should be what, 11 points?

that's only one point more than carapace armored vets, who are 10 pts but have -1 save and a lasgun

And now we're back around to making shooting units cheaper again.

As I said, keep making things cheaper until they are actually used by the community. That's the best test. My opinion on ATSKNF is not wrong. It's just not that useful anymore. I live it every time I plunk down meqs.

 EVIL INC wrote:
now THIS I can agree with. Many of the old, no brainers have simply become obsolete with the new 6th edition and newer editions of the codexes. I might be wrong, but I suspect this is on purpose to force us to buy more models. lol

I see a lot of comments along these lines, suggesting that Games Workshop switches up the most powerful units with every release in order to persuade their customers to buy new models.

My dad suggested that maybe something else was happening. Maybe the models that everyone already has, are popular because they're powerful. Similarly, the models that no one has, might be unpopular because they underperform. And maybe the game devs see the imbalance and try to correct it with the next release, since they can't easily fiddle with imbalances in-between major releases like they could if WH40k was an online video game..

 Pouncey wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
now THIS I can agree with. Many of the old, no brainers have simply become obsolete with the new 6th edition and newer editions of the codexes. I might be wrong, but I suspect this is on purpose to force us to buy more models. lol

I see a lot of comments along these lines, suggesting that Games Workshop switches up the most powerful units with every release in order to persuade their customers to buy new models.

My dad suggested that maybe something else was happening. Maybe the models that everyone already has, are popular because they're powerful. Similarly, the models that no one has, might be unpopular because they underperform. And maybe the game devs see the imbalance and try to correct it with the next release, since they can't easily fiddle with imbalances in-between major releases like they could if WH40k was an online video game..

I think this is closer to the truth, because GW will leave units suck for multiple editions, and those models never sell.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

Not sure. The bolt pistol/CC combo is not as good as a bolter in 6th. Not even close, really. Maybe the same as tacticals. Maybe even 13. They really, really stink.

Sisters are 12, and have -1WS, -1Str, -1T, -1Ld, no jump capability. All of that loss for only a one point decrease?

good god man

EDIT: Also no ATSKNF

Sisters are scoring and have an effective range of 30", whereas the Assault Marines have an effective range of 19" (which can fail, leaving them standing around like buffoons) and can't choose to ignore blocking units.

IDK where you're getting your numbers from, but my ASM can assault 24" if they choose. And Sisters have an effective range of 30"? 10 Bolter shots from sisters only kills ~2 guardsmen in cover.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

They aren't anymore, with the decrease of value of 3+ saves in 6th. Heldrakes, shurikens, Riptides and general volume of fire has "fixed" Grey Hunters.

My point still stands, if you're going to make a generalist unit statline specialized you're going to have to pay for stuff you don't need, which is the issue with Marines. It's one of the good things about the new C:SM: being able to choose whether you want a Veteran Sergeant or not, even if a squad with a Vet Sergeant is as expensive as before, means that you have the option of not paying for it if you don't want/need it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
They don't move 12" primarily. And 3+ armor is still a bit better than 4+.

So how much would you like to pay for ASM, then? If Tacticals are 14, and ASM come with jetpacks (immediately worth more points because of increased mobility), would you pay 16?

Not sure. The bolt pistol/CC combo is not as good as a bolter in 6th. Not even close, really. Maybe the same as tacticals. Maybe even 13. They really, really stink.

Sisters are 12, and have -1WS, -1Str, -1T, -1Ld, no jump capability. All of that loss for only a one point decrease?

good god man

EDIT: Also no ATSKNF

Sisters are scoring and have an effective range of 30", whereas the Assault Marines have an effective range of 19" (which can fail, leaving them standing around like buffoons) and can't choose to ignore blocking units.

IDK where you're getting your numbers from, but my ASM can assault 24" if they choose. And Sisters have an effective range of 30"? 10 Bolter shots from sisters only kills ~2 guardsmen in cover.

Sorry, I was being sloppy, I'm assuming a 7" charge range as any more starts getting really shaky. I shouldn't have called the Sisters threat range "effective".

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

They still are. It's just that their OPness with respect to other meqs doesn't matter because the Taudar just kill them with S6 shooting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters are overcosted as well. There's no denying that for me. A sister should not cost more than a fire warrior I think. Because of the way 6th ed rolls.

ATSKNF has actually lost a lot of its efficacy in my experience. Between marines dying wholesale instead of getting morale rolls and WANTING to be swept by daemons, I actually don't much care for this rule.

Your opinion on ATSKNF is wrong, imo. But to each his own.

So a sister should be what, 11 points?

that's only one point more than carapace armored vets, who are 10 pts but have -1 save and a lasgun

And now we're back around to making shooting units cheaper again.

As I said, keep making things cheaper until they are actually used by the community. That's the best test. My opinion on ATSKNF is not wrong. It's just not that useful anymore. I live it every time I plunk down meqs.

I play marines too, my friend.

And you are seriously advocating making veterans cheaper because no one uses them?! WHAT?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

They aren't anymore, with the decrease of value of 3+ saves in 6th. Heldrakes, shurikens, Riptides and general volume of fire has "fixed" Grey Hunters.

My point still stands, if you're going to make a generalist unit statline specialized you're going to have to pay for stuff you don't need, which is the issue with Marines. It's one of the good things about the new C:SM: being able to choose whether you want a Veteran Sergeant or not, even if a squad with a Vet Sergeant is as expensive as before, means that you have the option of not paying for it if you don't want/need it.

This is true, and supports my point quite well except for one thing:

What you see as an issue I see as an attribute. The Marines' "shtick" is generalists. That's how they've always been, that's their thing. If you want an army where each unit has a designated purpose and is objectively terrible at anything else, play Armored Battlegroup.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just for perspective, let's look at Grey Hunters. They're generalists done well. They're decent in close combat and they're decent in shooting, meaning they can chop the shooty ones and shoot the choppy ones. If we look at Crusader Squads, Assault Marine squads and Tactical Squads they're specialized generalist units. They're decent at close combat/shooting and pretty damn awful at the aspect they're not good at (Crusader Squads can choose between shooty and choppy but can't do both effectively at once). In that context, paying for BS4 on a melee unit or WS/S 4 on a shooting unit is rather annoying because, while situationally useful, if something's charging you you're probably not going to live anyway, and if I'm going to make it into combat I'll need every body I can get, screw BS4 pistol shots!

Grey Hunters are also currently 1 pt more than existing Tactical Marines, and their special rules are a wash, with maybe a slight advantage to the tacticals for having two useful ones. Additionally, Grey Hunters were once considered so overpowered that they were the standard by which all other marines were measured.

They aren't anymore, with the decrease of value of 3+ saves in 6th. Heldrakes, shurikens, Riptides and general volume of fire has "fixed" Grey Hunters.

My point still stands, if you're going to make a generalist unit statline specialized you're going to have to pay for stuff you don't need, which is the issue with Marines. It's one of the good things about the new C:SM: being able to choose whether you want a Veteran Sergeant or not, even if a squad with a Vet Sergeant is as expensive as before, means that you have the option of not paying for it if you don't want/need it.

Agreed, but its still not good enough to compete with the merciless efficiency of Tau/Eldar/Daemons. Specialists rule the day because they don't pay for useless capabilities. Throw in some undercosted capabilities, and there you go.

FWIW, grey hunters still aren't "fixed" with respect to other meqs. They are still broken compared to even a 14 pt marine with no counter attack, no CC weapon. Meqs, btw, don't have the firepower to keep grey hunters from getting into CC, so this is very relevant to us.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sorry, I was being sloppy, I'm assuming a 7" charge range as any more starts getting really shaky. I shouldn't have called the Sisters threat range "effective".

Well, if we look at it, sisters have a 18" threat range with rapid-fire bolters, and ASM have a 19" threat range assuming average rolls. So... what was your point again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

FWIW, grey hunters still aren't "fixed" with respect to other meqs. They are still broken compared to even a 14 pt marine with no counter attack, no CC weapon. Meqs, btw, don't have the firepower to keep grey hunters from getting into CC, so this is very relevant to us.

The Marine is one point cheaper, has Chapter Tactics (which can be anything from scout to 6+ FNP to preferred enemy with bolters) and ATSKNF. In trade for +1 point, the GH has a CC weapon (worth +1 pt each imo) and Counter attack (a wash with both special rules, imo).

 Wilytank wrote:
You don't take tactical marines for assault purposes.

What? Tactical Marines shouldn't assault? How are they tactical then? Tactical means versatile, a tactical asset which can perform multiple roles. Not tactical, all I can do is shoot my gun tactical.

I think the OP brings up a another great point. CCWs should NOT cost 3 points per model. Likewise I'm pretty sure Khorne wants all his beloved Zerkers to wield chainaxes. In fact I'm pretty sure every Khorne Berzerker out there would rather have a chainaxe. Pretty sure Butchers Nails come with a chainaxe, it's like a promotional deal or something! Not that it matters anyways because like OP says, they are just a 19 point meat shield. 22 with the axe... Which I ought to point out is the same cost as a regular old combat knife. Oh and why is a chainsword no better than a combat knife?

And there is no way around having to use Termies, if you're a loyalist or a traitor anyways. I mean yes you can load up whatever you want into a Land Raider but those aren't exactly cheap either. Chaos not having drop pods means we're even more reliant on transports. Not like you could use DS as a viable means to get into CC anyway. You pretty much need the 2+ to get into CC.

OR... we just have to start building more balanced lists if we want to use CC?

Note: Unless I'm fighting my SW pal, then he's more than happy to mix it up!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

davethepak wrote:

Assault was OP in 5th, and no longer is.

See my sig.

I did. Seems like we both agree on thing;
Rhinos and Razorbacks were just way too good for the points.

However, that was a function of a unit being too good for the points, which happens to be a shooty unit (similar to the current wave serpent, the old version of the tetra, etc.) not the shooty vs. assault situation in 5th.

I do agree there are more shots on the table - a lot more. I also feel that low AP shots are too common (plasma guns were bad enough once hullpoints removed the need for melta, grav guns just make it even worse) - this is really nasty for armies that dont have easy access to invul saves.

How about this - I feel that the mechanics of assault vs. shooting are now balanced - and were not in 5th (again, as a player who played both types in 5th).
BUT...
I do agree that recent codexes have increased the volume of shots in the game, and this can make it feel even more overwhelming than before.

Back to the OP: Its that the baseline marine is really good balanced unit - and you specialize from there.
Sounds like you would be happier with an army that has a less balanced (i.e. well rounded and strong) baseline, and have the ability to specialize.

Thats fine, thats just not marines.

Not really, I just want balanced units to not be a disadvantage.

Rhinos and razors were too good because of the vehicle damage rules.

Assault and shooting are not even close to balanced anymore. We'll have to agree to disagree there. In 5th assault was fine; in fact, it was a bit underpowered in that edition as well I think. But 5th was the beginning of what we see now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Sorry, I was being sloppy, I'm assuming a 7" charge range as any more starts getting really shaky. I shouldn't have called the Sisters threat range "effective".

Well, if we look at it, sisters have a 18" threat range with rapid-fire bolters, and ASM have a 19" threat range assuming average rolls. So... what was your point again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

FWIW, grey hunters still aren't "fixed" with respect to other meqs. They are still broken compared to even a 14 pt marine with no counter attack, no CC weapon. Meqs, btw, don't have the firepower to keep grey hunters from getting into CC, so this is very relevant to us.

The Marine is one point cheaper, has Chapter Tactics (which can be anything from scout to 6+ FNP to preferred enemy with bolters) and ATSKNF. In trade for +1 point, the GH has a CC weapon (worth +1 pt each imo) and Counter attack (a wash with both special rules, imo).

GH have ATSKNF as well. But that's not much of an advantage anymore.

I only have three data points, but I've voluntarily played without ATSKNF in effect as a test. I never missed it in those three games.

Martel732 wrote:
Not really, I just want balanced units to not be a disadvantage.

Rhinos and razors were too good because of the vehicle damage rules.

Assault and shooting are not even close to balanced anymore. We'll have to agree to disagree there. In 5th assault was fine; in fact, it was a bit underpowered in that edition as well I think. But 5th was the beginning of what we see now.

Balanced units will always be at a disadvantage against specialists. Something that is a "jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none" should always lose to a "master" in a specific aspect. What you're paying for is the ability to sort-of-address every problem, rather than having several different units dedicated to absolutely solving a single problem each.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

GH have ATSKNF as well. But that's not much of an advantage anymore.

I only have three data points, but I've voluntarily played without ATSKNF in effect as a test. I never missed it in those three games.

Ah, in that case, I suppose Chapter Tactics isn't as powerful as Counter-Attack. Depending on which one you pick (Iron Hands, for example), however, it doesn't warrant the cost of an additional point more per GH.

As for your claims about ATSKNF, you're probably right. But what it does do, on those rare times when you can use it, is so spectacular that you should pay a bit for it. You literally give no feths about morale checks without the disadvantages that Fearless brings.

davethepak wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

davethepak wrote:

Assault was OP in 5th, and no longer is.

See my sig.

I did. Seems like we both agree on thing;
Rhinos and Razorbacks were just way too good for the points.

However, that was a function of a unit being too good for the points, which happens to be a shooty unit (similar to the current wave serpent, the old version of the tetra, etc.) not the shooty vs. assault situation in 5th.

I do agree there are more shots on the table - a lot more. I also feel that low AP shots are too common (plasma guns were bad enough once hullpoints removed the need for melta, grav guns just make it even worse) - this is really nasty for armies that dont have easy access to invul saves.

How about this - I feel that the mechanics of assault vs. shooting are now balanced - and were not in 5th (again, as a player who played both types in 5th).
BUT...
I do agree that recent codexes have increased the volume of shots in the game, and this can make it feel even more overwhelming than before.

Back to the OP: Its that the baseline marine is really good balanced unit - and you specialize from there.
Sounds like you would be happier with an army that has a less balanced (i.e. well rounded and strong) baseline, and have the ability to specialize.

Thats fine, thats just not marines.

Razorbacks, Rhinoes, Venoms, Battlewagons, Ghost Arks and so on. The poster-child OP complaint units of 5th edition were Long Fangs, Vendettas, Purifiers and Psyflemen, none of which are melee units. The claim that CC is somehow "equal" with shooting in 6th edition is just insane. It is completely separated from reality to claim that CC was OP or even dominant in 5th edition top-end competetive play (i.e. players that are better than I'll ever be).

I agree that shooting is better than assault in this edition.

I just don't think it needs fixing. Melee units should never be as good as bullet-hoses in a sci-fi setting. To prevent off-topic discussion, however, I will leave it at that and say that is merely my opinion.

I think that if you WERE going to fix it (which I am not really opposed to), cheapening assault units isn't going to help as much as revamping the way assault WORKS. It has several innate advantages to play over shooting, and these should be played up in the rules, rather than remaining unchanged while the rest of the phase is nerfed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I agree that shooting is better than assault in this edition.

I just don't think it needs fixing. Melee units should never be as good as bullet-hoses in a sci-fi setting. To prevent off-topic discussion, however, I will leave it at that and say that is merely my opinion.

I think that if you WERE going to fix it (which I am not really opposed to), cheapening assault units isn't going to help as much as revamping the way assault WORKS. It has several innate advantages to play over shooting, and these should be played up in the rules, rather than remaining unchanged while the rest of the phase is nerfed.

I just don't think it needs fixing. Melee units should never be as good as bullet-hoses in a sci-fi setting.

Then. They. Should. Be. Cheaper. A lot cheaper.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I agree that shooting is better than assault in this edition.

I just don't think it needs fixing. Melee units should never be as good as bullet-hoses in a sci-fi setting. To prevent off-topic discussion, however, I will leave it at that and say that is merely my opinion.

I think that if you WERE going to fix it (which I am not really opposed to), cheapening assault units isn't going to help as much as revamping the way assault WORKS. It has several innate advantages to play over shooting, and these should be played up in the rules, rather than remaining unchanged while the rest of the phase is nerfed.

I just don't think it needs fixing. Melee units should never be as good as bullet-hoses in a sci-fi setting.

Then. They. Should. Be. Cheaper. A lot cheaper.

That doesn't solve the problems, because if you make them cheap enough to be effective, then people will take them out of survivability. An ASM that is 10PPM is practically unkillable if spammed at 2000 points, because you would get 200 of them, and they would retain their T4 and 3+ save.

A lot of what a unit costs (ESPECIALLY space marines) comes from durability, not from offensive power. Cheapening them because of lackluster offensive power would make their durability skyrocket to the point where it's just silly.

Good thing ASM aren't troops.

Now we are getting down to the real problem Marines are paying for durability they no longer have. So, to keep their point value relative to Xenos, they need something else.

Martel732 wrote:
Good thing ASM aren't troops.

Now we are getting down to the real problem Marines are paying for durability they no longer have. So, to keep their point value relative to Xenos, they need something else.

The problem I see here is the Eldar and Tau codecies. They could deal with 200 ASM. No one else could. Should you really be asking for a points adjustment because of the two most OP codecies? What do the poor Orks do?

Yes, the bar has been raised. The Orks do what the marines do right now. Lose. Except they have a book coming, and the marines don't.

Daemons can thrash 200 meqs as well.

To think of it another way, if all codices are overpowered, then it becomes the case that none are.

This thread is amusing. First we start with marines, which are average-below average. Then we compare to assault marines, which are bad, then we compare to sisters, which are bad, then we compare to vets with carapace, which are bad.

The answer you all are looking for is that everything listed is overpriced.

Vets should be elites and 7 ppm with carapace default
Sisters should be 9 ppm
SM should be 12 ppm
CSM should be 12 ppm
ASM should be 12 ppm
Grey Hunters should be 14ppm (counter attack+ pistol+2x spec wep> ATSKNF and chapter tactics by a lot)

Banshees are a different problem. The eldar codex needed an assault vehicle. I would have liked an open-topped falcon chassis (essentially a large venom). Then throw AP2 on banshees and 2 base attacks (and 2 base attacks on scorps ffs) and you have competitive units. The lack of mobility is largely due to the codex's options rather than the unit's abilities.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:

You actually have to pay an extra cost for the ccw which then ruins the one slight thing that CSM had that made them better than Marines (that being said CSM are better than SM in general What I mean is giving them ccw either makes them cost equal or more than loyalists despite all the benefits they get over them)

CSM are better than marines? For 1pt per model they get ATSKNF and chapter tactics, have no compulsory sergeant and better transport options. Loyalists are far superior troops, but that's an aside.

I don't think assault units are overpriced across the board I just think that they are more prone to being the turkey (of the non Hell variety) of the dex. Do your Chosen want a power weapon and no access to an assault vehicle aside from a separate heavy purchase or a Plasma Gun?

Compare this to the prices of units you do see, Seekers and Khorne Dogs being the best examples. Much more reasonable prices for what you get. A unit capable of delivering itself to combat reliably and doing significant damage when there.

A seeker is cavalry, +6" run, rending, 3 attacks and hits marines on 3 and scores in one mission.
A banshee is infantry, +3" run, AP3, 2 attacks and hits marines on a 4.

Yet the Banshee, despite coming from the new top dog book, is more expensive.

Now, melee units don't have the monopoly on being overcosted (Oh Pyrovore why do you keep hurting me so) but I can agree with Martel that they have some of the worst examples.

*facepalm* what a mess up. What I meant was the only advantage CSM have over loyalist marines is that they are cheaper. In reality the price disparity isn't enough and SM are superior. What I meant was a CCW makes them cost the same which ruins the one tiny thing chaos had (be it as pathetic and unbalanced in the favor to SM as of already was)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zephoid wrote:
This thread is amusing. First we start with marines, which are average-below average. Then we compare to assault marines, which are bad, then we compare to sisters, which are bad, then we compare to vets with carapace, which are bad.

The answer you all are looking for is that everything listed is overpriced.

Vets should be elites and 7 ppm with carapace default
Sisters should be 9 ppm
SM should be 12 ppm
CSM should be 12 ppm
ASM should be 12 ppm
Grey Hunters should be 14ppm (counter attack+ pistol+2x spec wep> ATSKNF and chapter tactics by a lot)

Banshees are a different problem. The eldar codex needed an assault vehicle. I would have liked an open-topped falcon chassis (essentially a large venom). Then throw AP2 on banshees and 2 base attacks (and 2 base attacks on scorps ffs) and you have competitive units. The lack of mobility is largely due to the codex's options rather than the unit's abilities.

Why should CSM and SM cost the same when SM are blatantly better?

 StarTrotter wrote:


Why should CSM and SM cost the same when SM are blatantly better?

Thats more due to the failings of the whole CSM codex than an individual unit. CSM should have had overarching customizable rules similar to chapter tactics. ATSKNF is largely a wash. With the way this edition is played, getting swept in combat is sometimes a good thing, allowing the rest of the army to shoot that target. Maybe give basic CSM stubborn to mimic it while retaining a slightly different flavor. LD8 stubborn isnt exactly reliable, but it is useful.

 zephoid wrote:
This thread is amusing. First we start with marines, which are average-below average. Then we compare to assault marines, which are bad, then we compare to sisters, which are bad, then we compare to vets with carapace, which are bad.

The answer you all are looking for is that everything listed is overpriced.

Vets should be elites and 7 ppm with carapace default
Sisters should be 9 ppm
SM should be 12 ppm
CSM should be 12 ppm
ASM should be 12 ppm
Grey Hunters should be 14ppm (counter attack+ pistol+2x spec wep> ATSKNF and chapter tactics by a lot)

Banshees are a different problem. The eldar codex needed an assault vehicle. I would have liked an open-topped falcon chassis (essentially a large venom). Then throw AP2 on banshees and 2 base attacks (and 2 base attacks on scorps ffs) and you have competitive units. The lack of mobility is largely due to the codex's options rather than the unit's abilities.

Actually, this is exactly what I'm saying. Units that underperform at a given price point need a different price point. Not different rules. They can be given different rules, but then they need to be repriced. Everything is relative. Units are only bad *for their price* or good *for their price*. If wave serpents cost 250 pts like a land raider, serpent spam would not be a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 zephoid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Why should CSM and SM cost the same when SM are blatantly better?

Thats more due to the failings of the whole CSM codex than an individual unit. CSM should have had overarching customizable rules similar to chapter tactics. ATSKNF is largely a wash. With the way this edition is played, getting swept in combat is sometimes a good thing, allowing the rest of the army to shoot that target. Maybe give basic CSM stubborn to mimic it while retaining a slightly different flavor. LD8 stubborn isnt exactly reliable, but it is useful.

Thank you for pointing out how ATSKNF is not that great in 6th.

 zephoid wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:


Why should CSM and SM cost the same when SM are blatantly better?

Thats more due to the failings of the whole CSM codex than an individual unit. CSM should have had overarching customizable rules similar to chapter tactics. ATSKNF is largely a wash. With the way this edition is played, getting swept in combat is sometimes a good thing, allowing the rest of the army to shoot that target. Maybe give basic CSM stubborn to mimic it while retaining a slightly different flavor. LD8 stubborn isnt exactly reliable, but it is useful.

I've always imagined For the greater good. They backstab d3 of their guys and retreat letting those individuals fight it off to their death and then turning around to shoot into the shocked enemies xD

And yeah, it's not really the ATSKNF. Now admittedly, it's obviously intended to be good (I'd be surprised if not). My gripe comes from their other abilities which are all (bar arguably DA) serperior to that of CSM's (in other words who was the dolt that decided champions of chaos was a good thing?)

I'm not denying that CSM got hosed with their codex. Or shall I call it codex: helldrakes? But again, ATSKNF is not what it was in the 5th edition meta. Too many squads dying in place. Too many times I *want* my troops swept.

In fact, I think the trend will be that *every* non-meq codex is better than the meqs codices this edition. We'll see when the next Xeno dex drops if this trend continues. So far, this is the trend.

I actually stand by the point that Grey Hunters are perfectly viable in 6ED. Their advantages in counter assault capability is still very relevant in a world of Daemons. Throwing 30 attacks back at Fleshounds rerolling 1s is a lot better than throwing 10 attacks at them. They are slightly less durable than Vanilla Marines if run barebone, but the cheaper Special Weapons help balance that out, and the sheer lethality of 1 GH compared to 1 TAC Marine if he survives to assault a Tau/Eldar Army is enough to make the difference.

The problem with Space Wolves is everything BUT Grey Hunters and Rune Priests. If the Wolves dex could take 3 Thunderfires, 3 Storm Talons, and keep GHs (with their TDA SGTs cheesing the Wolf Standard) and Rune Priests, it would be a top tier dex IMO.

I can buy that assertion anonymou5. I have a feeling the rune priests as we know them are going bye bye though.

Martel732 wrote:
I can buy that assertion anonymou5. I have a feeling the rune priests as we know them are going bye bye though.

Oh yeah, Rune Priests are definitely getting nerfed. But if they go to 6ED Librarian Pricing and keep Divination (and seeing as in the fluff that's the only psychic tree Rune Priests not named Njal ever use, I don't see why they wouldn't keep it), they'll still be good.

However Grey Hunters might actually go up in price (although maybe Blood Claws drop to 12 PPM, which would be legit), and Wolves aren't getting Storm Talons or Thunderfires. My big hope is that Fenrisian Wolves get rending and a price drop, that would be fantastic.

Makes me wonder what BA will get. Or won't get.

Martel732 wrote:
Makes me wonder what BA will get. Or won't get.

Note this is a complete guess: but I really think Mephiston is going to get changed to a FMC. It fits his abilities, and the direction of the game design in general.

I wasn't worried about him so much as which models to purchases. Are cents a C:SM only thing? What about storm talons?

Martel732 wrote:
I wasn't worried about him so much as which models to purchases. Are cents a C:SM only thing? What about storm talons?

Again, all speculation:

I think if Wolves or BA were going to get the Talon it would have happened in Death from the Skies. The Cents is a good question, but here's my thoughts. With DA and SM already out, and BT folded into Vanilla, we have a good glimpse into the design vision of Imperial Marines. I think they're trying to make the four remaining books distinct. Not just "my TAC Marines are better" as we've seen. So I think BA and SW will both get a new kit of their own (just like DA and Vanilla did, DA getting many). For SW you can almost guarantee it will be a MC. That's just the direction the game is going, and it's the direction GW has been going with the Wolves for a long time now, less Viking and more Werewolf. I'm also hoping the Wolves get Leman Russ tanks back, because the kits already exist (so it costs GW nothing in development), it distinguishes the books (if that is the goal), and it's CALLED A LEMAN RUSS.

For BA I have no guesses at all. lol.

I can't find any flaws to your logic. You took the safe route with the BA

Martel732 wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. This is a spawn of the "how to CC" thread. Of course, there are the magic exceptions to this, like seer council and screamerstar. But for your grunt space marine of even striking scorpion, they are being charged a lot for gear they will likely never be able to use. Because they will get shot to death.

Spacemarines aren't overcosted. How many units have BS4, T4, ATSKNF grenades, 3+ armor, str4 shooting weapons, and a free CT rule for 14 points?

Assault marines are probably overcosted
Wyches come to mind as more overcosted though
Hellions too
and Mandrakes

Striking scorpions and Howling banshees suffer more from a lack of assault transports rather than being overpriced.

"Spacemarines aren't overcosted. How many units have BS4, T4, ATSKNF grenades, 3+ armor, str4 shooting weapons, and a free CT rule for 14 points? "

I don't know, but none of that stuff seems to mean much in my games. Well, the BS.

Why do I get the feeling that the real issue is more likely that games, (tournaments especially), simply aren't being played with the proper amounts & types of terrain on the table?
2-4 LoS blocking pieces of terrain, and proper placement, as in 'put it in fething play and not uselessly in the corners so you can abuse your gunline like crazy' goes a helluva long way to 'fixing' the supposed suckiness of MEQ's in general.

Have Tau/Eldar likely got a bit too much ap3/2 shooting going? Probably. But it's still not game wrecking if you play on a properly set-up table that's at least 30% covered and includes more beyond just tiny little hills and some itty-bitty trees.

Hell, I routinely see the Fantasy tables set-up with more terrain than the 40k tables! No wonder the shooty armies are having a field day.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Why do I get the feeling that the real issue is more likely that games, (tournaments especially), simply aren't being played with the proper amounts & types of terrain on the table?
2-4 LoS blocking pieces of terrain, and proper placement, as in 'put it in fething play and not uselessly in the corners so you can abuse your gunline like crazy' goes a helluva long way to 'fixing' the supposed suckiness of MEQ's in general.

Have Tau/Eldar likely got a bit too much ap3/2 shooting going? Probably. But it's still not game wrecking if you play on a properly set-up table that's at least 30% covered and includes more beyond just tiny little hills and some itty-bitty trees.

Hell, I routinely see the Fantasy tables set-up with more terrain than the 40k tables! No wonder the shooty armies are having a field day.

This has been discussed quite a bit. There are compelling arguments for how terrain actually hinders assaulting armies. I don't think the answer is this simple. Meqs have a lot of problems in this edition that go beyond terrain.

You clearly don't quite understand the problem because Eldar/Tau aren't getting it done with AP 2/3. They are getting it done with wound spam. No amount of cover other than 2+ will help meqs against this approach. I think meq's lack of effective counter fire is a bigger problem. Hence, the call for Tiggy enhanced cents and the like.

Let me preface this point by saying I actually think Assault is fine in 6ED. Just like shooting, it has been cranked up to the extreme and that only ridiculous shooting or assault lists can win a GT

That said, I at least somewhat agree with him in regards to the TAC Marine. I may do some math on this later (got a work function I'm about to leave for so this is a rushed post)

Let's briefly compare the "generalist" Troop choice of a TAC Marine to two common specialists (as in, you will see on the table at a tourney), the Fire Warrior and the Daemonnette. In theory, the generalist troop should be able to sometimes beat the specialist by "Dakka the Choppa, Choppa the Dakka"

Martel's issue is that the TAC Marine will get shot to death by the Fire Warrior, and won't have enough strength left to win the combat by the time he hits assault. Conversely, he will not do enough damage in shooting to the Daemonette to win the combat once the Daemonnete hits him. I feel there is some truth to this statement.

Where as, arguably, a Grey Hunter can do enough damage with the remnants of his squad to murder Fire Warriors, and stand tall to the Daemonnettes once they hit him. Again, the Generalist should not always win Troop show downs, but he should at least sometimes win by engaging in areas the specialists are weak to. TAC Marines this is arguably not the case.

"Martel's issue is that the TAC Marine will get shot to death by the Fire Warrior, and won't have enough strength left to win the combat by the time he hits assault. Conversely, he will not do enough damage in shooting to the Daemonette to win the combat once the Daemonnete hits him. I feel there is some truth to this statement. "

Yup. Tac marines have *always* had this problem.

And why I *hated* the Grey Hunter in 5th ed, because that's what I felt all marines should be like. So they can be, you know, marines.

Well if marine players want those pistol+ccw , then they can play space sharks . FW has chapter tactics that lets tacticals buy ccw for 1 point.

Makumba wrote:
Well if marine players want those pistol+ccw , then they can play space sharks . FW has chapter tactics that lets tacticals buy ccw for 1 point.

It's more than that. It's counter attack. It's double special instead of special/heavy. Plus, not everyone is allowed to use FW, so that can't be a general solution.

So the general solution is to make static gunlines like IG suck , because marines who don't want to play shoty armies or bike armies or pod using armies are getting beaten in an edition that clearly tells them to do just that ?
Well then I want guardsman to be able to out melee zerkers , if taniths can do it , then cadians should too.Specialy with their extra insight about chaos tactics.

And the option to detonate your own crack or las carabine in melee range of a meq , just like it is done in the fluff.

No, the general solution is to make models perform in *real games* as their points would indicate. And if the published points are found to be inaccurate, change them.

The increased volume of fire and the quality of it is what makes assault units over costed, unless they can reach combat in 1/2 turns without losing too many.

There's simply no way to cost units vs assault when so many armies have fire power enough to destroy many units completely in a single turn.

If shooting was less accurate, less deadly and costly enough you could have assault units that survive walking across the board (like Banshees).

It's not that Banshees suck at their task (although the AP3 power weapon nerf in 6th was a blow), it's that all armies can destroy them without effort in a single turn and still have fire power left to kill other units.

Even with enough terrain, 5+/4+ cover saves don't protect against torrents of shooting.

Makumba wrote:
So the general solution is to make static gunlines like IG suck , because marines who don't want to play shoty armies or bike armies or pod using armies are getting beaten in an edition that clearly tells them to do just that ?
Well then I want guardsman to be able to out melee zerkers , if taniths can do it , then cadians should too.Specialy with their extra insight about chaos tactics.

And the option to detonate your own crack or las carabine in melee range of a meq , just like it is done in the fluff.

I actually like that solution. Gunlines are no fun to play with and even less fun to play against.

Yeah, give them options to sacrifice something to gain a one turn awesome attack. Like their lasgun. Why not!
Or make shooting much weaker, but make overwatch much more powerful.
atleast that lets the assaulters get to actually assault!
If they die a bloody death doing it, atleast you got to try! Footslogging only to go "whelp, no units left." is not a whole load of fun.

I wouldn't say that, I had a unit of banshees kill a dreadknight in my last tourney. lol
I would say that bringing the gun back into the game and making it worthwhile to take guns has made you be more tactical and strategic in the use of assault.
yes, some of the old no brainers are no long that and are now overcosted but others have stepped up to replace them.
I find that now, I have to THINk more during the game (regardless of which side am on) than ever before.

I think the biggest problem is that the game has limited turns

Most shooty units are effective turn 1, 2 at the latest. The rapid fire changes essentially doubled the range of most shooting (well...18" to 30", but you get the idea) which means this is true for practically every troop choice in the game. Unit count wise, troops tend to make up a lions share of the army.

Compared that to assault units. These are effective at turn 2 at the earliest, with 3-4 being a much more common number. Often they only get 1-2 rounds to be effective at most, while shooting units get 5. This used to be balanced by the fact they wiped entire units at a time and got to go in both players turns, but now wiping a unit isn't as great as it used to be.

Perhaps the best change would be that if you were in combat in your turn, that unit receives a 5+ cover save until your next turn. Give them the option to go to ground, consolidate their initiative in inches, or pursue.

IMO. If you want to assault, you NEED LOTS of assault units. Orks do this very well in that, no matter what you shoot at, they will most likely get into combat with you. now, fast vehicles with open topped goodness (really, these things make orks work "DECENTLY") imo if you allowed marines to assault from rhinos again this "problem" would be solved.

but to the original point, if you have an even threat spread of assault units, its harder for them to focus them down. This is one of the very, very, VERY few things BA have. Torrent fire is -slightly- less effective vs them thanks to them having 3+/5+ FnP. (counter acted by there ppm cost) but since they can take these ASM as troops they can "spam" them. and with on avg 14-15" moves a turn gunlines will get caught T2 or T3. with that many ASM wave serpants have little room to maneuver.


now, for Tacs. TBH I HATE THEM, I wish we had better troop choices. not only do we lose shooting vs 2 IG units (if they are in a measly 5+ cover) half the time due to lack luster shooting, but the 1 SW 1 HW hurts. I am starting to never take any HWs on my tacs as then I don't feel bad about actually moving them and using them "tactically" the HW is, imo a trap option. It looks nice but fails its function. if you take one take a HB IMO. as then you can at least snap shoot (ML -can- work) The reason is, if you take that MM, LC. then if want to use it against vehicles rendering the squads fire wasted. (SW don't have this problem....) but if you use the LC,ML,MM vs infantry where you can "maxmize" your already wanting firepower that 1 shot has a 1/3 chance to miss, then at the least a 1/5 chance to be "dodged) and a 1/6 chance to not wound at all.

While I will say T4 really hasn't helped much. the 3+ armor IS nice. semi good dice rolls (which is really what this game is) can cripple a VoF armies turn of shooting.

Or with bad die rolls, the game is over on turn 1. Been there, done that.

Also, mass ASM lists die like slime to MC circuses.

Martel732 wrote:
Or with bad die rolls, the game is over on turn 1. Been there, done that.

Also, mass ASM lists die like slime to MC circuses.

well most things DO (like, what doesn't?). I am not saying that its the most effective build, and every army has its weakness. (even deamons and eldar). but plopping power fists on the sang priests can actually help vs those MCs. (power axe/ maul on the sgt as well).

but dice, are dice. some armies do have more to throw, and at a certain point more dice thrown will beat less dice. BUT I find that going second as a assault armies actually helps me over first turn. 1, I can counter place my units to nullify as much firepower as possible. 2 I can steal the int every 6th game XD. 3. I can place my units where I want them based on the enemy list/positioning. the 3rd one is the biggest thing for me. I also find that most volume of fire armies cannot effectively deal with mephiston. (specially with LoS blocked from half the army and a 5+ FnP.)

but BA aside marines are not meant to be a CC army. even in the fluff the CC is done as a last resort/ by the "hero" marines. but it takes BAD dice rolls to lose T 2, decent Die rolls to make a game, and good die rolls to reliably win. where as eldar/tau can reliably win with decent die rolls on the average.

I find Sm does CC relatively well, but only with the biker champ death star. Th/SS termies are alright, but not great. If I ran them I'd want to put them in a raider and use them with the bikers to give a pronged attack up the flanks.

The only counter to MCs I have found are Dark eldar (poison), and even they are just alright. Not really relevant to the discussion anyway.

I agree that Assault is functionally a dead end ATM, save for demons as an army design. Hopefully the nid and orkndex will change this. I haven't used my nids much since this codex dropped

 raiden wrote:
I
now, for Tacs. TBH I HATE THEM, I wish we had better troop choices. not only do we lose shooting vs 2 IG units (if they are in a measly 5+ cover) half the time due to lack luster shooting, but the 1 SW 1 HW hurts. I am starting to never take any HWs on my tacs as then I don't feel bad about actually moving them and using them "tactically" the HW is, imo a trap option. It looks nice but fails its function. if you take one take a HB IMO. as then you can at least snap shoot (ML -can- work) The reason is, if you take that MM, LC. then if want to use it against vehicles rendering the squads fire wasted. (SW don't have this problem....) but if you use the LC,ML,MM vs infantry where you can "maxmize" your already wanting firepower that 1 shot has a 1/3 chance to miss, then at the least a 1/5 chance to be "dodged) and a 1/6 chance to not wound at all.

While I will say T4 really hasn't helped much. the 3+ armor IS nice. semi good dice rolls (which is really what this game is) can cripple a VoF armies turn of shooting.

They're "tactical" marines, you are paying points to be active in every phase of the game, assault grenades, AT grenades, pistols for charging fire, solid S,T,WS, BS, I and save. They are unsweepable, auto rally, can split into combat squads, deep strike with pods (on the first turn no less), take transports, chapter tactics.
The flexibility afforded by tactical marines is astounding compared to other races basic troopers. The number of situations where a Tac marine has a fighting chance instead of being totally incapable compared to Avengers, Guard, Gaunts or Fire Warriors is substantial.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 raiden wrote:
I
now, for Tacs. TBH I HATE THEM, I wish we had better troop choices. not only do we lose shooting vs 2 IG units (if they are in a measly 5+ cover) half the time due to lack luster shooting, but the 1 SW 1 HW hurts. I am starting to never take any HWs on my tacs as then I don't feel bad about actually moving them and using them "tactically" the HW is, imo a trap option. It looks nice but fails its function. if you take one take a HB IMO. as then you can at least snap shoot (ML -can- work) The reason is, if you take that MM, LC. then if want to use it against vehicles rendering the squads fire wasted. (SW don't have this problem....) but if you use the LC,ML,MM vs infantry where you can "maxmize" your already wanting firepower that 1 shot has a 1/3 chance to miss, then at the least a 1/5 chance to be "dodged) and a 1/6 chance to not wound at all.

While I will say T4 really hasn't helped much. the 3+ armor IS nice. semi good dice rolls (which is really what this game is) can cripple a VoF armies turn of shooting.

They're "tactical" marines, you are paying points to be active in every phase of the game, assault grenades, AT grenades, pistols for charging fire, solid S,T,WS, BS, I and save. They are unsweepable, auto rally, can split into combat squads, deep strike with pods (on the first turn no less), take transports, chapter tactics.
The flexibility afforded by tactical marines is astounding compared to other races basic troopers. The number of situations where a Tac marine has a fighting chance instead of being totally incapable compared to Avengers, Guard, Gaunts or Fire Warriors is substantial.

I disagree, but I guess GW agrees with you. 6th edition is an edition of specialists. 75% of what you just listed off is a non-factor in most of the games I both play in and *read about* from battle reports. Remember that unsweepable is a disadvantage a good deal of the time now. That's how good shooting is; you WANT your own troops to die so you can shoot more. The game itself is too imbalanced for tactical marines to really have these advantages you describe.

I can also tell you that when I army swap, or borrow my buddy's lists, I don't miss most of these "advantages", either. They are simply too corner-case now.

Basic space marines havnt changed since 3rd edition. The stats are all the same. Eldar gaurdians are way better than they ever were and chapter tactics are just silly little band aids. No matter how random they make demons there still new and improved compared to marines. I dont want to see them get cheaper. I want them to be better. Back in the day Dark Reapers wiping half a squad of SM was an accomplishment. Now a days it would be considered poor shooting. SMs need a serious overhaul to be what they were always intended to be: elite. Thier basic 3rd Ed stats, armor, and weapons need to be changed to deal with the current edition. I dont want them changed to be "correctly priced", i want them to be worth thier points. Making them cheaper and keeping the current rules means i just pull them off the board by the bucket full. At which point im just playing IG with crappy tanks.

Whole heartedly agree.
While I'm still new to the game, I quickly reduced the number of TACs to the absolute minimum required by the FoC. Getting a HQ which enables other troop choices is obligatory... In my case Belial, Sammael or Azrael. Removes a big fat weakness from your army.