So, out of the most recent armies, Space Marines (and Dark Angels) have the most... oddly balanced of the new codices. Now, I'm not saying that Space Marines suck, just that Tactical Marines only kinda suck. Think about it. Eldar troops are fast, have the capacity for JSJ tactics, and have a sort of rending ability on their weapons. Tau have a much longer range with higher strength, plus the capacity to unleash more shots with a Fireblade Cadre or Ethereal and then increase their BS using Markerlights. Daemons have tough troops, swift troops with rending and tons of attacks, and troops with AP3 weapons all over.
What do Tactical Marines have going for them? A 3+ armor save and a decent statline? Even Chaos Marines are better simply because they start out cheaper and can take marks, which makes them a fair bit better, though slightly more expensive. Add their banner things, and they become even better, and non-marked CSM can become fearless.
So I propose that Tactical Marines become slightly more useful, bringing them up to the level of Dire Avengers or Firewarriors in their usefulness. They're supposed to be a jack of all trades, master of none sort of deal, so why are they a jack of all trades but they suck at most of them? They need firepower. I can't begin to say how many times I've had Tacticals drop in and do nothing to a unit of Firewarriors, maybe killing two models at best in a single phase. My proposal:
- Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list.
- Tactical squads may gain the Slow and Purposeful rule for +1 point per model.
ATSKNF is MASSIVE on your scoring troops, and the ability to be in 10-man teams for low-objective-count missions such as relic/killpoints and split in missions that have 4-5 objectives on the field is also huge.
Tacticals are fine troops. they are there to score objectives, and they are better at it then most. you don't take them to kill stuff, you take them not to die. these FW and eldar guys with cool guns? don't have as nice armor. and the armor matters more for troops.
Why on earth would they have SnP?
And the ability to have a special AND a heavy is more then some have as it is, having two of the same is not a good idea.
(also, using fireblade or ethreal as examples of how FW are good troops is silly, they are HQ choices attached to these troops, you can get ANY unit to preform better with the right HQ around.)
ATSKNF is MASSIVE on your scoring troops, and the ability to be in 10-man teams for low-objective-count missions such as relic/killpoints and split in missions that have 4-5 objectives on the field is also huge.
Tacticals are fine troops. they are there to score objectives, and they are better at it then most. you don't take them to kill stuff, you take them not to die. these FW and eldar guys with cool guns? don't have as nice armor. and the armor matters more for troops.
Why on earth would they have SnP?
And the ability to have a special AND a heavy is more then some have as it is, having two of the same is not a good idea.
(also, using fireblade or ethreal as examples of how FW are good troops is silly, they are HQ choices attached to these troops, you can get ANY unit to preform better with the right HQ around.)
ATSKNF is great. I'm not knocking that. I'm saying that comparatively SMs have the lowest killing power out of any given troop choice. Tactical Marines can't put out nearly three dozen shots at 15", nor are their weapons even remotely effective against terminators compared to Daemonettes or Shuriken weapons.
And they would have SnP in order to actually move and fire heavy weapons. A single model with relentless does not give it to the unit, but a single model with SnP does confer it to the unit. SnP isn't some mechanical support or anything, it's a unit moving slowly and methodically, taking their time and bracing themselves to fire their weapons to the greatest effect. Also, it makes Heavy Bolters not suck. As much.
As for armor, both FW and Dire Avengers have 4+ saves. The difference between 4+ and 5+ is HUGE. Nearly every weapon in the game removes 5+ saves. But 4+? Not nearly as common, and those that do are special weapons or heavy weapons, like kraken penetrator rounds or heavy bolters.
And finally, Grey Hunters can have two Special weapons, and on top of that they get the second for free. That's why they're still one of the best troop choices available.
FLUFFWISE why would they have SnP? its not making any sense for them.
And as said-they don't ahve the same killpower, they got durability. and for troops that's the important thing. they are fine with that.
The difference between 4+ and 5+ IS huge, but so is 4+ to 3+. AP3 AoE weapons or high RoF guns are less common. unlike AP4 where you got large blasts everywhere and cheap heavy bolters spitting them. and even if you dont get by the save, a 1/2 chance to kill is still better then 2/3.
Grey hunters are also more expensive from the get-go (rendering the cheaper first special and free second matter less), got no option to get a heavy weapon AT ALL and got Counter Attack where tacticals got much superior Chapter Tactics, and the ability to split up (the hunters cant do it. at all.)
Grey hunters were amazing back when they costed the same as tactical and did everything better and cheaper, these days its not so. they are a less flexible tactical squad that's better only specifically at advancing towards the enemy and pellet him with guns-and worse at objective camping.
BoomWolf wrote: FLUFFWISE why would they have SnP? its not making any sense for them.
And as said-they don't ahve the same killpower, they got durability. and for troops that's the important thing. they are fine with that.
The difference between 4+ and 5+ IS huge, but so is 4+ to 3+. AP3 AoE weapons or high RoF guns are less common. unlike AP4 where you got large blasts everywhere and cheap heavy bolters spitting them. and even if you dont get by the save, a 1/2 chance to kill is still better then 2/3.
Grey hunters are also more expensive from the get-go (rendering the cheaper first special and free second matter less), got no option to get a heavy weapon AT ALL and got Counter Attack where tacticals got much superior Chapter Tactics, and the ability to split up (the hunters cant do it. at all.)
Grey hunters were amazing back when they costed the same as tactical and did everything better and cheaper, these days its not so. they are a less flexible tactical squad that's better only specifically at advancing towards the enemy and pellet him with guns-and worse at objective camping.
Fluffwise they'd arguably have Relentless, at least for non-heavy weapons. Not game balance wise though.
AP and AP3 (large and small) blasts are rather common, honestly.
I think Tactical Marines are fine. The issue is that other comparable units are not fine.
I'm saying that comparatively SMs have the lowest killing power out of any given troop choice. Tactical Marines can't put out nearly three dozen shots at 15", nor are their weapons even remotely effective against terminators compared to Daemonettes or Shuriken weapons. And finally, Grey Hunters can have two Special weapons, and on top of that they get the second for free. That's why they're still one of the best troop choices available.
Two of their 3 Special Weapons ignore 2+ Saves, and the flexibility of their Heavy Weapons is really only marched by Imperial Guard of which 3 of the make a mockery of 2+ Saves.
As far as the two Special Weapons, I also play Space Wolves and the duel Special weapons are great, but unlike normal Tactical Marines I only have a 24” Bubble. Tactical Maries are hard presses not to have a 24” Bubble which something can fire as long as they take a Heavy Weapon. Now with Grav-Weapons Tactical Marines with Heavy Bolter and a Combi-Grav can put out an impressive rate of fire, especially with the right Chapter Tactics.
I'm saying that comparatively SMs have the lowest killing power out of any given troop choice. Tactical Marines can't put out nearly three dozen shots at 15", nor are their weapons even remotely effective against terminators compared to Daemonettes or Shuriken weapons. And finally, Grey Hunters can have two Special weapons, and on top of that they get the second for free. That's why they're still one of the best troop choices available.
Two of their 3 Special Weapons ignore 2+ Saves, and the flexibility of their Heavy Weapons is really only marched by Imperial Guard of which 3 of the make a mockery of 2+ Saves.
As far as the two Special Weapons, I also play Space Wolves and the duel Special weapons are great, but unlike normal Tactical Marines I only have a 24” Bubble. Tactical Maries are hard presses not to have a 24” Bubble which something can fire as long as they take a Heavy Weapon. Now with Grav-Weapons Tactical Marines with Heavy Bolter and a Combi-Grav can put out an impressive rate of fire, especially with the right Chapter Tactics.
Except that most models with a 2+ save also have some other save as backup, most notably terminators. One or two S7 AP2 shots doesn't help much, although it will help slightly. Grav-guns are Salvo, so you won't get to fully use them unless they're on something with Relentless or Slow and Purposeful. Compared to a full unit of Dire Avengers, a Tactical SM unit with a plasma gun still deals less damage to 2+ save models than the DAs. 10 DAs is 20 rending shots. 10 tactical marines with a plasma or grav-gun is 9 S4 AP5 shots and 2 AP2 shots. (or 18 S4 AP5 if <12".
Also, their Heavy Weapons really aren't that flexible. You can't move and shoot them, so unless you're doing a very static gunline, those weapons are almost useless most of the time, and even less if you're doing a Drop Pod army. However, I might remove the "two specials or two heavy weapons" bit. SnP is fine alone, I think.
Also, the only way to make Tacticals much better is by using the FW siege assault vanguard list and taking siege mantlets, which allows for armor save re-rolls against shooting only. It isn't cheap (almost a GK paladin), but they double their survivability.
I'm saying that comparatively SMs have the lowest killing power out of any given troop choice. Tactical Marines can't put out nearly three dozen shots at 15", nor are their weapons even remotely effective against terminators compared to Daemonettes or Shuriken weapons. And finally, Grey Hunters can have two Special weapons, and on top of that they get the second for free. That's why they're still one of the best troop choices available.
Two of their 3 Special Weapons ignore 2+ Saves, and the flexibility of their Heavy Weapons is really only marched by Imperial Guard of which 3 of the make a mockery of 2+ Saves.
As far as the two Special Weapons, I also play Space Wolves and the duel Special weapons are great, but unlike normal Tactical Marines I only have a 24” Bubble. Tactical Maries are hard presses not to have a 24” Bubble which something can fire as long as they take a Heavy Weapon. Now with Grav-Weapons Tactical Marines with Heavy Bolter and a Combi-Grav can put out an impressive rate of fire, especially with the right Chapter Tactics.
Except that most models with a 2+ save also have some other save as backup, most notably terminators. One or two S7 AP2 shots doesn't help much, although it will help slightly. Grav-guns are Salvo, so you won't get to fully use them unless they're on something with Relentless or Slow and Purposeful. Compared to a full unit of Dire Avengers, a Tactical SM unit with a plasma gun still deals less damage to 2+ save models than the DAs. 10 DAs is 20 rending shots. 10 tactical marines with a plasma or grav-gun is 9 S4 AP5 shots and 2 AP2 shots. (or 18 S4 AP5 if <12".
Also, their Heavy Weapons really aren't that flexible. You can't move and shoot them, so unless you're doing a very static gunline, those weapons are almost useless most of the time, and even less if you're doing a Drop Pod army. However, I might remove the "two specials or two heavy weapons" bit. SnP is fine alone, I think.
Also, the only way to make Tacticals much better is by using the FW siege assault vanguard list and taking siege mantlets, which allows for armor save re-rolls against shooting only. It isn't cheap (almost a GK paladin), but they double their survivability.
As far as Flexability, that comes with your List building.
As gar as Gun Lines/Pods, most of the time I see Tactical Squads become very static very quickly. Once there are on the Objective, they stay there and hold it for as long as you can.
As far as taking objectives, that what the rest of your army does. Tactical Squads can do it to. Once your Tactical Squad is within 12" You blast your taget off the Objective and move on.
Remeber Tactal Squads are "Jack of Trades" that means "Master of None".
Redunancy is also a good way to use them. I run 3x 10 man squads with a Combi-Plasma, Plasma gun and Plasma Cannon. The only two things that give me issues are OrK Battle Wagons and the DoM. Otherwise most things die before they get close and those who do get close my Bolt Guns finish off or at least slow down.I don't think they need anything other than practice in there use.
Yeah, I am both an eldar and space marine player. Space marines are so durable. Dire avengers have blade storm but t3 and 4+sv and cost 13 pt per model? You can run tactical marines across a field. Dire avengers you can't (nor would you want to) the marines live avengers die. I mean sure I would think that's cool to make tactical squads a little more damage dealing, but they are more like a tank instead of a dps. That's why I still like space marines is that they are durable and when the game is winding down to turn 5 you realize you are winning with objectives.
Really this game comes down to skill of both players. Dice are really important especially since its completely random and good (lucky) dice rolls and bad (un fortunate) dice rolls sway games also, but that is just a part of this game. Its way more then rolling dice, its target priority, target saturation, positioning, timing, and in the end having fun!
zend0g wrote: I would be happy to be able to take two special weapons rather than one special and one heavy.
Thats what Sternguard or Command Squads are for.
A Tactical Suqad is just that; A Tactical JoT. When thay deploy they are givin a basic command and given the tools for that job. From there they expand thier "Job"
I get this all the time when I post a Plasma SPAM List: How do you deal with AV14 with your Tactical Squads? My Reply: It's not thier Job! Now I usualy give the Sarge a Melta Bomb as Power Fist are now Death Traps. I want to Kill a Land Riader I feed it Las-Cannons from my Devistators or Melta Armed Sternguard, that is thier job.
zend0g wrote: I would be happy to be able to take two special weapons rather than one special and one heavy.
Thats what Sternguard or Command Squads are for.
A Tactical Suqad is just that; A Tactical JoT. When thay deploy they are givin a basic command and given the tools for that job. From there they expand thier "Job"
I get this all the time when I post a Plasma SPAM List: How do you deal with AV14 with your Tactical Squads? My Reply: It's not thier Job! Now I usualy give the Sarge a Melta Bomb as Power Fist are now Death Traps. I want to Kill a Land Riader I feed it Las-Cannons from my Devistators or Melta Armed Sternguard, that is thier job.
Sternguard - Total overkill for that role.
Command Squad - Really? You'll have one per company.
Just as you said tactical squads should be maneuverable and flexible for taking and holding objectives. Having to pick a heavy weapon as their other weapon choice hampers that. Plus, it makes an already expensive troop choice more so. We aren't saying not to allow tactical squads to take heavy weapons but given them more options.
Give them a free CCW, let them take two specials, give CSMATSKNF to make them not suck compared to loyalists. Even with 2 specials they're still stuck with one of the worst basic weapons in the game.
Also, Tactical Marines are by no means "durable". Shuriken weapons hose them, Heldrakes murder them, Riptides obliterate them, Daemons of Slaanesh do... whatever they do to them. You may recognize those things as some of the most popular units in the game.
Above all else, though, Marines suffer from "elite army syndrome" in that they're more vulnerable to statistical flukes than other armies. For example, if you're playing Orks, you're throwing a lot of dice and as such are more likely to perform closer to statistical average. If an Ork player rolls 5 1's to save he laughs it of and shoves another 50 Boyz down the enemy throat. If a Marine player rolls 5 1's for saves he just lost 200 points in Terminators.
Obviously, it can work the other way around as well, when that last Terminator takes 67 2+ saves without dying and proceeds to win the game (actually had that one happen...), but the point is that you're much more at the mercy of the dice as a Marine player than, say, an Ork or Tyranid player.
Sternguard - Total overkill for that role.
Command Squad - Really? You'll have one per company.
Just as you said tactical squads should be maneuverable and flexible for taking and holding objectives. Having to pick a heavy weapon as their other weapon choice hampers that. Plus, it makes an already expensive troop choice more so. We aren't saying not to allow tactical squads to take heavy weapons but given them more options.
Yes more options would be nice, but Everything could have more options.
This also might be the “Old Timer” talking, but then they would not be Tactical Squads. They would either be over gunned Assault Troops or Lesser Devastators.
You want to take 2 Flamers, Melta-Guns or Plasma-Guns, Play/Allie Space Wolves, but that is may just be my opinion.
I just want a troop choice to sit on an objective, not die, and give something that comes for them a bloody nose until help arrives.
Tactical squads can do that.
I am glad that they can move and shoot their bolters (Hw snap fires, new life for Hvy Bltr) so they can get there even on foot with some measure of aggression.
For giggles I spammed tactical squads and was impressed what a mess a marine horde can do.
Drop pod in a few vanilla marines and see what they can do when dropped in the right place.
The problem is that every army is made with the thought of how they would do facing marines so yes, 6th edition is seeing them not as "super human" as in prior editions, but they pretty much fight to the last man which is more than any of the prior troops mentioned could do and gives that warm fuzzy feeling when choosing to do something reckless.
Talizvar wrote: I just want a troop choice to sit on an objective, not die, and give something that comes for them a bloody nose until help arrives.
Tactical squads can do that.
I am glad that they can move and shoot their bolters (Hw snap fires, new life for Hvy Bltr) so they can get there even on foot with some measure of aggression.
For giggles I spammed tactical squads and was impressed what a mess a marine horde can do.
Drop pod in a few vanilla marines and see what they can do when dropped in the right place.
The problem is that every army is made with the thought of how they would do facing marines so yes, 6th edition is seeing them not as "super human" as in prior editions, but they pretty much fight to the last man which is more than any of the prior troops mentioned could do and gives that warm fuzzy feeling when choosing to do something reckless.
The baleflamer is a great counter to marines in general. That's not the problem. Terminators die to lascannons and Plasma, tacticals die to baleflamers and other AP3. What tacticals need is the capacity to have the same punch as firewarriors or daemonettes or dire avengers.
Also, Tactical Marines are by no means "durable". Shuriken weapons hose them, Heldrakes murder them, Riptides obliterate them, Daemons of Slaanesh do... whatever they do to them. You may recognize those things as some of the most popular units in the game. average. If an Ork player rolls 5 1's to save he laughs it of and shoves another 50 Boyz down the enemy throat. If a Marine player rolls 5 1's for saves he just lost 200 points in Terminators..
No basic troop choice is durable against any of that. That's not someones entire force, tactical marines are durable against other peoples troops and some elites. Yeah marines are basic and don't have anything special going on besides atsknf which is an amazing rule. What are troops meant to do? Hold objectives! Tactical marines do this best.
McNinja wrote: What tacticals need is the capacity to have the same punch as firewarriors or daemonettes or dire avengers.
Why should they?
a tac squad should be Jack of all trades and be able to pull weight in most any scenarios that come up. they shouldnt have the same firepower as fire warriors or have amazing CC like daemonettes they should have just enough to not suck completely. which is probably why they seem so lack luster.
other than bale flamers though i probably should broaden that out to, a lot of all armies now have way better access to gear that completely ignores the durability of tac marines.
ATSKNF is not helping that much anymore as squad are being killed to the man instead of making morale tests. Just as in real warfare, as lethality increases, morale means less and less.
Tactical marines are overpriced because they try to do too much and can actually accomplish none of it. They are literally dead weight bullet catchers.
As for making tactical marines BETTER, I frankly have no idea. They have never been that great, but it's the lethality of Xenos and helldrakes that basically make them overcosted now.
Yeah other armies should because tactical marines out weigh survivability compared to other armies basic troop choices. When I played 4th edition I remember tactical marines filling so many roles and being good at each one and they would also live. So these other armies are greeting awesome heavy support, elite and now flyer models and units to take out a marine troop choice, just think about it.
The problem isn't so much tactical marines, they're not meant to shine in any one area, though with chapter tactics they can pull their weight a bit better. The problem is that Marines are so abundant, being the army most players start with, that the game has changed from "How good is this unit" to "how good is this unit at killing marines". If killing a marine is the standard, they are going to do at least that well against almost everything else, so the one thing tacticals are meant to excell at, staying power, is no longer there. Add in the ridiculous weapons being pumped out in the new codexs, and you have a system where staying power is easily mitigated, if not outright ignored.
There's not an easy solution to this situation. Either increase the number of players playing Xenos armies to make marines less of a standard, or make a massive overhaul of the rules to readjust how AP works. Neither option is easy, and i don't see GW doing either. I'd say that all the great Xenos Codices being released of late (Dark Eldar and Necrons in 5th, Tau and Eldar in 6th) are a clever feint by GW to bring more players to the Xenos side, rebalancing the game away from only focusing on killing MEQ, but i really doubt that they're that clever.
So if survability is the main issue, what about every other troop chouce out there. They all Die [and sometines easyer] to the same weapons Marines die to.
Anpu42 wrote: So if survability is the main issue, what about every other troop chouce out there. They all Die [and sometines easyer] to the same weapons Marines die to.
Also, Tactical Marines are by no means "durable". Shuriken weapons hose them, Heldrakes murder them, Riptides obliterate them, Daemons of Slaanesh do... whatever they do to them. You may recognize those things as some of the most popular units in the game. average. If an Ork player rolls 5 1's to save he laughs it of and shoves another 50 Boyz down the enemy throat. If a Marine player rolls 5 1's for saves he just lost 200 points in Terminators..
No basic troop choice is durable against any of that. That's not someones entire force, tactical marines are durable against other peoples troops and some elites. Yeah marines are basic and don't have anything special going on besides atsknf which is an amazing rule. What are troops meant to do? Hold objectives! Tactical marines do this best.
No other basic troop is paying to be durable in the same way. 2 Ork Boyz live longer against Baleflamers than a Tactical Marine. An Ork Boy is still less than half the cost of the Marine, who's paying to not die.
You pay what, two points for ATSKNF and T4 compared to Sisters? Or, heck, one point for a 3+ save compared to Necron Warriors.
A single freaking point.
How much more durable to you want to be?!
Heavy flamers and dual special weapons are the Sisters' stick, anyway, and they pay for it by losing access to plasma and rocket.
Sisters kick butt.
Yeah I agree they are over costed though with their release they should have got at least a 1 to 2 point reduction.
As for other people!
As for a basic troop choice like tactical squads I don't expect them to be durable against an some, we are talking proper match ups here. This game is like chess you set up and move certain pieces that take other pieces. Tactical marines are fine, it bothers me that everyone for everyones army needs the best at this or better at that.
How about this: get your game up! Instead of relying on better units or strong units rely on being a better player. I have been making do with my marines. I am now doing a raven guard chapter now. (not raven wing)
You pay what, two points for ATSKNF and T4 compared to Sisters? Or, heck, one point for a 3+ save compared to Necron Warriors.
A single freaking point.
How much more durable to you want to be?!
Heavy flamers and dual special weapons are the Sisters' stick, anyway, and they pay for it by losing access to plasma and rocket.
Sorry, I forgot about the Sisters, who are just as hosed overpaying for a 3+ save. Ideally, IMO, Sisters ought to be around a Fire Warrior in cost, trading worse firepower and range for better armour. The melee power difference (armour aside) between the two is more or less irrelevant anyway, neither of them is going to hold for long against anything remotely serious in combat anyway.
Still, when every single Xenos Codex released in an edition adds more ways to completely fart all over armour saves, and when no MEQ book manages to consistently score high in any tournaments (feel free to prove me wrong here BTW, I just haven't seen any where they do) it's pretty damn obvious that there's something up with the MEQ Codices. The obvious conclusion is that while Tactical Marines got cheaper, the firepower of everyone else increased by a bigger factor, especially when taking low-AP weapons into account.
The Necron Warriors have Reanimation Protocols, which makes them more durable than Tacticals. ATSKNF doesn't really matter that much in an edition where the only viable melee units are nitro-powered nuclear sledgehammers murderizing anything they come in contact with.
Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them. The Boyz are 77% as durable against bolters out of cover, but have more than 100% the durability against AP3 or lower. When you move the Boyz into cover, they're more durable against anything that doesn't have Ignores Cover and is AP4 or higher. This is with the oldest Codex in the game, who are quite likely to have a points reduction to their units when they get a new one, which will only make everything worse.
While we're on the subject of shootas: for the record, Shoota boyz outshoot Tactical Marines at ranges between 18-12", and if the Marines move in to rapid fire they'll be in the charge range of a band of angry Orks. In short, Shoota boyz are better at being Tactical Marines than Tactical Marines. The Tactical Marines are better at anti-tank due to special and heavy weapons being available, but "better" here is a relative term. You don't take a Tactical Squad because it's awesome at hunting tanks, you take it because you need scoring and then plop it down on a backfield objective because you have to, not because it's an amazing unit. Shoota Boyz, Grey Hunters, Necron Warriors, Guardsman Squads, Daemonettes, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and Tervigons all contribute more than Tactical Marines do while being Troops when played properly. Scouts, Cultists, Guardsman Squads, Nurglings, and Kroot all fill the "token backfield unit" better because they're not paying 14PPM for a 3+ save, they're paying at most 10PPM and getting their 3+ cover from hiding in terrain. While that means that they're vulnerable to Ignores Cover weapons, most weapons with Ignores Cover these days, at least in my experience, is stuff like Baleflamers, anything Tau, Serpent Shields, and TFCs. Most of these are extreme overkill to fire at a cheap throwaway unit, and if you're hiding behind a wall and/or below an upper floor some of them won't even be able to shoot you at all. All we want is to feel as though Tactical Marines are actually useful for something other than standing around and taking potshots all game.
So it looks like it keeps coming down to Durability more than a Weapons Package.
Yes I have felt the sting of AP3, I had two games back to back were I was never allowed to make my save do to AP3 and No-Cover Save Attacks.
That happens, it sucked big time to have a Brood of 5 Genestealers assault my Tactical Squad and I take 11 rending hits from 20 attacks. I also field enough Plasma that that game the Tyranid Player only got to make his Invulnerable Saves. His Orks unless they are facing my Guard never get to make saves most of the time too.
The other thing is everything seems to look at Tactical squads in a Vacuum. When that Hell-Turkey Shows up who is it going to go after my Tactical Squad or the Devastator Squad that is putting out 4 Plasma Cannon Shots a Turn? Are the Fire Dragons going to go after the Tactical Squad or the Predator Dakka Tank?
Any Unit if you decide it going to die is going to die if you put your mind to it.
As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.
Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.
You pay what, two points for ATSKNF and T4 compared to Sisters? Or, heck, one point for a 3+ save compared to Necron Warriors.
A single freaking point.
How much more durable to you want to be?!
Heavy flamers and dual special weapons are the Sisters' stick, anyway, and they pay for it by losing access to plasma and rocket.
Sorry, I forgot about the Sisters, who are just as hosed overpaying for a 3+ save. Ideally, IMO, Sisters ought to be around a Fire Warrior in cost, trading worse firepower and range for better armour. The melee power difference (armour aside) between the two is more or less irrelevant anyway, neither of them is going to hold for long against anything remotely serious in combat anyway.
Still, when every single Xenos Codex released in an edition adds more ways to completely fart all over armour saves, and when no MEQ book manages to consistently score high in any tournaments (feel free to prove me wrong here BTW, I just haven't seen any where they do) it's pretty damn obvious that there's something up with the MEQ Codices. The obvious conclusion is that while Tactical Marines got cheaper, the firepower of everyone else increased by a bigger factor, especially when taking low-AP weapons into account.
The Necron Warriors have Reanimation Protocols, which makes them more durable than Tacticals. ATSKNF doesn't really matter that much in an edition where the only viable melee units are nitro-powered nuclear sledgehammers murderizing anything they come in contact with.
Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them. The Boyz are 77% as durable against bolters out of cover, but have more than 100% the durability against AP3 or lower. When you move the Boyz into cover, they're more durable against anything that doesn't have Ignores Cover and is AP4 or higher. This is with the oldest Codex in the game, who are quite likely to have a points reduction to their units when they get a new one, which will only make everything worse.
While we're on the subject of shootas: for the record, Shoota boyz outshoot Tactical Marines at ranges between 18-12", and if the Marines move in to rapid fire they'll be in the charge range of a band of angry Orks. In short, Shoota boyz are better at being Tactical Marines than Tactical Marines. The Tactical Marines are better at anti-tank due to special and heavy weapons being available, but "better" here is a relative term. You don't take a Tactical Squad because it's awesome at hunting tanks, you take it because you need scoring and then plop it down on a backfield objective because you have to, not because it's an amazing unit. Shoota Boyz, Grey Hunters, Necron Warriors, Guardsman Squads, Daemonettes, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and Tervigons all contribute more than Tactical Marines do while being Troops when played properly. Scouts, Cultists, Guardsman Squads, Nurglings, and Kroot all fill the "token backfield unit" better because they're not paying 14PPM for a 3+ save, they're paying at most 10PPM and getting their 3+ cover from hiding in terrain. While that means that they're vulnerable to Ignores Cover weapons, most weapons with Ignores Cover these days, at least in my experience, is stuff like Baleflamers, anything Tau, Serpent Shields, and TFCs. Most of these are extreme overkill to fire at a cheap throwaway unit, and if you're hiding behind a wall and/or below an upper floor some of them won't even be able to shoot you at all. All we want is to feel as though Tactical Marines are actually useful for something other than standing around and taking potshots all game.
Thank you.
The point that I'm trying to make is that Marines shouldn't just be bodies on the field. If that's all they're good for then you're wasting points when other armies have more survivable (usually due to larger numbers of troops or cover saves) and better armed troops (whether it's just more guns or better weapons in general). Tactical Marines have one thing going for them, and that's ATSKNF. They don't have the speed of Dire Avengers, the power or range of Firewarriors, or the murder-ness of Daemonettes. An then, compared to Eldar Jetbikes, they look even worse, because for only three points more, WRJBs get +6" movement, the ability to move in the assault phase, a twin-linked kind-of rending weapon, a 3+ save and T4.
Tactical Marines need both a slightly power boost (very slight, they are indeed a jack of all trades unit) and a slight survivability boost.
Tactical Marines need both a slightly power boost (very slight, they are indeed a jack of all trades unit) and a slight survivability boost.
I really don't think tactical marines are that bad off (especially when you consider that chaos marines are only slightly cheaper and significantly worse). But I agree that a slight boost to them wouldn't be bad, as they don't really live up to their fluff.
Instead of messing with any stats or core rules though, I propose two things:
1) Let sergeants take auspexes (and maybe even boost the role of the auspex slightly, grants Interceptor to the squad against units arriving from reserves within 12"?) I can't conceive of why they'd leave this option off when it's been a bit in the tactical squad box since 3rd edition.
2) Make apothecaries 1-3 per Elites slot like in the 30k rules, or a 1 per HQ choice, filling no slot, instead of automatically stuck in the command squad. Then you can potentially spread FnP to a tactical squad by attaching an apothecary.
I think both of these are pretty mild. They give ways of boosting marine firepower and durability without changing the marines themselves, just by giving players options they should already have.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.
This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.
Anpu42 wrote: So it looks like it keeps coming down to Durability more than a Weapons Package.
Yes I have felt the sting of AP3, I had two games back to back were I was never allowed to make my save do to AP3 and No-Cover Save Attacks.
That happens, it sucked big time to have a Brood of 5 Genestealers assault my Tactical Squad and I take 11 rending hits from 20 attacks. I also field enough Plasma that that game the Tyranid Player only got to make his Invulnerable Saves. His Orks unless they are facing my Guard never get to make saves most of the time too.
The other thing is everything seems to look at Tactical squads in a Vacuum. When that Hell-Turkey Shows up who is it going to go after my Tactical Squad or the Devastator Squad that is putting out 4 Plasma Cannon Shots a Turn? Are the Fire Dragons going to go after the Tactical Squad or the Predator Dakka Tank?
Any Unit if you decide it going to die is going to die if you put your mind to it.
This is true, I think people just want an elite troop choice. The thing is though barring bgnt or pta tactical squads are the main scoring unit, so yeah the hell turkey should roast them first. But yeah I like tactical marines and I feel one of the reasons they die more and early is they are so resilient in end game that if they are still alive they will win it. As well why it seems fire warriors or dire avengers are better is because they live longer since people are focused on trying to kill off a riptide or wraithknight. Where with space marines our tactical squads are that good since they are multi versatile. With a 4 stat line across they are better then other troops, they have ok basic close combat skill, they have str 6 grenades for assaulting light vehicles. They are able to take a special weapon to deal with hordes, tanks, and heavy infantry and a heavy weapon choice to do similar tasks. In 6th edition with allies makes it hard for any singular army list to do well barring eldar.
I believe at the Da Boyz GT the other month a space marine army came in 2nd or 3rd place. I am pretty sure he allied something though.
Also you guys realize this for so long armor save 3+ had little AP against it, when all those armor 5+ and higher and sometimes 4+ saves never got to roll to see if they lived, so instead of outweighing the awesomeness of 3+ armor saves they made stuff AP 3 so it makes it more even for 4+ save and higher to die with armor save 3+ also dieing.
Also cover cover saves became way OP that's why there is all this ignore cover now.
You pay what, two points for ATSKNF and T4 compared to Sisters? Or, heck, one point for a 3+ save compared to Necron Warriors.
A single freaking point.
How much more durable to you want to be?!
Heavy flamers and dual special weapons are the Sisters' stick, anyway, and they pay for it by losing access to plasma and rocket.
Sorry, I forgot about the Sisters, who are just as hosed overpaying for a 3+ save. Ideally, IMO, Sisters ought to be around a Fire Warrior in cost, trading worse firepower and range for better armour. The melee power difference (armour aside) between the two is more or less irrelevant anyway, neither of them is going to hold for long against anything remotely serious in combat anyway.
Still, when every single Xenos Codex released in an edition adds more ways to completely fart all over armour saves, and when no MEQ book manages to consistently score high in any tournaments (feel free to prove me wrong here BTW, I just haven't seen any where they do) it's pretty damn obvious that there's something up with the MEQ Codices. The obvious conclusion is that while Tactical Marines got cheaper, the firepower of everyone else increased by a bigger factor, especially when taking low-AP weapons into account.
The Necron Warriors have Reanimation Protocols, which makes them more durable than Tacticals. ATSKNF doesn't really matter that much in an edition where the only viable melee units are nitro-powered nuclear sledgehammers murderizing anything they come in contact with.
Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them. The Boyz are 77% as durable against bolters out of cover, but have more than 100% the durability against AP3 or lower. When you move the Boyz into cover, they're more durable against anything that doesn't have Ignores Cover and is AP4 or higher. This is with the oldest Codex in the game, who are quite likely to have a points reduction to their units when they get a new one, which will only make everything worse.
While we're on the subject of shootas: for the record, Shoota boyz outshoot Tactical Marines at ranges between 18-12", and if the Marines move in to rapid fire they'll be in the charge range of a band of angry Orks. In short, Shoota boyz are better at being Tactical Marines than Tactical Marines. The Tactical Marines are better at anti-tank due to special and heavy weapons being available, but "better" here is a relative term. You don't take a Tactical Squad because it's awesome at hunting tanks, you take it because you need scoring and then plop it down on a backfield objective because you have to, not because it's an amazing unit. Shoota Boyz, Grey Hunters, Necron Warriors, Guardsman Squads, Daemonettes, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and Tervigons all contribute more than Tactical Marines do while being Troops when played properly. Scouts, Cultists, Guardsman Squads, Nurglings, and Kroot all fill the "token backfield unit" better because they're not paying 14PPM for a 3+ save, they're paying at most 10PPM and getting their 3+ cover from hiding in terrain. While that means that they're vulnerable to Ignores Cover weapons, most weapons with Ignores Cover these days, at least in my experience, is stuff like Baleflamers, anything Tau, Serpent Shields, and TFCs. Most of these are extreme overkill to fire at a cheap throwaway unit, and if you're hiding behind a wall and/or below an upper floor some of them won't even be able to shoot you at all. All we want is to feel as though Tactical Marines are actually useful for something other than standing around and taking potshots all game.
How would you rate these:
* Fearless Orks.
* WAAAAAGH! Orks.
* ATSKNF Marines
* Krak Grenades Marines
* Frag Grenades Marines
* Combat Tactics Marines
* Higher initiative Marines
* Melee
* Close combat model stacking weirdness
* Swamping down and stacking odds
I'll explain the latter two. Orks are large and plentiful, once you get into close combat it is easy to get into a situation where not all will reach combat range. Also, with Marines they tend to survive pretty damned well even when outnumbered, at least well enough that you're able to stack the odds a turn or two later, or by tying up enemy forces long enough to get to the stuff they are meant to be protecting. You're using Ork Boyz as an example of how bad Tacticals are, but you don't actually look at the rules that drive a Marine's price up.
Are those Orks actually going to outshoot Bolter Drilling Marines? What about if the Marines get close enough and they are Salamanders? Them Boyz aren't going to perform quite so well at killing Iron Hands, you know. Oh my oh my, your Boyz ran straight into a couple of Wraithlords. I bet Boyz love eating grenades. And so on.
Tacticals are jacks of all trades, you can't just pick a select couple of situations and ignore a bunch of others that actually make the Tacticals worth while when combined. Yeah, that means that Tacticals are probably not going to be more efficient in nearly any situation you come up with, but regardless of situation they aren't going to utterly fail. Except against stuff that are designed to make Tacticals, specifically, utterly fail. Or stuff that needs taken down a peg or two.
How would you rate these:
* Fearless Orks.
* WAAAAAGH! Orks.
* ATSKNF Marines
* Krak Grenades Marines
* Frag Grenades Marines
* Combat Tactics Marines
* Higher initiative Marines
* Melee
* Close combat model stacking weirdness
* Swamping down and stacking odds
I'll explain the latter two. Orks are large and plentiful, once you get into close combat it is easy to get into a situation where not all will reach combat range. Also, with Marines they tend to survive pretty damned well even when outnumbered, at least well enough that you're able to stack the odds a turn or two later, or by tying up enemy forces long enough to get to the stuff they are meant to be protecting. You're using Ork Boyz as an example of how bad Tacticals are, but you don't actually look at the rules that drive a Marine's price up.
Are those Orks actually going to outshoot Bolter Drilling Marines? What about if the Marines get close enough and they are Salamanders? Them Boyz aren't going to perform quite so well at killing Iron Hands, you know. Oh my oh my, your Boyz ran straight into a couple of Wraithlords. I bet Boyz love eating grenades. And so on.
Tacticals are jacks of all trades, you can't just pick a select couple of situations and ignore a bunch of others that actually make the Tacticals worth while when combined. Yeah, that means that Tacticals are probably not going to be more efficient in nearly any situation you come up with, but regardless of situation they aren't going to utterly fail. Except against stuff that are designed to make Tacticals, specifically, utterly fail. Or stuff that needs taken down a peg or two.
Tacticals fail against nearly everything they go against. Even blobs of guardsmen. 50 IG shooting 10 marines, even with cover, will wreck those marines, because unless the cover save is better than 3+, they'll never use cover. IG, Orks, and even nids put out too many shots. Of course, the 3+ armor helps a lot. I'm not saying you'll fail every roll you make (I've gotten lucky more than once saving around a dozen wounds with squad of 5 Marines).
Tacticals also fail in CC against hordes. Sure, flamers, overwatch, salamanders, and bolter drill exist, but against other troops those are only marginally effective. Dire Avengers have a 4+ armor save and the capacity to take a 5+ invulnerable save. Orks and guard simply have too many bodies, even if not all can reach combat. Guardian Defenders will simply avoid CC with Battle Focus.
Also, both Krak and Frag grenades are only adequate. Kraks are ok against tanks, but if you know you're going to be using marines to assault tanks, why not just bring melta bombs and ensure their destruction?
I really don't think Tac marines suck. They are pretty good for their point value. They don't deliver massive firepower, but they aren't supposed to. There isn't much you are going to do without stepping on the toes of one of the other unit types.
I would like it if they came standard with chainswords in addition to their bolters, since they are supposed to be generalist they should be equipped to fight well in any situation. Chainswords plus the standard bolt pistol they come with would represent that well (Chainsword for clearing out brus!, Chainsword for cutting holes in prefab buildings! Chainswords first in battle, first in VICTORY!) and since it doesn't give them increased Str, AP, or any funky rule like rending it would only help them kill cheap troops more effectively, which I think they should be good at.
While I am wishing I would like to see apothecaries become like blood angel sanguinary priests in that they are Independent Characters and purchased in a unit of 1 to 3.
Rumbleguts wrote: I really don't think Tac marines suck. They are pretty good for their point value. They don't deliver massive firepower, but they aren't supposed to. There isn't much you are going to do without stepping on the toes of one of the other unit types.
I would like it if they came standard with chainswords in addition to their bolters, since they are supposed to be generalist they should be equipped to fight well in any situation. Chainswords plus the standard bolt pistol they come with would represent that well (Chainsword for clearing out brus!, Chainsword for cutting holes in prefab buildings! Chainswords first in battle, first in VICTORY!) and since it doesn't give them increased Str, AP, or any funky rule like rending it would only help them kill cheap troops more effectively, which I think they should be good at.
While I am wishing I would like to see apothecaries become like blood angel sanguinary priests in that they are Independent Characters and purchased in a unit of 1 to 3.
That's the problem though; as a generalist unit, the only thing they're kind of good at is existing, and even that is debatable. Their firepower is too low, their CC abilities are too weak (though that seems to be a general C: SM problem). Even Assault Marines suck in CC to the point where they're only taken if you have leftover points and want a couple flamers. They're not bad units, but for their cost, especially when compared to similarly priced units from other 6th ed codices, they don't rate well at all.
- Giving them a chainsword would work.
- Giving them some sort of bonus to their firepower - not including Bolter Drill, because that's only marginally helpful when using a rather bad weapon. I still think allowing Tactical units, or even Devastators to take Slow and Purposeful would be a great benefit for +1(Tacticals) or +2(Devs) points per model.
As for apothecaries, currently the Red Scorpions FW Chapter Tactics allows you to make each Tactical squad sergeant and apothecary.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.
This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.
For every BS4 boltgun the Orks field more than two BS2 Shootas. 7 Ork Boyz have a higher amount of average hits (and a much higher max potential!) than 3 Marines at the discussed range intervals. I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The Orks are slightly less survivable in the open but much more so in cover, and have both a better melee and shooting prowess than Tactical Marines, while being from a Codex from two editions ago.
Talizvar wrote: As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.
Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.
Going from "woefully incomptetent" to "almost competent" is hardly enough to call Crusader Squads "butchers", especially when you have to give up what little shooting you have to do it...
ok, so ten or more models? sounds awful Chaosy to me.
Slow and.Purposeful? in otherwords Obilterators?
In what way would a squad of tactical Marines with slow and purposeful be anything like obliterators? Because of SnP? The rules that both thousand sons and centurions have? Are they also obliterators? No, they are not. SnP is just a rule and that rule does not make everything that has it exactly the same.
We aren't suggesting adding more models to a unit. We're bringing up the point that Orks, who can field twice as many Ork Boyz for 14 points than Space Marines can, have better potential and greater survivability than Space Marines, despite being the oldest codex in the game.
As far as troops choices go, Tac squads are the most durable and can be kitted for any role.
Dire Avengers have great firepower, but the cost is a lower range, and a weak platform.
An IG squad with humble lasrifles will kill them 1/8 of the time per shot. They kill Tac squads at 1/18 times.
Sure, 1/9 of the time the Dire Avengers shots will ignore armor saves. Overall however, your marines humble bolters will kill 1/4.5 of the time vs. 1/5 of the Avengers. If you upgrade to a plasma gun, you will be ignoring almost as many saves per turn as the Avengers as well, and you have that option. The avengers don't. You also have better range, so the Avengers have to move towards you or sit at >18 and take potshots.
I won't argue the game is perfectly balanced, but Tac squads are far more forgiving then using Avengers or DE warriors. Properly kitted, they can sit back and still contribute to the fight, they can take a round of fire far better then D/Eldar or fire warriors.
Tac squads are fine as they are. They have quite a lot going for them:
Good choice of special/heavy weapons
Combat squads
ATSKNF T4 3+ save
possible chapter tactics
1 point cheaper this edition
If you want to feel sorry for tac marines, then consider chaos. For 1 point less they do not have ATSKNF, combat squads or chapter tactics.
Eldar infantry struggle with their low range, even with their move-shoot-run and are not particularly durable. Personally I have no problem with guardians, if you want to moan about eldar then consider their cheap 48 move scoring jetbikes.
Tau firewarriors are great for their points, and are one of the best infantry troop choices available. They can do more heavy lifting than tac squads when supported by ethereals, fireblades or markerlights (although they are not as versatile). However this doesn't make tacticals bad, just a little less competitive than one of the best troop choices in the game. They still match up pretty well against troop choices from all other chodices.
Durandal wrote: As far as troops choices go, Tac squads are the most durable and can be kitted for any role.
Dire Avengers have great firepower, but the cost is a lower range, and a weak platform.
An IG squad with humble lasrifles will kill them 1/8 of the time per shot. They kill Tac squads at 1/18 times.
Sure, 1/9 of the time the Dire Avengers shots will ignore armor saves. Overall however, your marines humble bolters will kill 1/4.5 of the time vs. 1/5 of the Avengers. If you upgrade to a plasma gun, you will be ignoring almost as many saves per turn as the Avengers as well, and you have that option. The avengers don't. You also have better range, so the Avengers have to move towards you or sit at >18 and take potshots.
I won't argue the game is perfectly balanced, but Tac squads are far more forgiving then using Avengers or DE warriors. Properly kitted, they can sit back and still contribute to the fight, they can take a round of fire far better then D/Eldar or fire warriors.
Avengers are faster: they can move within 24", then move back via battle focus. They also have double the shots at 13+ inches that Tac squads do. Dire Avengers also have the ability to take AP3 melee weapons, invuln saves, and thanks to fleet will usually get the charge.
And Plague Marines are far more durable. Plaguebearers of Nurgle are also very durable thanks to shrouded and the Daemon save. WRjetbikes are far more durable and much faster for only 2 points more.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What about the following rule? Nevermind two heavy or special weapons, just this:
With Purpose: Marines may choose one of the following options before deployment:
- Steady Aim - The unit gains Slow and Purposeful
- Bring the fight to Them - Each model in the unit gains a Chainsword or combat blade
- Bolter Barrage - Declare you are using this rule before shooting. The unit may fire their boltguns twice this shooting phase, but may not shoot at all next turn. This may be used at any point in the game and can be used more than once.
Durandal wrote: As far as troops choices go, Tac squads are the most durable and can be kitted for any role.
Dire Avengers have great firepower, but the cost is a lower range, and a weak platform.
An IG squad with humble lasrifles will kill them 1/8 of the time per shot. They kill Tac squads at 1/18 times.
Sure, 1/9 of the time the Dire Avengers shots will ignore armor saves. Overall however, your marines humble bolters will kill 1/4.5 of the time vs. 1/5 of the Avengers. If you upgrade to a plasma gun, you will be ignoring almost as many saves per turn as the Avengers as well, and you have that option. The avengers don't. You also have better range, so the Avengers have to move towards you or sit at >18 and take potshots.
I won't argue the game is perfectly balanced, but Tac squads are far more forgiving then using Avengers or DE warriors. Properly kitted, they can sit back and still contribute to the fight, they can take a round of fire far better then D/Eldar or fire warriors.
Avengers are faster: they can move within 24", then move back via battle focus. They also have double the shots at 13+ inches that Tac squads do. Dire Avengers also have the ability to take AP3 melee weapons, invuln saves, and thanks to fleet will usually get the charge.
Lets not make it look too one sided here,
Tac squad 1 point more expensive
ATSKNF Krak grenades
Special weapons
+1T, 3+ save
range 24
Avengers Shuriken rending
range 18 (is remedied by battle focus, but a bum roll will leave you out of cover)
T3, 4+ save
Counter attack
fleet
Seems pretty fair to me, in fact probably more in favour of the marines. Avengers' best asset is the fact that they can get a waveserpent on the table at the cheapest cost possible.
McNinja wrote: So, out of the most recent armies, Space Marines (and Dark Angels) have the most... oddly balanced of the new codices. Now, I'm not saying that Space Marines suck, just that Tactical Marines only kinda suck. Think about it. Eldar troops are fast, have the capacity for JSJ tactics, and have a sort of rending ability on their weapons. Tau have a much longer range with higher strength, plus the capacity to unleash more shots with a Fireblade Cadre or Ethereal and then increase their BS using Markerlights. Daemons have tough troops, swift troops with rending and tons of attacks, and troops with AP3 weapons all over.
What do Tactical Marines have going for them? A 3+ armor save and a decent statline? Even Chaos Marines are better simply because they start out cheaper and can take marks, which makes them a fair bit better, though slightly more expensive. Add their banner things, and they become even better, and non-marked CSM can become fearless.
So I propose that Tactical Marines become slightly more useful, bringing them up to the level of Dire Avengers or Firewarriors in their usefulness. They're supposed to be a jack of all trades, master of none sort of deal, so why are they a jack of all trades but they suck at most of them? They need firepower. I can't begin to say how many times I've had Tacticals drop in and do nothing to a unit of Firewarriors, maybe killing two models at best in a single phase. My proposal:
- Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list.
- Tactical squads may gain the Slow and Purposeful rule for +1 point per model.
Wait wait wait CSM are worse than SM!? How? To start with, CSM don't start cheaper. Due to an invisible cost for the sergeant, 5 csm actually costs more than 5 SM. Along with that, the only time they cost the same is when both are in units of 10. The only time that they cost even is when you take more than 10 per unit. Hurray! So we cost 13? Nice! How much do those tac marines cost? 14 you say!? Well what do they get for 1 extra point. The ability to split into 2 units, And they Shall Know no Fear, and then they get several own rules! Let us look at Salamanders.... Re-roll pen for flamers (meh), re-roll flamers to wound, every character gets free master crafted! Is that all worth 1 point? 1 point? How is it losing all of this and gaining champions of chaos? Champion Chaos forces your champion to declare a challenge no matter what. You can't be tactical, you can't avoid it, you simply MUST. To make matters worse the boon table is unreliable with most of the buffs being worthless and the iconic daemon prince actually is worse for your hq and in killpoint games can give an extra killpoint! The only advantage CSM get is that they can get 2 specialist weapons in a unit of 10 unlike tacticals. Granted, that isn't cure all, Grey wolves went from one of the best to meh. Also the marks aren't reliable. Slaanesh's +1 initiative has limited effectiveness as it really only makes them better in CC and only versus SM and a few Eldar, it is almost worthles on anything that has a powerfist, etc. The mark of nurgle is pretty decent but at that point you'd rather just pay a bit extra for Plague Marines, Mark of Khorne is yet again rather specialized although if memory serves me it is better than Berzerkers but that isn't saying much, and the mark of Tzeentch is a costly 6++ save which is not worth it in the slightest. The flags you can carry really only have 2 good ones one being giving them fearless but that means they can't go to ground, can't retreat from CC like sm can at least attempt to, and any precision shots can easily pick him out whilst the other is a costly but good Slaanesh icon to give them all fnp really only held back by CSM already being mediocre, noise marines being better in MSU, and more. Simply put, CSM are actually worse than tacticals. Oh yeah, and we get 2 transport options, (discounting deep striking for winged daemon prince, jump pack units, and terminators) a single variant of a Land Raider and a single rhino variant.
That being said, I do agree with you that tacticals might need something. I wouldn't say slow and purposeful. You can't run, you can't overwatch... it's really not that great of a rule. Heck, I'd rather have relentless making them a bit more everyman. Unload rapid fire and then chaaarge! I agree with your 2 basic weapons like why not? Why does the Codex Astartes limit a plasma and melta gun in a unit? So yeah I'd nod my head to that. Admittedly I don't think they would need SaP nor Relentless if it weren't for things like waveserpents, riptides, and the heavy dosages of pseudo-rending everywhere. Also you mentioned ap3 weapons being pretty bad. To be honest though, ap3 weapons are usually rare and honestly tend to be bad or sub par. The main problem is the rise of an ap2 environment and moar dakka! Plasma, riptide guns, etc. all have come in to make it harder.
BoomWolf wrote: FLUFFWISE why would they have SnP? its not making any sense for them.
And as said-they don't ahve the same killpower, they got durability. and for troops that's the important thing. they are fine with that.
The difference between 4+ and 5+ IS huge, but so is 4+ to 3+. AP3 AoE weapons or high RoF guns are less common. unlike AP4 where you got large blasts everywhere and cheap heavy bolters spitting them. and even if you dont get by the save, a 1/2 chance to kill is still better then 2/3.
Grey hunters are also more expensive from the get-go (rendering the cheaper first special and free second matter less), got no option to get a heavy weapon AT ALL and got Counter Attack where tacticals got much superior Chapter Tactics, and the ability to split up (the hunters cant do it. at all.)
Grey hunters were amazing back when they costed the same as tactical and did everything better and cheaper, these days its not so. they are a less flexible tactical squad that's better only specifically at advancing towards the enemy and pellet him with guns-and worse at objective camping.
Maybe he meant give them relentless? Regardless it would also require a huge shift to change some chapter tactics.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.
This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.
For every BS4 boltgun the Orks field more than two BS2 Shootas. 7 Ork Boyz have a higher amount of average hits (and a much higher max potential!) than 3 Marines at the discussed range intervals. I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The Orks are slightly less survivable in the open but much more so in cover, and have both a better melee and shooting prowess than Tactical Marines, while being from a Codex from two editions ago.
Talizvar wrote: As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.
Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.
Going from "woefully incomptetent" to "almost competent" is hardly enough to call Crusader Squads "butchers", especially when you have to give up what little shooting you have to do it...
Tactical marines are better then orks in cc barring special weapons, we look at it on the second round of an assault so no bonus for either charging. Marines strike first and have a better save, hit and wound on 4+. Orks strike at I 2 and hit on 4+ wound on 5+ with a 6+ save.
My dire avengers have out melee orks on occasion. You have to look at it as a whole.
The biggest thing going against Tactical Marines is how woefully inefficient and dangerous attempting to get into Assault is this edition. Because everyone can sit back and simply shoot you to death now without fear of being murdered in gruesome, bloody hand to hand combat, Marines as a whole are in an awkward place.
ATSKNF used to be borderline overpowered. Now it's just dead weight. What codex is actively trying to get into hand to hand anymore to force those failed morale checks and sweeping advance to obliterate large groups anymore? No one, partly because MEQ armies are still the most popular in terms of the models and fluff to the 40k universe. After The Defiler of Ink and Paper got his hands to create ATSKNF in the first place, it actually hurt Marines in the long run by forcing every other codex into giant, unkillable monstrocities like the Heldrake or Riptide.
If assault armies outside of Daemonette spam were still viable, Tactical Marines would be fine. They sit on objectives point for point better than any other troop in the game. The fact you rarely if ever have to fear assault gave rise to the shooty massive AP giant unkillable monster spam that is the current state of 40k.
Durandal wrote: As far as troops choices go, Tac squads are the most durable and can be kitted for any role.
Dire Avengers have great firepower, but the cost is a lower range, and a weak platform.
An IG squad with humble lasrifles will kill them 1/8 of the time per shot. They kill Tac squads at 1/18 times.
Sure, 1/9 of the time the Dire Avengers shots will ignore armor saves. Overall however, your marines humble bolters will kill 1/4.5 of the time vs. 1/5 of the Avengers. If you upgrade to a plasma gun, you will be ignoring almost as many saves per turn as the Avengers as well, and you have that option. The avengers don't. You also have better range, so the Avengers have to move towards you or sit at >18 and take potshots.
I won't argue the game is perfectly balanced, but Tac squads are far more forgiving then using Avengers or DE warriors. Properly kitted, they can sit back and still contribute to the fight, they can take a round of fire far better then D/Eldar or fire warriors.
Avengers are faster: they can move within 24", then move back via battle focus. They also have double the shots at 13+ inches that Tac squads do. Dire Avengers also have the ability to take AP3 melee weapons, invuln saves, and thanks to fleet will usually get the charge.
Weapon. Weapon. Singular. Only the Exarch can change his armament. And the Exarch can NOT take any AP3 weapons. He can take a twin-linked Shuriken Catapult, but that's the only way he can ever improve his ranged attack. Otherwise he can take a Power Weapon or a Dire Sword (Ap2). The invulnerable can NOT be combined with a ranged weapon, it can only be combined with a Power Weapon.
If the Shimmershield causes you problems, then start making use of tactical movement or precision shots to kill him. He's got 3+ save, but is still weaker than your average Space Marine (at roughly 3x the cost to boot!)
Automatically Appended Next Post: What about the following rule? Nevermind two heavy or special weapons, just this:
With Purpose: Marines may choose one of the following options before deployment:
- Steady Aim - The unit gains Slow and Purposeful
- Bring the fight to Them - Each model in the unit gains a Chainsword or combat blade
- Bolter Barrage - Declare you are using this rule before shooting. The unit may fire their boltguns twice this shooting phase, but may not shoot at all next turn. This may be used at any point in the game and can be used more than once.
That's old school Bladestorm. It was removed from Eldar for a reason. Don't bring it back. (The reason? It was just bad. Too powerful one turn, difficult to track next and plain bad)
Chainsword, Bolter, Bolt Pistol is actually a very good basic equipment to tweak Tactical Marine's performance without changing their role or tacking on weird unnecessary special rules. Make them all Grey Hunters. I'm fine with that. Naturally the rules for replacing weapons would be "replace the bolter with ranged weapon X, the chainsword with melee weapon Y or the bolt pistol with pistol Z" so you don't get people sticking weird configurations on their Marines.
Personal opinion? Tactical marines don't need to be fixed. They didn't need to be fixed before we got our new codex, and I was a little surprised when they shaved some points off of them here and there.
I play Marines, and between their transports, equipment flexibility, ATSKNF, and 3+ armor, they are doing just fine.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.
This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.
For every BS4 boltgun the Orks field more than two BS2 Shootas. 7 Ork Boyz have a higher amount of average hits (and a much higher max potential!) than 3 Marines at the discussed range intervals. I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The Orks are slightly less survivable in the open but much more so in cover, and have both a better melee and shooting prowess than Tactical Marines, while being from a Codex from two editions ago.
Talizvar wrote: As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.
Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.
Going from "woefully incomptetent" to "almost competent" is hardly enough to call Crusader Squads "butchers", especially when you have to give up what little shooting you have to do it...
Tactical marines are better then orks in cc barring special weapons, we look at it on the second round of an assault so no bonus for either charging. Marines strike first and have a better save, hit and wound on 4+. Orks strike at I 2 and hit on 4+ wound on 5+ with a 6+ save.
My dire avengers have out melee orks on occasion. You have to look at it as a whole.
3 Marines put out 3 attacks at S4 I4. 7 Orks put out 14 attacks at S3 I2. Even with the worse stats, the Orks are putting out an average of 2.333... wounds against T4 units, while the Tacticals are doing .75. Even taking the Power Armour into account, that's still .777... wounds dealt to the Marines, against only 0.625 from the Marines. Even worse, if we take the lost Ork into account (being generous and rounding up by quite a bit) it's still 12 attacks, which is 0.666... unsaved wounds. On average, even turn 2 in an assault an equal number of Ork (Shoota!) Boyz kill more Tactical Marines than the Tactical Marines kill Boyz, meaning you're at best incorrect and at worst lying.
I'm not going to respond to the next person who hasn't bothered to take 2 minutes to see if their claim is actually true or not. If we start including Power Weapons it only gets worse for the Marines.
As a final note, please don't try to counter with "but Orks are supposed to be good in combat!". Shoota Boyz are, as their name implies, a shooting unit. They shoot stuff. They're decent in combat because they're Orks, but they're not supposed to be both more durable and better offensively than a troops choice that is, supposedly, durable, especially not seeing as they're two editions out of date. If all it takes to turn Ork Boyz more durable to S4 AP- (aka small-arms stats) is a measly 6+ t-shirt save then there's pretty obviously something wrong with the marines.
As a final note, please don't try to counter with "but Orks are supposed to be good in combat!". Shoota Boyz are, as their name implies, a shooting unit. They shoot stuff. They're decent in combat because they're Orks, but they're not supposed to be both more durable and better offensively than a troops choice that is, supposedly, durable, especially not seeing as they're two editions out of date. If all it takes to turn Ork Boyz more durable to S4 AP- (aka small-arms stats) is a measly 6+ t-shirt save then there's pretty obviously something wrong with the marines.
Firstly, the ork boy Statline has always been pretty nuts for its point cost. I would very much like to see them have rage rather than 2 attacks base, making them even more ferocious chargers, as it helps avoid the situation you just described. Plus why do they have two attacks to begin with? They're no more skilled in Melee than a Marine, and it's clearly not their natural speed (Initiative 2) or extra limbs. I guess you could say its something to do with their culture, but I would think WS 4 would take that into account. Beyond this, trying to create balance by comparing two poorly balanced units is painful at best, pointless at worst.
I'm not going to respond to the next person who hasn't bothered to take 2 minutes to see if their claim is actually true or not. If we start including Power Weapons it only gets worse for the Marines.
Might want to tone down the aggression, i highly doubt he is responsible for the poor balance work. Beyond this, yes it gets worse with power weapons, but not only are power weapons meant to kill armored units, they're also rarely available to basic troops en masse, so it's significantly less of a problem. However this brings up a good point, in that the current AP system is completely bonkers. It significantly overvalues AP 3 and 2, almost completely ignores 5+ and 6+ saves, and is generally a bit of a mess. I'd say the best way to fix tactical marines is to fix the AP system so AP 3 and 2 arent so necessary to break power armor. If many weapons have some ability to crack armor rather than the current all or nothing approach, then it's no longer "lets just pick the marine killer and call it a day since it'll do at least as well vs almost everything else". Their ranged and Melee capabilities are alright, especially with chapter tactics, so durability is where the patch is needed.
All I want is a goddamn KNIFE !!! I opened up the new codex full of hope and went striaght to tacitcal squads but NOPE! I mean seriously chaos have them and there a bunch of scavengers!! But do loyalists have one NO !!! You would think with all the machine worlds pumping out equipment on a huge scale they might make a knife or two or have they "forgotten" how to make them, either that or the master of the forge is being selfish with them. Anyway the point is give them a F#%^*€$G KNIFE !!!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.
This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.
For every BS4 boltgun the Orks field more than two BS2 Shootas. 7 Ork Boyz have a higher amount of average hits (and a much higher max potential!) than 3 Marines at the discussed range intervals. I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The Orks are slightly less survivable in the open but much more so in cover, and have both a better melee and shooting prowess than Tactical Marines, while being from a Codex from two editions ago.
Talizvar wrote: As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.
Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.
Going from "woefully incomptetent" to "almost competent" is hardly enough to call Crusader Squads "butchers", especially when you have to give up what little shooting you have to do it...
Tactical marines are better then orks in cc barring special weapons, we look at it on the second round of an assault so no bonus for either charging. Marines strike first and have a better save, hit and wound on 4+. Orks strike at I 2 and hit on 4+ wound on 5+ with a 6+ save.
My dire avengers have out melee orks on occasion. You have to look at it as a whole.
3 Marines put out 3 attacks at S4 I4. 7 Orks put out 14 attacks at S3 I2. Even with the worse stats, the Orks are putting out an average of 2.333... wounds against T4 units, while the Tacticals are doing .75. Even taking the Power Armour into account, that's still .777... wounds dealt to the Marines, against only 0.625 from the Marines. Even worse, if we take the lost Ork into account (being generous and rounding up by quite a bit) it's still 12 attacks, which is 0.666... unsaved wounds. On average, even turn 2 in an assault an equal number of Ork (Shoota!) Boyz kill more Tactical Marines than the Tactical Marines kill Boyz, meaning you're at best incorrect and at worst lying.
I'm not going to respond to the next person who hasn't bothered to take 2 minutes to see if their claim is actually true or not. If we start including Power Weapons it only gets worse for the Marines.
As a final note, please don't try to counter with "but Orks are supposed to be good in combat!". Shoota Boyz are, as their name implies, a shooting unit. They shoot stuff. They're decent in combat because they're Orks, but they're not supposed to be both more durable and better offensively than a troops choice that is, supposedly, durable, especially not seeing as they're two editions out of date. If all it takes to turn Ork Boyz more durable to S4 AP- (aka small-arms stats) is a measly 6+ t-shirt save then there's pretty obviously something wrong with the marines.
[/spoiler] I take it you don't play many games and spend to much time doing math hammer. Alright that is just wound statistics that's not survivability. I have rolled 23 3+ saves before and made them all (which is not hard) has anyone rolled 23 6+ saves and made them all? If so I want to shake his/her hand. In this edition space marines over power orks minus their lootas. Orks will have a hard chance to make it into assault and if they do its going to take a lot of above average statistical dice rolls to help.
FYI the difference in your math hammer is a matter of .1 yeah point one is a game breaker.
You pay what, two points for ATSKNF and T4 compared to Sisters? Or, heck, one point for a 3+ save compared to Necron Warriors.
A single freaking point.
How much more durable to you want to be?!
Heavy flamers and dual special weapons are the Sisters' stick, anyway, and they pay for it by losing access to plasma and rocket.
Necron warriors glance even Landraiders to death with 6's meaning you don't have to invest in in much AT. They can go in units upto 20 and also have re-animation protocals which can be boosted with orbs and ghost arks. Also coming from a dex which has mass st7 saturation it means they have their weaknesses covered for cheaper far more efficiently than the marine dex does. Ld10 almost makes up for ATSKNF. So no its not just 1pt for a slightly better armour save. That is why silver tide is WAY more effective than tac spam!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dat guy - the chances of making 23 3+ saves is 0.0089% chance. That IS hard to do!
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.
This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.
For every BS4 boltgun the Orks field more than two BS2 Shootas. 7 Ork Boyz have a higher amount of average hits (and a much higher max potential!) than 3 Marines at the discussed range intervals. I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The Orks are slightly less survivable in the open but much more so in cover, and have both a better melee and shooting prowess than Tactical Marines, while being from a Codex from two editions ago.
Talizvar wrote: As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.
Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.
Going from "woefully incomptetent" to "almost competent" is hardly enough to call Crusader Squads "butchers", especially when you have to give up what little shooting you have to do it...
Tactical marines are better then orks in cc barring special weapons, we look at it on the second round of an assault so no bonus for either charging. Marines strike first and have a better save, hit and wound on 4+. Orks strike at I 2 and hit on 4+ wound on 5+ with a 6+ save.
My dire avengers have out melee orks on occasion. You have to look at it as a whole.
3 Marines put out 3 attacks at S4 I4. 7 Orks put out 14 attacks at S3 I2. Even with the worse stats, the Orks are putting out an average of 2.333... wounds against T4 units, while the Tacticals are doing .75. Even taking the Power Armour into account, that's still .777... wounds dealt to the Marines, against only 0.625 from the Marines. Even worse, if we take the lost Ork into account (being generous and rounding up by quite a bit) it's still 12 attacks, which is 0.666... unsaved wounds. On average, even turn 2 in an assault an equal number of Ork (Shoota!) Boyz kill more Tactical Marines than the Tactical Marines kill Boyz, meaning you're at best incorrect and at worst lying.
I'm not going to respond to the next person who hasn't bothered to take 2 minutes to see if their claim is actually true or not. If we start including Power Weapons it only gets worse for the Marines.
As a final note, please don't try to counter with "but Orks are supposed to be good in combat!". Shoota Boyz are, as their name implies, a shooting unit. They shoot stuff. They're decent in combat because they're Orks, but they're not supposed to be both more durable and better offensively than a troops choice that is, supposedly, durable, especially not seeing as they're two editions out of date. If all it takes to turn Ork Boyz more durable to S4 AP- (aka small-arms stats) is a measly 6+ t-shirt save then there's pretty obviously something wrong with the marines.
[/spoiler] I take it you don't play many games and spend to much time doing math hammer. Alright that is just wound statistics that's not survivability. I have rolled 23 3+ saves before and made them all (which is not hard) has anyone rolled 23 6+ saves and made them all? If so I want to shake his/her hand. In this edition space marines over power orks minus their lootas. Orks will have a hard chance to make it into assault and if they do its going to take a lot of above average statistical dice rolls to help.
FYI the difference in your math hammer is a matter of .1 yeah point one is a game breaker.
That .1 is more than a 10% difference. Over the course of a game, a 10% difference is pretty substantial. Moving on from that, where have I argued that Space Marines are worse off than Orks? All I've said (and proven, unlike you) is that Ork Boyz are, generally, more survivable and more damaging than Tactical Marines per point. You've tried to disprove this with assertions that have turned out to be blatantly untrue. I've had a mate take 67 2+ armour saves on the last Terminator in a squad the last turn on top of an objective, but does that mean Terminators are always completely unkillable if they're down to their last model?
This is going to sound harsh, and I'm not going to be polite about it, but if you don't understand how probability interacts with the game I suggest you stop arguing, because it'll be a waste of both your and my time.
People are moaning about drakes and loads of other low ap weapons making tactical marines redundant but realy a marine is gonna last just as long as any other troop against that kind of firepower and with a 3+ save they can also survive better against Small arms then any other troop. I'm sorry marines can't crack a land raider with their bare hands but that's not what they are for. We tactical marines will cap points and when we run away we will instead turn around and shoot those who made us run away. Marines will not let you down so long as you don't ask them to do anything more than their purpose requires. FW and tau army in general need other units to have any impact at all. Without markerlights tau stink due to poor accuracy with their guns and they unlike orks and IG cannot make up for that with volume of fire as their squad size is not that large. A marine will always fight as well on turn 1 as on turn 6 where tau come unstuck if you target key elements. Dire avengers have better maneuverability and guns but lower saves and toughness and cost about the same so no real advantage. Orks are broken their statline is a bargain and rightly are the best troops in the game but as an army in all other areas every codex beats them ork armor is bad and so is their heavy weapons so it balance s out overall.
brother marcus wrote: All I want is a goddamn KNIFE !!! I opened up the new codex full of hope and went striaght to tacitcal squads but NOPE! I mean seriously chaos have them and there a bunch of scavengers!! But do loyalists have one NO !!! You would think with all the machine worlds pumping out equipment on a huge scale they might make a knife or two or have they "forgotten" how to make them, either that or the master of the forge is being selfish with them. Anyway the point is give them a F#%^*€$G KNIFE !!!
Seconded, lol. The astartes combat knife is still one of the coolest looking close combat weapons in the game. When I scratch-built my Inquisitor, I gave her one and painted it blue and it's a freaking force sword (and has never been questioned as such).
The sad truth is that Marines aren't trained to dual wield at the Tactical level, so while they have knives and pistols, they only know how to use one at a time - and since the gun butt has the same stats as the knife, they don't bother listing the knife.
You pay what, two points for ATSKNF and T4 compared to Sisters? Or, heck, one point for a 3+ save compared to Necron Warriors.
A single freaking point.
How much more durable to you want to be?!
Heavy flamers and dual special weapons are the Sisters' stick, anyway, and they pay for it by losing access to plasma and rocket.
Necron warriors glance even Landraiders to death with 6's meaning you don't have to invest in in much AT. They can go in units upto 20 and also have re-animation protocals which can be boosted with orbs and ghost arks. Also coming from a dex which has mass st7 saturation it means they have their weaknesses covered for cheaper far more efficiently than the marine dex does. Ld10 almost makes up for ATSKNF. So no its not just 1pt for a slightly better armour save. That is why silver tide is WAY more effective than tac spam!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dat guy - the chances of making 23 3+ saves is 0.0089% chance. That IS hard to do!
Are you really serious lol? I actually really do have above average rolling for 3+ saves. I do end up making a lot of 10 or greater 3+ saves without failing any, I never knew it was that impressive its so common with me and I mean that in a modest way.
At walrus that is true its a 10% difference but if you take it in intervals of 3 according to your math, orks are about 2.2 to marines 1.8 so they still do getabout 2 rounding to nearest pv. The more it increases though the better the orcs get. Interesting......
Well I am sorry to say I don't death with mathhamer. I talk from experiance.
Full Ork Body Mob vs a fukk 10 man Tactical Squad.
If the Orks get off the Assualt first, the Marines are in BIG trouple and will probably loose.
If the Tactical Squad Gets off the Assualt 1st, my money is on the guys in the Power Armor.
It has always been this way for me and will moslt likely be the same forver.
You pay what, two points for ATSKNF and T4 compared to Sisters? Or, heck, one point for a 3+ save compared to Necron Warriors.
A single freaking point.
How much more durable to you want to be?!
Heavy flamers and dual special weapons are the Sisters' stick, anyway, and they pay for it by losing access to plasma and rocket.
Necron warriors glance even Landraiders to death with 6's meaning you don't have to invest in in much AT. They can go in units upto 20 and also have re-animation protocals which can be boosted with orbs and ghost arks. Also coming from a dex which has mass st7 saturation it means they have their weaknesses covered for cheaper far more efficiently than the marine dex does. Ld10 almost makes up for ATSKNF. So no its not just 1pt for a slightly better armour save. That is why silver tide is WAY more effective than tac spam!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dat guy - the chances of making 23 3+ saves is 0.0089% chance. That IS hard to do!
Are you really serious lol? I actually really do have above average rolling for 3+ saves. I do end up making a lot of 10 or greater 3+ saves without failing any, I never knew it was that impressive its so common with me and I mean that in a modest way.
At walrus that is true its a 10% difference but if you take it in intervals of 3 according to your math, orks are about 2.2 to marines 1.8 so they still do getabout 2 rounding to nearest pv. The more it increases though the better the orcs get. Interesting......
Yep 2/3^23... 89/1000000 or close enough to 1/10000. To make 10 out of 10 3+ rolls is a 1.7% chance.
Space Marines aren't so bad. They are now more flexible than ever. Before, you were forced to give them a heavy and a special weapon (when you took 10). Now, you have the option to do so or not. Back with 5th Ed. marines, the minimum cost for a 10-man unit was 170. Now, you can get a barebones 10-man tact squad for 140. Want practically the same configuration? You still save 10-pts with the same weapons loadout.
One thing I don't like about making changes to a unit is to have it become too much like another unit. Give them 2 special weapons? That makes them too much like grey hunters or chaos space marines. As for slow and purposeful, that means they cannot fire Overwatch when charged. Honestly, that takes away some of their tactical flexibility IMO, not to mention that they lose the flexibility to run. That is a trade-off I would not want.
Here is my solution. And this is not really anything new for them, but at the same time, will keep them uniquely tactical (in other words, bland and boring....lol). Just go back to 4th Ed. Space Marines, where a Tactical unit can take both a Heavy and a Special weapon with 5 guys. You want increased firepower? There you have it. Now run double-FOC and take 12 5-man units, each with 1 heavy weapon and 1 special weapon. Problem solved, and still uniquely a boring, tactical marine.
jy2 wrote: Here is my solution. And this is not really anything new for them, but at the same time, will keep them uniquely tactical (in other words, bland and boring....lol). Just go back to 4th Ed. Space Marines, where a Tactical unit can take both a Heavy and a Special weapon with 5 guys. You want increased firepower? There you have it. Now run double-FOC and take 12 5-man units, each with 1 heavy weapon and 1 special weapon. Problem solved, and still uniquely a boring, tactical marine.
Or just use the BT chapter traits to unlock those nifty crusader squads...
Crusader squads have to use the pants BTCT though...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Problem with a heavy and a special in a 5 man is that we would just see the days of static las-plasmsu marine armies that aren't 'tactically flexible' and are about as fun as a tau gunline to play or play against.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Problem with a heavy and a special in a 5 man is that we would just see the days of static las-plasmsu marine armies that aren't 'tactically flexible' and are about as fun as a tau gunline to play or play against.
I don't disagree. You probably will see most people run MSU tact squads because that would perhaps be the most efficient use of them. But what's different between that and, say, a chaos player running 3 heldrakes, Tau player running 3 riptides, an Eldar player running 6 units of jetbikes/wave serpents or Necrons running massed warriors in flyers? Basically, people will flock to the most efficient builds.
However, my proposed rule isn't anything new. It's been done before and was the norm back with 4th Ed. space marines (and similar MEQ codices).
But you're not just limited to las+plas units. Imagine a unit of 5 with melta, combi-melta, multi-melta and meltabombs in a drop pod. How about plasma, combi-plasma and plasma-cannon for a specialized TEQ-killing unit? Just the simple rules change (or rather, rules recycle) and now tact squads are pretty darn good.
Yeh you do make some very good points there. I just got irritated seeing every vanilla marine army being the same las-plas spam in 3rd and 4th. Not that I could complain because BA could actually assault effectively back then so we could always stomp those builds 4 times out of 5.
I suggest you just run scouts if you just want a durable scoring body.
Let's have a look at the difference between the two.
Price:
Scout marines are 3 pt cheaper.
Survivability:
Same Toughness and wounds, same leadership
Armour and Saves
Tacs are 17% less likely to die to AP5/6/-, and 67% less likely to die against AP4. Ap1,2 and 3 kills each equally.
Shooting:
Tacs are 17% more likely to hit.
Assault:
Tacs take 17% less hits against WS4, while dealing 17% more against WS3.
Tacs and Scouts take equal hits from WS5 and above.
Tacs hit WS7 and 8 17% more often than scouts, but hit WS9/10 at the same rate.
So, what's the pattern? Differences of about 17% in all combat areas, with survivability being 17% better assuming no AP3 is around.
But, Yeah right, right? Who does't take a baleflamer chicken?
For this reason, I believe scout marines, with their 21% price reduction are a better, more survivable option when it comes to a field littered with AP1,2 and 3, as we most often see today. Seriously, when was the last time a competitive player actually took a heavy bolter that wasn't part of the barebones unit? Compare this to the last time a competitive player actually took a baleflamer heldrake.
It's not that tactical marines suck, it's that they don't have the fire power to be an awesome xenos level shoter, and don't have the survivability to be a tough scorer. Save your 15 pts - get something else with it.
Here is my solution. And this is not really anything new for them, but at the same time, will keep them uniquely tactical (in other words, bland and boring....lol). Just go back to 4th Ed. Space Marines, where a Tactical unit can take both a Heavy and a Special weapon with 5 guys. You want increased firepower? There you have it. Now run double-FOC and take 12 5-man units, each with 1 heavy weapon and 1 special weapon. Problem solved, and still uniquely a boring, tactical marine.
That'd more or less kill the only thing Chapter Tactics: Black Templars has going for it though.
I'm still kind of new to WH40K so forgive me if what I'm about to say is completely ignorant, but what about improving their gear instead of their statline?
As in, why not make the bolter S5 or AP4? Maybe make Rhinos a little more survivable, give it an extra armor point or maybe a Heavy Bolter. Maybe make the ML a more viable weapon, or maybe even make Veteran Sergeants more useful.
robam45 wrote: I'm still kind of new to WH40K so forgive me if what I'm about to say is completely ignorant, but what about improving their gear instead of their statline?
As in, why not make the bolter S5 or AP4? Maybe make Rhinos a little more survivable, give it an extra armor point or maybe a Heavy Bolter. Maybe make the ML a more viable weapon, or maybe even make Veteran Sergeants more useful.
Because AP4 would make any armour except Power Armour or better completely invalid. The AP system GW has decided to use currently invalidates anything with an armour save worse than the greater majority of weapons fired and since Bolters are the greater majority in and of themselves, any changes to the Bolter is not a small change but will completely change the core game. This is what you get for over-promoting a single army.
5-strong squads helped Sisters become more viable, but then, they do double up special weapons.
The problem with doubling up a heavy and a special in a 5-strong squad is the same as any other army has to cope with for doing the same in any size of unit. Either the heavy weapon is moving to get the special weapon into range, or the special weapon is waiting for range while the heavy weapon shoots.
Anyway, it's not heavy bolters you have to worry about with Scouts, its heavy flamers. Heavy bolters will still bounce off your 4+ or 3+ cover save.
But sure, by all means, turn bolters into pulse rifles. Sisters of Battle wounding on a 2+. Oh yeah.
Chapter Tactics has also been a “Game Changer” for Tactical Squads.
Ultramarines: Once a game Re-Roll Misses, twice if you have Calgar. The correct timing can be devastating.
>CAPTAIN SICARIUS: One Tactical Squad can now have Counter Attack, act like a scout or become an Anti Armor Unit.
What Scars: Ok, Why do you have Tactical Squads?
>KOR'SARRO KHAN: Oh, this way, Rhino Scouts.
Imperial Fist: Re-Roll of 1s with Bolt-Guns.
>PEDRO KANTOR: Favored Enemies [Orks]
Iron Hands: Army wide FNP, so it is a 6+, this is still a second Save.
Salamanders: Re-Roll Wounds and Armor Saves with Flamers, good, especially during an Overwatch.
>VULCAN: Melta-Weapons become Mastercraft. Your Sergeant can take a Mastercraft something.
Raven Guard: Your Tactical Squads are now 3+ Save Scouts, what more do you need.
Here is my solution. And this is not really anything new for them, but at the same time, will keep them uniquely tactical (in other words, bland and boring....lol). Just go back to 4th Ed. Space Marines, where a Tactical unit can take both a Heavy and a Special weapon with 5 guys. You want increased firepower? There you have it. Now run double-FOC and take 12 5-man units, each with 1 heavy weapon and 1 special weapon. Problem solved, and still uniquely a boring, tactical marine.
That'd more or less kill the only thing Chapter Tactics: Black Templars has going for it though.
I'd have to look into this later as I don't have my codex with me now.
Furyou Miko wrote: The problem with doubling up a heavy and a special in a 5-strong squad is the same as any other army has to cope with for doing the same in any size of unit. Either the heavy weapon is moving to get the special weapon into range, or the special weapon is waiting for range while the heavy weapon shoots.
And there you have the balancing factor - the main reason why 5-man squads with a special and heavy weapon won't be OP. Move and you will only be snap-shooting with your big gun. Stay still and there is a good chance your small gun won't be in range.
Of course nowadays, you can move your special weapons guy while keeping your heavy weapon guy stationary to add a little bit more range to the special weapon.
There is probably never going to be resolution to this, as GW refuses to acknowledge the existence of the maths.
Some want to explain things away or hand wave them away, but at the end of the day, the tactical marine is inferior to dire avenger in the 6th edition rules and probably the shoota boy as well. In practice, that is.
Martel732 wrote: There is probably never going to be resolution to this, as GW refuses to acknowledge the existence of the maths.
Some want to explain things away or hand wave them away, but at the end of the day, the tactical marine is inferior to dire avenger in the 6th edition rules and probably the shoota boy as well. In practice, that is.
Frankly, I don't see this as a problem that really needs resolving. Tactical marines are neither inferior to dire avengers or shoota boys, nor are they really superior to them either. Rather, they are just different and with a different playstyle. And I'd rather they stay that way instead of having rending boltguns or 30 marines with crappy armor in a unit. It's the differences between the different troop units that gives them character.
Martel732 wrote: There is probably never going to be resolution to this, as GW refuses to acknowledge the existence of the maths.
Some want to explain things away or hand wave them away, but at the end of the day, the tactical marine is inferior to dire avenger in the 6th edition rules and probably the shoota boy as well. In practice, that is.
Frankly, I don't see this as a problem that really needs resolving. Tactical marines are neither inferior to dire avengers or shoota boys, nor are they really superior to them either. Rather, they are just different and with a different playstyle. And I'd rather they stay that way instead of having rending boltguns or 30 marines with crappy armor in a unit. It's the differences between the different troop units that gives them character.
^That and have you done the math with Re-Rollable Bolt Weapons or vs the Rending with a 2+ Cover save thanks to Chapter Tactics.
10 Space Marines vs 10 Firewarriors. Stand them in a line across from each other and just shoot (no assaults allowed) see who wins. You might be surprised.
6^ wrote: 10 Space Marines vs 10 Firewarriors. Stand them in a line across from each other and just shoot (no assaults allowed) see who wins. You might be surprised.
What about if we stand the fire warriors 29" away?
6^ wrote: 10 Space Marines vs 10 Firewarriors. Stand them in a line across from each other and just shoot (no assaults allowed) see who wins. You might be surprised.
What about if we stand the fire warriors 29" away?
The Maries move forward 6" on their turn making it 23"
6^ wrote: 10 Space Marines vs 10 Firewarriors. Stand them in a line across from each other and just shoot (no assaults allowed) see who wins. You might be surprised.
Firewarriors are cheaper and have a lot more potential for support boosting their output.
6^ wrote: 10 Space Marines vs 10 Firewarriors. Stand them in a line across from each other and just shoot (no assaults allowed) see who wins. You might be surprised.
Firewarriors are cheaper and have a lot more potential for support boosting their output.
Firewarriors both have excellent support options in things like Fireblades and Ethereals, as well as the fact that they themselves work very well in tandem with, say, Riptides.
Tactical Marines are just forced units to fill out the mandatory 2 troop slots in a non-bike list in comparison. Tacticals can work, but they are a weaker choice.
Firewarriors both have excellent support options in things like Fireblades and Ethereals, as well as the fact that they themselves work very well in tandem with, say, Riptides.
Tactical Marines are just forced units to fill out the mandatory 2 troop slots in a non-bike list in comparison. Tacticals can work, but they are a weaker choice.
With the Right Tactics and the Right Chapter Tactics they are no longer a Tax. With Raven Guard it is posible to quickly get into Rapid Fire/Flamer Range. With Imperial Fist it becomes real easy to not miss, the same with Ultramarines.
Martel732 wrote: There is probably never going to be resolution to this, as GW refuses to acknowledge the existence of the maths.
Some want to explain things away or hand wave them away, but at the end of the day, the tactical marine is inferior to dire avenger in the 6th edition rules and probably the shoota boy as well. In practice, that is.
Frankly, I don't see this as a problem that really needs resolving. Tactical marines are neither inferior to dire avengers or shoota boys, nor are they really superior to them either. Rather, they are just different and with a different playstyle. And I'd rather they stay that way instead of having rending boltguns or 30 marines with crappy armor in a unit. It's the differences between the different troop units that gives them character.
^That and have you done the math with Re-Rollable Bolt Weapons or vs the Rending with a 2+ Cover save thanks to Chapter Tactics.
What remotely competent Eldar player would jump all of his Dire Avengers out on turn 1 to shoot your Tacticals when they have 2+ cover? You do realize that the cover buff goes away after turn one, yes?
Martel732 wrote: There is probably never going to be resolution to this, as GW refuses to acknowledge the existence of the maths.
Some want to explain things away or hand wave them away, but at the end of the day, the tactical marine is inferior to dire avenger in the 6th edition rules and probably the shoota boy as well. In practice, that is.
Frankly, I don't see this as a problem that really needs resolving. Tactical marines are neither inferior to dire avengers or shoota boys, nor are they really superior to them either. Rather, they are just different and with a different playstyle. And I'd rather they stay that way instead of having rending boltguns or 30 marines with crappy armor in a unit. It's the differences between the different troop units that gives them character.
^That and have you done the math with Re-Rollable Bolt Weapons or vs the Rending with a 2+ Cover save thanks to Chapter Tactics.
What remotely competent Eldar player would jump all of his Dire Avengers out on turn 1 to shoot your Tacticals when they have 2+ cover? You do realize that the cover buff goes away after turn one, yes?
Then I drop to a 3+ Cover save. If I plan things right the DA will be to buisy dealing with my 1st turns shooting.
We could tit-for-tat this back and forth for decades.
I am speaking form Experiance, not Mathhammer. When my Tactical Marines beat the Ork Boys Mob 90% of the time, to me that tells me they don't "Suck". When the 6th Edition Ork Codex comes out that may change.
Firewarriors both have excellent support options in things like Fireblades and Ethereals, as well as the fact that they themselves work very well in tandem with, say, Riptides.
Tactical Marines are just forced units to fill out the mandatory 2 troop slots in a non-bike list in comparison. Tacticals can work, but they are a weaker choice.
fire warriors need those support units to function where as tacticals don't, they are good on their own were fire warriors are not, a fire warrior without ethereal, marker light support, or other fire power multiplier is vastly inferior in power to point ratio than a space marine. tau armies can come unstuck easily if you target support elements rather than the main group.
its also why tau are better the more points you give them as they can afford more of these support elements
minor improvement to tacticals, make bolters salvo 1/2 weapons
Firewarriors both have excellent support options in things like Fireblades and Ethereals, as well as the fact that they themselves work very well in tandem with, say, Riptides.
Tactical Marines are just forced units to fill out the mandatory 2 troop slots in a non-bike list in comparison. Tacticals can work, but they are a weaker choice.
fire warriors need those support units to function where as tacticals don't, they are good on their own were fire warriors are not, a fire warrior without ethereal, marker light support, or other fire power multiplier is vastly inferior in power to point ratio than a space marine. tau armies can come unstuck easily if you target support elements rather than the main group.
its also why tau are better the more points you give them as they can afford more of these support elements
minor improvement to tacticals, make bolters salvo 1/2 weapons
They have the same damage output versus T4 or higher models up to T7; the advantage in BS for the Marine is compensated by the Strength advantage of the Pulse Rifle. The Marine is more durable while the Fire Warrior has a better gun (better vs. vehicles, T3 models, and better range). The Marine sure isn't 55% more durable though. In fact, it's 33% more durable against small arms (AP=>5), 300 % more durable against AP4 (only 100 % if the FWs have 5+ cover though, 33 % if the cover is 4+), and 55 % worse against anything else.
So yeah, the claim that Fire Warriors "need" support units to function whereas Tacticals don't is false.
Firewarriors both have excellent support options in things like Fireblades and Ethereals, as well as the fact that they themselves work very well in tandem with, say, Riptides.
Tactical Marines are just forced units to fill out the mandatory 2 troop slots in a non-bike list in comparison. Tacticals can work, but they are a weaker choice.
fire warriors need those support units to function where as tacticals don't, they are good on their own were fire warriors are not, a fire warrior without ethereal, marker light support, or other fire power multiplier is vastly inferior in power to point ratio than a space marine. tau armies can come unstuck easily if you target support elements rather than the main group.
its also why tau are better the more points you give them as they can afford more of these support elements
minor improvement to tacticals, make bolters salvo 1/2 weapons
Firewarriors don't necessarily need those support options. They can put out plenty of shots without them, at least enough to kill off far more points worth of marines than the marines can kill of firewarriors. If one tactical squad kills one firewarrior squad, the tactical squad still hasn't made its points back, whereas a firewarrior squad only needs to kill 8 marines. I'd still rather take speeder scouts.
I agree the statline is fine, but there needs to be a way to only make them slightly better.
Tactical Squads can aslo be adapted to fit your local Meta unlike Orks and Tau.
Your Meta is into Swarms, Heavy Bolters and Flamers.
Mechanised you load up with Plasma and Metla.
Tanks and MCs Metla, Las-Cannons and Grav weapons.
Anpu42 wrote: Tactical Squads can aslo be adapted to fit your local Meta unlike Orks and Tau.
Your Meta is into Swarms, Heavy Bolters and Flamers.
Mechanised you load up with Plasma and Metla.
Tanks and MCs Metla, Las-Cannons and Grav weapons.
10 Fire Warriors are 90 points. 10 Tactical Marines are 140 points. Let's say the Marines want to fight tanks, so we give them a meltagun and a combi-melta (no heavy because they'll be moving). They're now 160 points. The difference between the two units is now 70 points. Repeat this two more times (3 troops each seems rather reasonable, no?) and the points difference is 210 points. How many Crisis Suits with fusion guns do you reckon you can get for 210 points, and do you think it'll be better equipped to deal with armour than 30 Marines with 6 melta-shots, three of which are one-shots?
Simply put, the points the Tau (or anyone else, for that matter) save by not trying to do everything at once means their army can still do everything at once, but more efficiently, since specialists are better at their thing than generalists by definition.
Long-winded attempt at explanation:
Spoiler:
If the choice were between taking a generalist unit or a specialized unit, it might look as follows:
Unit A costs 200 points. It is excellent at killing infantry, but shoddy at killing everything else.
Unit B costs 200 points, and is so-so at killing infantry, so-so at fighting MCs, and so-so at killing tanks.
If the cost-ratios between specialists and generalists were better balanced, this would be the case. None of the above would be a strictly "better" unit than the other, since they'd have different applications. You'd take unit A when you needed to bolster your anti-infantry firepower and unit B when you wanted to have a troubleshooter unit that wouldn't ever be worthless.
The issue, though, is that with the current points system it's more like this:
Unit A costs 100 points. It is excellent at killing infantry, but shoddy at killing everything else.
Unit B costs 200 points, and is so-so at killing infantry, so-so at fighting MCs, and so-so at killing tanks.
Unit C costs 100 points. It is excellent at killing tanks and MCs, but shoddy at killing infantry.
Under these circumstances, why would you ever want the 200-point unit that's so-so at everything when you, by taking the two other units, could have an army that, as a whole, was excellent at killing everything? This is the issue of Fire Warriors vs. Tacticals; the Fire Warriors are better offensively, generally more durable point-for-point (and this is Fire Warriors we're talking about, the "Flimsy McWeaksauce" of troops choices), and leave enough points over that you can be better at everything than the Marines.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: specialists are better at their thing than generalists by definition.
I have never disputede that.
Let me try this:
Just becouse there is a better unit for X Job, does not mean it "Sucks".
I could take a 200+ Point Tactical Squad, pod in next to your Specialist Crisis Suit team and blast it into the stone age with Plasma/Melta/Grav weapons.
I could do the same to two units with a Combat Squaded Sternguard out of Drop Pod.
The Sternguard can do it better, but that does not make the Tactical Squad Suck.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: specialists are better at their thing than generalists by definition.
I have never disputede that.
Let me try this:
Just becouse there is a better unit for X Job, does not mean it "Sucks".
I could take a 200+ Point Tactical Squad, pod in next to your Specialist Crisis Suit team and blast it into the stone age with Plasma/Melta/Grav weapons.
I could do the same to two units with a Combat Squaded Sternguard out of Drop Pod.
The Sternguard can do it better, but that does not make the Tactical Squad Suck.
I didn't mean to say that you had disputed that, but when you're forced to take generalist troops who are worse than if you'd had specialist troops it affects the entire army.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: specialists are better at their thing than generalists by definition.
I have never disputede that.
Yes, once you take everything out of it's vacum it changes everything.
I usaly take 3-4 Tactical Squads on one of my list. I know that unless I face those units that just make them vanish [like a HeckTurkey] they should still be there on turn three. This lets me have a stable background to work with while the rest of my army do thier jobs. My normalload out lets me deal with all but lots of AV14. I can deal with Swarms, MCs, and even with flyers if I take an ADL.
Yes they are Generalest, but they are also Flexable.
I think the discussion about Tact marines is getting OT. Want to compare marines to fire warriors or orks? I suggest you guys open up a new thread in the 40K Discussion forum or maybe even the Tactics forurm.
The problem is Tactical Marines is they are the fine ballance. To mess with them to much would make them start to become the defalt must take Unit.
The only fix I would like is for them is to allow the Sarge's to be able to take two Specialist Weapons again. I want my Combi-Plasma Lighitng Claw. That is a personal preferance.
Anpu42 wrote: The problem is Tactical Marines is they are the fine ballance. To mess with them to much would make them start to become the defalt must take Unit.
The only fix I would like is for them is to allow the Sarge's to be able to take two Specialist Weapons again. I want my Combi-Plasma Lighitng Claw. That is a personal preferance.
Anpu42 wrote: The problem is Tactical Marines is they are the fine ballance. To mess with them to much would make them start to become the defalt must take Unit.
The only fix I would like is for them is to allow the Sarge's to be able to take two Specialist Weapons again. I want my Combi-Plasma Lighitng Claw. That is a personal preferance.
You can already do that.
They can replace thier bolt pistol for a "Special Weapon and thier Bolt Gun fro a Chain sword
I've read through a good deal of this thread and the two main arguments seem to be as follows:
Marines are good as they are because they are a jack of all trades unit that can take more punishment than other troop choices and have good rules in the form of ATSKNF and the ability to deploy in Combat squads
And Marines are not good as they are because the increase in Xenos firepower has left them highly vulnerable, robbing them of their staying power.
Both good points I feel, and both are right. Space marines ARE a very solid troop choice, they are incredibly dependable when required to make any leadership check and have a solid armour save of 3+. And in smaller games the ability to deploy in Combat squads is very powerful. That being said they ARE weaker due to Xenos weaponry becoming more powerful. Hell, I have very fond memories of my Noise marines literally wiping out whole squads in a single turn of shooting, or any number of my Tau units doing the same. This being said, C:SM has some very hard hitting units itself. I don't want to flog a dead horse, but THSS Terminators are one of the most durable units in the game, and no one is going to argue that the ranged power a marine army can bring to the table is pretty damn solid. Add to this a large array of tactical options and unit choices and you get a very solid army.
The reason I am taking all of this into consideration is that when you put the Tactical marines in the context of the army, instead of straight up comparing them to other troop choices then they make a great deal of sense. For example you would never compare a Guardsman to a Space marine because the Space marine is obviously better but this doesn't factor in the positioning, unit strength and supporting units. Guardsman are typically pretty numerous and backed by Vehicles. For what they do in the army they are in, Space marines are right where they need to be.
Tactical Marines need both a slightly power boost (very slight, they are indeed a jack of all trades unit) and a slight survivability boost.
I really don't think tactical marines are that bad off (especially when you consider that chaos marines are only slightly cheaper and significantly worse). But I agree that a slight boost to them wouldn't be bad, as they don't really live up to their fluff.
Instead of messing with any stats or core rules though, I propose two things:
1) Let sergeants take auspexes (and maybe even boost the role of the auspex slightly, grants Interceptor to the squad against units arriving from reserves within 12"?) I can't conceive of why they'd leave this option off when it's been a bit in the tactical squad box since 3rd edition.
2) Make apothecaries 1-3 per Elites slot like in the 30k rules, or a 1 per HQ choice, filling no slot, instead of automatically stuck in the command squad. Then you can potentially spread FnP to a tactical squad by attaching an apothecary.
I think both of these are pretty mild. They give ways of boosting marine firepower and durability without changing the marines themselves, just by giving players options they should already have.
These are excellent suggestions, very fluffy fixes that would make tacticals a little bit better without altering any of their base mechanics.
Hexwolf wrote: I've read through a good deal of this thread and the two main arguments seem to be as follows:
Marines are good as they are because they are a jack of all trades unit that can take more punishment than other troop choices and have good rules in the form of ATSKNF and the ability to deploy in Combat squads
And Marines are not good as they are because the increase in Xenos firepower has left them highly vulnerable, robbing them of their staying power.
Both good points I feel, and both are right. Space marines ARE a very solid troop choice, they are incredibly dependable when required to make any leadership check and have a solid armour save of 3+. And in smaller games the ability to deploy in Combat squads is very powerful. That being said they ARE weaker due to Xenos weaponry becoming more powerful. Hell, I have very fond memories of my Noise marines literally wiping out whole squads in a single turn of shooting, or any number of my Tau units doing the same. This being said, C:SM has some very hard hitting units itself. I don't want to flog a dead horse, but THSS Terminators are one of the most durable units in the game, and no one is going to argue that the ranged power a marine army can bring to the table is pretty damn solid. Add to this a large array of tactical options and unit choices and you get a very solid army.
The reason I am taking all of this into consideration is that when you put the Tactical marines in the context of the army, instead of straight up comparing them to other troop choices then they make a great deal of sense. For example you would never compare a Guardsman to a Space marine because the Space marine is obviously better but this doesn't factor in the positioning, unit strength and supporting units. Guardsman are typically pretty numerous and backed by Vehicles. For what they do in the army they are in, Space marines are right where they need to be.
I disagree, because in practice, they don't perform like a 14 pt model. Too much gear they don't need. A weapon that no one cares about.
The bottom line is that Xenos can invest fewer list points into units that don't do anything. Actually dire avengers do one thing really well: they let you take a Wave Serpent.
I actually don't find marine lists' firepower that impressive. So I will argue that. Every killy thing, except the TFC, costs the marines DEARLY. And most of it is protected by the 3+ tissue paper armor, so failing that 3+ makes you lose even more points.
Actually, comparing them directly to other troops make them look BETTER than they actually are. In practice, they are units that can literally be ignored until it comes time to worry about objectives. In a game about being killy, they fail utterly still.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: The problem is Tactical Marines is they are the fine ballance. To mess with them to much would make them start to become the defalt must take Unit.
The only fix I would like is for them is to allow the Sarge's to be able to take two Specialist Weapons again. I want my Combi-Plasma Lighitng Claw. That is a personal preferance.
Anything "balanced" in 6th is overcosted. Assault is garbage in general. You want as much efficient firepower as you can get. Marines are anything but.
They can replace thier bolt pistol for a "Special Weapon and thier Bolt Gun fro a Chain sword
What are you talking about? The can take items from Melee and Ranged lists, either of which allow to replace a melee weapon or a pistol.
Exactly, I can trade in my Bolt Pistol for A Melee or Ranged Weapon.
The Bolt Gun you can trade in for a Chain Sword.
So I can trade in the Bolt Pistol and get either a Comb-Plasma or a Lighting Claw, but I can not rake in my Bolt Gun for either.
Hexwolf wrote: This being said, C:SM has some very hard hitting units itself. I don't want to flog a dead horse, but THSS Terminators are one of the most durable units in the game
They're less durable than Tactical Marines against small-arms for their points. They're durable compared to Marines against AP3 and lower, but the giant torrent of fire from Tau and Eldar is still going to murder them dead. Then there's the issue of them more or less being forced to take a Land Raider in order to perform.
They can replace thier bolt pistol for a "Special Weapon and thier Bolt Gun fro a Chain sword
What are you talking about? The can take items from Melee and Ranged lists, either of which allow to replace a melee weapon or a pistol.
Exactly, I can trade in my Bolt Pistol for A Melee or Ranged Weapon.
The Bolt Gun you can trade in for a Chain Sword.
So I can trade in the Bolt Pistol and get either a Comb-Plasma or a Lighting Claw, but I can not rake in my Bolt Gun for either.
1. Exchange Bolt Pistol for Lightning Claw.
2. Exchange Bolter for Chainsword
3. Exchange Bolter for Combi-plasma
4. ???
5. Profit!
3+ is tissue paper armour? It's the second best armour in the game.
Which doesn't matter when the enemy has Bladestorm on every single weapon, or throws around 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots. Fpr the points, Power Armour is rubbish, which is what we've been saying throughout the thread.
3+ is tissue paper armour? It's the second best armour in the game.
It has been rendered tissue paper in the current meta, either through AP2 or by sheer weight of wounds. This game is now about what you can kill in the shooting phase, and for tactical marines, the answer is precious little.
Hexwolf wrote: This being said, C:SM has some very hard hitting units itself. I don't want to flog a dead horse, but THSS Terminators are one of the most durable units in the game
They're less durable than Tactical Marines against small-arms for their points. They're durable compared to Marines against AP3 and lower, but the giant torrent of fire from Tau and Eldar is still going to murder them dead. Then there's the issue of them more or less being forced to take a Land Raider in order to perform.
They can replace thier bolt pistol for a "Special Weapon and thier Bolt Gun fro a Chain sword
What are you talking about? The can take items from Melee and Ranged lists, either of which allow to replace a melee weapon or a pistol.
Exactly, I can trade in my Bolt Pistol for A Melee or Ranged Weapon.
The Bolt Gun you can trade in for a Chain Sword.
So I can trade in the Bolt Pistol and get either a Comb-Plasma or a Lighting Claw, but I can not rake in my Bolt Gun for either.
1. Exchange Bolt Pistol for Lightning Claw.
2. Exchange Bolter for Chainsword
3. Exchange Bolter for Combi-plasma
4. ???
5. Profit!
I am not sure that is RAW or RAI?
It does not seem leagal, the only time you take a peice of war gear and then make trades on it is Terminator Armor and then it tells you what you can trade it in on. There is no wording like that with the Bolt Gun to a Chain Sword.
Rautakanki wrote: What? I would be so happy to have Space Marines as troops. Combatsquads, actual weapon options that do something, saves and ATSKNF.
Exactly. Enough said.
But I want to say more!
People want something that's going to have that wow effect and the I just wrecked you statement from these guys.
People don't realize that the versatility with weapon options, being able to combat squad, and having And They Shall Know No Fear special rule adds a lot to a basic troop choice and good strategy since tournament wise you have a master list and you combat squad your units before warlord traits so if its 6 objectives and you have 3 10 man tactical squads, oh look at that I have 6 separate scoring troops now because I can combat squad. Or this example as well, what?! You did 25% casualties to me in shooting and I failed my ld 8 Morale check and fell back 12"inches off the objective I was on. Oh but look what I can do, I auto regroup 3"then I move 6 and oh snap I am within 3"of the objective still, yeah I won.
ATSKNF is actually not that useful anymore. I'm struggling to have marines survive. There aren't any left to do the regroup trick you are speaking of. Also, realize that sometimes you WANT to be swept in combat so you can shoot more. Especially in 6th.
They don't have weapons that do anything. They don't have a transport that does anything. They aren't a threat in HTH, despite paying for bolt pistol, WS 4, S4.
Until you actually play marines against Xeno lists *that mean business*, not this "oh my meta doesn't use war walkers!" you probably will not understand the frustration. Your guys just die in droves despite their "eliteness".
You do not want marines as troops. They are overcosted and are a tax on your list. They look great on paper, but in reality that have a bunch of rules and gear that don't matter or don't help.
Hexwolf wrote: I've read through a good deal of this thread and the two main arguments seem to be as follows:
Marines are good as they are because they are a jack of all trades unit that can take more punishment than other troop choices and have good rules in the form of ATSKNF and the ability to deploy in Combat squads
And Marines are not good as they are because the increase in Xenos firepower has left them highly vulnerable, robbing them of their staying power.
Both good points I feel, and both are right. Space marines ARE a very solid troop choice, they are incredibly dependable when required to make any leadership check and have a solid armour save of 3+. And in smaller games the ability to deploy in Combat squads is very powerful. That being said they ARE weaker due to Xenos weaponry becoming more powerful. Hell, I have very fond memories of my Noise marines literally wiping out whole squads in a single turn of shooting, or any number of my Tau units doing the same. This being said, C:SM has some very hard hitting units itself. I don't want to flog a dead horse, but THSS Terminators are one of the most durable units in the game, and no one is going to argue that the ranged power a marine army can bring to the table is pretty damn solid. Add to this a large array of tactical options and unit choices and you get a very solid army.
The reason I am taking all of this into consideration is that when you put the Tactical marines in the context of the army, instead of straight up comparing them to other troop choices then they make a great deal of sense. For example you would never compare a Guardsman to a Space marine because the Space marine is obviously better but this doesn't factor in the positioning, unit strength and supporting units. Guardsman are typically pretty numerous and backed by Vehicles. For what they do in the army they are in, Space marines are right where they need to be.
While C:SM can indeed bring some firepower, their role as a general purpose army doesn't do anything for them. There's a reason Assault Marines are never taken, or why we're saying that Tactical marines are bad. They simply are. They're a generalist unit that isn't good at anything, yet is priced as if it is.
Martel732 wrote: ATSKNF is actually not that useful anymore. I'm struggling to have marines survive. There aren't any left to do the regroup trick you are speaking of. Also, realize that sometimes you WANT to be swept in combat so you can shoot more. Especially in 6th.
They don't have weapons that do anything. They don't have a transport that does anything. They aren't a threat in HTH, despite paying for bolt pistol, WS 4, S4.
Until you actually play marines against Xeno lists *that mean business*, not this "oh my meta doesn't use war walkers!" you probably will not understand the frustration. Your guys just die in droves despite their "eliteness".
You do not want marines as troops. They are overcosted and are a tax on your list. They look great on paper, but in reality that have a bunch of rules and gear that don't matter or don't help.
No.
I flat out refuse to believe that Marines are less durable than Sisters against basic weapons, and my Sisters don't fold like you're describing.
Martel732 wrote: ATSKNF is actually not that useful anymore. I'm struggling to have marines survive. There aren't any left to do the regroup trick you are speaking of. Also, realize that sometimes you WANT to be swept in combat so you can shoot more. Especially in 6th.
They don't have weapons that do anything. They don't have a transport that does anything. They aren't a threat in HTH, despite paying for bolt pistol, WS 4, S4.
Until you actually play marines against Xeno lists *that mean business*, not this "oh my meta doesn't use war walkers!" you probably will not understand the frustration. Your guys just die in droves despite their "eliteness".
You do not want marines as troops. They are overcosted and are a tax on your list. They look great on paper, but in reality that have a bunch of rules and gear that don't matter or don't help.
Not my Experiance at all. There is nothing thay can not kill.
So I take it in your local Meta Tactical Marines are not used much?
Yeah what's going on is people expect marines to be able to put out A LOT of game winning shots and weapons. No, they can possibly have 1 Las cannon that hits and pens a vehicle and it explodes, people expect it to be like a devastator squad with 4 Las cannons, not what a tactical squad is meant for. They are the only basic troop choice that can take various upgrades for many different situations.
And yes I know what several different combinations of 3 war Walkers are like, double scatter laser on each for 24 shots, remember I passed 23 3+ saves before, war Walkers
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh man on a side note you guys should have seen this 4 way free for all we did, I was space marines raven guard chapter tactics, the other players were necron, tau, and tyranids. My chapter master with jump pack shield eternal and thunder hammer lived through the entire last round of shooting from so many things, I passed that round alone 17 2+ saves and 9 3+ out of 10. He ended game with 1 wound and he earned slay the warlord for me eventually after the necron player finally failed his reanimation protocol on his over lord, which are a freaking pain in close combat.
BrotherOfBone wrote: Or take Black Templars Crusader Squads, who have the ability to take 2 power fists, a power weapon, a heavy and a special weapon in a 5-man squad ^_^
They don't.
They can upgrade one model to a sword brother and take a power weapon/fist
They can upgrade one model to a heavy weapon or power weapon/fist
They can upgrade one model to a special weapon
They can therefore take three upgraded models in a five man (or 19 man) squad.
Martel732 wrote: ATSKNF is actually not that useful anymore. I'm struggling to have marines survive. There aren't any left to do the regroup trick you are speaking of. Also, realize that sometimes you WANT to be swept in combat so you can shoot more. Especially in 6th.
They don't have weapons that do anything. They don't have a transport that does anything. They aren't a threat in HTH, despite paying for bolt pistol, WS 4, S4.
Until you actually play marines against Xeno lists *that mean business*, not this "oh my meta doesn't use war walkers!" you probably will not understand the frustration. Your guys just die in droves despite their "eliteness".
You do not want marines as troops. They are overcosted and are a tax on your list. They look great on paper, but in reality that have a bunch of rules and gear that don't matter or don't help.
No.
I flat out refuse to believe that Marines are less durable than Sisters against basic weapons, and my Sisters don't fold like you're describing.
Sounds like you aren't playing the right opponents. 50+ wounds a turn will cause any power armor list to fold. S6 Eldar weapons don't care if they are shooting marines or sisters. Except that they kill more points when a marine rolls a "1" or a "2". Even sisters are better bullet catchers against Eldar than marines.
Martel732 wrote: ATSKNF is actually not that useful anymore. I'm struggling to have marines survive. There aren't any left to do the regroup trick you are speaking of. Also, realize that sometimes you WANT to be swept in combat so you can shoot more. Especially in 6th.
They don't have weapons that do anything. They don't have a transport that does anything. They aren't a threat in HTH, despite paying for bolt pistol, WS 4, S4.
Until you actually play marines against Xeno lists *that mean business*, not this "oh my meta doesn't use war walkers!" you probably will not understand the frustration. Your guys just die in droves despite their "eliteness".
You do not want marines as troops. They are overcosted and are a tax on your list. They look great on paper, but in reality that have a bunch of rules and gear that don't matter or don't help.
Not my Experiance at all. There is nothing thay can not kill.
So I take it in your local Meta Tactical Marines are not used much?
There is a lot they can not kill. This is from both mathhammer and experience.
I try not to use them. But they get used. Tactical marines are one of the reasons that my BA still can steal games from C:SM. Because every tactical marine is a unit I don't have to really worry about. Not like a dire avenger than can rend a model with 2+ armor.
"And yes I know what several different combinations of 3 war Walkers are like, double scatter laser on each for 24 shots, remember I passed 23 3+ saves before, war Walkers "
And somewhere else someone completely botched their saves. Luck can't hold forever, and the law of large amounts of dice is firmly in the Eldar's corner. It sounds like you rely purely on your dice luck to survive, which is not a good plan over many, many games.
And yes I know what several different combinations of 3 war Walkers are like, double scatter laser on each for 24 shots, remember I passed 23 3+ saves before, war Walkers
I've had my only Drop Pod model kill the Swarmlord, Lysander, Logan, Abaddon, Calgar, The Sanguinor, Ghazghkull, and numerous no-name HQs with its Storm Bolters. The conclusion is not that Drop Pods are the best shooting units in the game, it's that those were statistical flukes.
You know, like I pointed out last time you mentioned that...
Melee is a joke in 6th ed thats why you don't enjoy Tactical Marines. There not gak they just have useless stats,
like Ws4 when they only need Ws1 & Str4 again 1 would have done fine.
Back in the good old days of 3rd & 4th ed, there were no AP 3 flamers. Power armour was awesome all power weapons were AP2, Grey knights were gak & Orks had Choppa's & all was right in the world.
I'm hoping that in the 6th ed Ork codex, that grot have the new stat line of Ws0 Bs3 S0 T1 W1 A0 Ld2 Sv- equipment grot blaster (las gun) krak bombs (krak grenades)
with codex creep they should about 2 point each but if matt the ward has written the codex you never know 1/2 a point maybe 1/3 of a point. It's all down to how much he never play tested the units before a release. Maybe he will do a Grey knight codex & because the unit has a the word force in the weapons title, he made a wholearmy of force weapons. wait for IT all Grots get Grotzooka from the Killa Kans . You know because of the Grotzooka bit. Come On You Know He Is That Dumb
Charcaradon chapter tatics make marines a cc threat and you can buy extra cc weapons for your tacticals. Unfortunatly they have few alies. Still I love you now forgeworld.
Yorkskargrim wrote: Melee is a joke in 6th ed thats why you don't enjoy Tactical Marines. There not gak they just have useless stats,
like Ws4 when they only need Ws1 & Str4 again 1 would have done fine.
Back in the good old days of 3rd & 4th ed, there were no AP 3 flamers. Power armour was awesome all power weapons were AP2, Grey knights were gak & Orks had Choppa's & all was right in the world.
I'm hoping that in the 6th ed Ork codex, that grot have the new stat line of Ws0 Bs3 S0 T1 W1 A0 Ld2 Sv- equipment grot blaster (las gun) krak bombs (krak grenades)
with codex creep they should about 2 point each but if matt ward has written the codex you never know 1/2 a point maybe 1/3 of a point. It's all down to how much he never play tested the units before a release. Maybe he will do a Grey knight codex & because the unit has a the word force in the weapons title, he made a wholearmy of force weapons. wait for IT all Grots get Grotzooka from the Killa Kans. You know because of the Grotzooka bit. Come On You Know He Is That Dumb
...you do realize that the Nemesis Force Weapons have been the iconic weapon for the Grey Knights since forever, and worked as Force Weapons in 3rd ed, right? Speaking of dumb stuff, I mean.
Furyou Miko wrote: Played second and third. Kinda skipped fourth, played a bit of fifth, then sixth came out. *shrug*
Exact same experience here. 4th hit right when I went to college, then grad school, and by the time I got back to playing again 5th was like halfway over.
If tactical squads ever had a "golden age" it would be 3rd, when rhino rush was a possibility and you could stay relatively safe in close combat for the entire game, consolidating from combat to combat. So I'd say Yorkskargrim is partly right (aside from the nearly incoherent rambling that made up the last half of that post). Tactical marines are paying for WS, Strength, and Initiative that hardly ever get used in 6th, and a higher Toughness and 3+ save that are more relevant in close combat than against shooting (proliferation of high strength and/or low AP weapons and the easy availability of 4+ cover make toughness and armor less relevant against shooting than in hand to hand, where the vast majority of units in the game have S3/4 and no AP).
Lack of assault vehicles, inability to consolidate into new combats, and rapid fire weapons limiting your firepower on any turn you do manage to set up an assault, are probably the biggest issues tactical marines face (and most marine units in general). You're paying for abilities that 6th edition is stacked against and that no competent enemy will let you utilize.
Yorkskargrim wrote: The Nemesis Force Weapons gave you +2 str bro
You had to Be an IC for it to be a real Force Weapons
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm i really the only person on here that actually played 3ed, 4th & 5th
...so it worked like a Force Weapon then?
Honestly, complaining that Mat Ward gave Grey Knights Force Weapons all around is silly, since he went with what they were described as wielding. Your comparison to Grotzookas is frankly insane, and your PM to me to shut up is rude. If you can't argue in a coherent way without insulting people I suggest you don't argue at all.
I know it's 6th ed. Because I can't get anyone to play a game. There only interested in playing blood bowl or hordes. Other then Flyers, snap fire, overwatch, rapidfire, and challenged. Melee being a total joke & any Codex written by Matt Ward. 6th ed is kind of playable
Automatically Appended Next Post: A friend of mine said best he has invested too much money to quit playing now and I feel like that's where most of you are coming from. Have you had the rumours that GW is already thinking about releasing 7th ed because 6th ed was so terrible,
3+ is tissue paper armour? It's the second best armour in the game.
Which doesn't matter when the enemy has Bladestorm on every single weapon, or throws around 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots. Fpr the points, Power Armour is rubbish, which is what we've been saying throughout the thread.
Bladestorm is your argument? BLADESTORM!?
Do you realize how many shots you need to get a single Bladestorm wound on the Tacticals? It may be an argument for Terminators that are twice as expensive or more as the Tacticals with twice the life expectancy (for the unenlightened) but for Space Marine Tactical Squad that's not a big issue. It takes a full squad of Dire Avengers to get to an average of one semi-rend. One. The last edition Dire Avengers had a better version of Bladestorm for taking care of Tactical Marines, and those Dire Avengers while the only decent troop choice was still not a very good choice compared to that edition's Tactical squad.
3+ is tissue paper armour? It's the second best armour in the game.
Which doesn't matter when the enemy has Bladestorm on every single weapon, or throws around 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots. Fpr the points, Power Armour is rubbish, which is what we've been saying throughout the thread.
Bladestorm is your argument? BLADESTORM!?
Do you realize how many shots you need to get a single Bladestorm wound on the Tacticals? It may be an argument for Terminators that are twice as expensive or more as the Tacticals with twice the life expectancy (for the unenlightened) but for Space Marine Tactical Squad that's not a big issue. It takes a full squad of Dire Avengers to get to an average of one semi-rend. One. The last edition Dire Avengers had a better version of Bladestorm for taking care of Tactical Marines, and those Dire Avengers while the only decent troop choice was still not a very good choice compared to that edition's Tactical squad.
Try again and try better.
You missed the 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots.
3+ is tissue paper armour? It's the second best armour in the game.
Which doesn't matter when the enemy has Bladestorm on every single weapon, or throws around 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots. Fpr the points, Power Armour is rubbish, which is what we've been saying throughout the thread.
Bladestorm is your argument? BLADESTORM!?
Do you realize how many shots you need to get a single Bladestorm wound on the Tacticals? It may be an argument for Terminators that are twice as expensive or more as the Tacticals with twice the life expectancy (for the unenlightened) but for Space Marine Tactical Squad that's not a big issue. It takes a full squad of Dire Avengers to get to an average of one semi-rend. One. The last edition Dire Avengers had a better version of Bladestorm for taking care of Tactical Marines, and those Dire Avengers while the only decent troop choice was still not a very good choice compared to that edition's Tactical squad.
Try again and try better.
Ok, how about the fact that I can put an AP2 weapon on every Eldar vehicle?
3+ is tissue paper armour? It's the second best armour in the game.
Which doesn't matter when the enemy has Bladestorm on every single weapon, or throws around 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots. Fpr the points, Power Armour is rubbish, which is what we've been saying throughout the thread.
Bladestorm is your argument? BLADESTORM!?
Do you realize how many shots you need to get a single Bladestorm wound on the Tacticals? It may be an argument for Terminators that are twice as expensive or more as the Tacticals with twice the life expectancy (for the unenlightened) but for Space Marine Tactical Squad that's not a big issue. It takes a full squad of Dire Avengers to get to an average of one semi-rend. One. The last edition Dire Avengers had a better version of Bladestorm for taking care of Tactical Marines, and those Dire Avengers while the only decent troop choice was still not a very good choice compared to that edition's Tactical squad.
Try again and try better.
Scatterlasers. Done. Eldar are disgusting this edition. Don't even try to pretend marines are good against Eldar. They're not.
3+ is tissue paper armour? It's the second best armour in the game.
Which doesn't matter when the enemy has Bladestorm on every single weapon, or throws around 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots. Fpr the points, Power Armour is rubbish, which is what we've been saying throughout the thread.
Bladestorm is your argument? BLADESTORM!?
Do you realize how many shots you need to get a single Bladestorm wound on the Tacticals? It may be an argument for Terminators that are twice as expensive or more as the Tacticals with twice the life expectancy (for the unenlightened) but for Space Marine Tactical Squad that's not a big issue. It takes a full squad of Dire Avengers to get to an average of one semi-rend. One. The last edition Dire Avengers had a better version of Bladestorm for taking care of Tactical Marines, and those Dire Avengers while the only decent troop choice was still not a very good choice compared to that edition's Tactical squad.
Try again and try better.
Scatterlasers. Done. Eldar are disgusting this edition. Don't even try to pretend marines are good against Eldar. They're not.
Agreed Dire avenger dive out of a wave serpent and what ever marines are there are always going to be destroyed end of
McNinja: An ap2 weapon on every vehicle? Really? I can understand if someone complains about the Scatter Laser, but the AP2 weapons?! You do realize that Space Marines have access to better AP2 weapons, right? And you realize that this is a thread about Tactical Marines and their supposed short comings and not about Terminators?
3+ is tissue paper armour? It's the second best armour in the game.
Which doesn't matter when the enemy has Bladestorm on every single weapon, or throws around 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots. Fpr the points, Power Armour is rubbish, which is what we've been saying throughout the thread.
Bladestorm is your argument? BLADESTORM!?
Do you realize how many shots you need to get a single Bladestorm wound on the Tacticals? It may be an argument for Terminators that are twice as expensive or more as the Tacticals with twice the life expectancy (for the unenlightened) but for Space Marine Tactical Squad that's not a big issue. It takes a full squad of Dire Avengers to get to an average of one semi-rend. One. The last edition Dire Avengers had a better version of Bladestorm for taking care of Tactical Marines, and those Dire Avengers while the only decent troop choice was still not a very good choice compared to that edition's Tactical squad.
Try again and try better.
Scatterlasers. Done. Eldar are disgusting this edition. Don't even try to pretend marines are good against Eldar. They're not.
Agreed Dire avenger dive out of a wave serpent and what ever marines are there are always going to be destroyed end of
Oh no, you guys, don't get me started on Wave Serpents. I'm neither blind, nor stupid, I know where the overpowered piles lie smelling in my own codex, I'm railing against the fact that someone actually had the gall to claim that 1 AP2 wound out of 6 from a 10 man 130+ point unit of Dire Avengers would somehow make for a good example of how Space Marines in Power Armour was underpowered. In a straight up fire fight, Dire Avengers will slowly lose against Tactical Marines, with a slight evenness if assuming the same point cost, unless the Space Marines make it into close combat at which point they will slaughter the Dire Avengers. The only hope Dire Avengers have against Tactical Marines is to stack the odds, meaning bringing far superior numbers/points to bear to eliminate key targets.
Dire Avengers are nice, but they are on the same level as Tactical Marines.
The problem you have with Dire Avengers is, again, Wave Serpents. Which are with their Serpent Shield and the interaction of Scatter Laser, a pile of gak as far as game balance is concerned. Wave Serpents are not the same as Dire Avengers nor do Wave Serpents benefit much at all from Bladestorm. Bladestorm is there to make Eldar infantry NOT SUCK, since otherwise their weapon would be a heavily nerfed Bolter (which you guys seem to hate).
Do you know what has bladestorm other than Dire Avengers? Shuriken Cannons. Do you know what platform Shuriken Cannons come on? I'll give you a hint: I never mentioned Dire Avengers, that was you.
Also, for the record, you still missed the 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots that I mentioned.
I'll just direct you to earlier parts of the thread where we pointed out how troops that don't overpay for their armour save is much better than those that do, because cover is free.
Mahtamori wrote: McNinja: An ap2 weapon on every vehicle? Really? I can understand if someone complains about the Scatter Laser, but the AP2 weapons?! You do realize that Space Marines have access to better AP2 weapons, right? And you realize that this is a thread about Tactical Marines and their supposed short comings and not about Terminators?
3+ is tissue paper armour? It's the second best armour in the game.
Which doesn't matter when the enemy has Bladestorm on every single weapon, or throws around 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots. Fpr the points, Power Armour is rubbish, which is what we've been saying throughout the thread.
Bladestorm is your argument? BLADESTORM!?
Do you realize how many shots you need to get a single Bladestorm wound on the Tacticals? It may be an argument for Terminators that are twice as expensive or more as the Tacticals with twice the life expectancy (for the unenlightened) but for Space Marine Tactical Squad that's not a big issue. It takes a full squad of Dire Avengers to get to an average of one semi-rend. One. The last edition Dire Avengers had a better version of Bladestorm for taking care of Tactical Marines, and those Dire Avengers while the only decent troop choice was still not a very good choice compared to that edition's Tactical squad.
Try again and try better.
Scatterlasers. Done. Eldar are disgusting this edition. Don't even try to pretend marines are good against Eldar. They're not.
Agreed Dire avenger dive out of a wave serpent and what ever marines are there are always going to be destroyed end of
Oh no, you guys, don't get me started on Wave Serpents. I'm neither blind, nor stupid, I know where the overpowered piles lie smelling in my own codex, I'm railing against the fact that someone actually had the gall to claim that 1 AP2 wound out of 6 from a 10 man 130+ point unit of Dire Avengers would somehow make for a good example of how Space Marines in Power Armour was underpowered. In a straight up fire fight, Dire Avengers will slowly lose against Tactical Marines, with a slight evenness if assuming the same point cost, unless the Space Marines make it into close combat at which point they will slaughter the Dire Avengers. The only hope Dire Avengers have against Tactical Marines is to stack the odds, meaning bringing far superior numbers/points to bear to eliminate key targets.
Dire Avengers are nice, but they are on the same level as Tactical Marines.
The problem you have with Dire Avengers is, again, Wave Serpents. Which are with their Serpent Shield and the interaction of Scatter Laser, a pile of gak as far as game balance is concerned. Wave Serpents are not the same as Dire Avengers nor do Wave Serpents benefit much at all from Bladestorm. Bladestorm is there to make Eldar infantry NOT SUCK, since otherwise their weapon would be a heavily nerfed Bolter (which you guys seem to hate).
No. I refuse to believe this I play a lot of eldar and my tacticals have never been able to outshoot dire avengers
And let's be honest tactical marines do suck I mean yes they can combat squad which I think is pretty pointless it just makes them easier to kill. ATSKNF Is severely overrated Aswel
And yes the boltgun sucks its only effective as a weapon when Bolter drill is included from IF. I mean eldar get bladestorm necrons get glance on 6's, orks get loads of shots guard have orders and weight of fire making lasguns effective, tau have s5 range 30 and what do marines get a s4 ap5 single shot weapon gee thanks for that
Lets be fair tactical marines really dont suck, theyre actually right in the "balanced" zone of unit power I think. They have decent survivability, decent weapons, and a good statline. Theyre effective against all targets in some way (very few troops units have this advantage) and they cost the same as a dire avengers, which while being stronger close range than tacticals, are not as flexible and far weaker. Also the argument for cover is actually a bit of a moot point when discussing eldar infantry due to their short weapon ranges.
Yes wave serpents are overpowered, and they make eldar infantry very good, everyone knows this and itll stay this way until the next eldar codex which hopefully puts the serpent shield back to something like it was in 4th ed.
Tacticals though, are not bad units. Infact I think armies with large numbers of tactical marines actually fare rather well. I think maybe some of it is the SM oriented metagame still, which means people plan their armies around killing space marines. This is starting to die out now which is a good thing, but definately around 4th and 5th, you would specifically build your army and rate weapon choices on "how good is this at killing space marines"
If you want to talk about a bad space marine unit lets bring up the subject of assault marines
Bobug wrote: Lets be fair tactical marines really dont suck, theyre actually right in the "balanced" zone of unit power I think. They have decent survivability, decent weapons, and a good statline. Theyre effective against all targets in some way (very few troops units have this advantage) and they cost the same as a dire avengers, which while being stronger close range than tacticals, are not as flexible and far weaker. Also the argument for cover is actually a bit of a moot point when discussing eldar infantry due to their short weapon ranges.
Yes wave serpents are overpowered, and they make eldar infantry very good, everyone knows this and itll stay this way until the next eldar codex which hopefully puts the serpent shield back to something like it was in 4th ed.
Tacticals though, are not bad units. Infact I think armies with large numbers of tactical marines actually fare rather well. I think maybe some of it is the SM oriented metagame still, which means people plan their armies around killing space marines. This is starting to die out now which is a good thing, but definately around 4th and 5th, you would specifically build your army and rate weapon choices on "how good is this at killing space marines"
If you want to talk about a bad space marine unit lets bring up the subject of assault marines
If only there were some sort of post in this thread outlining why generalists are worse than specialists... if only...
Bobug wrote: Lets be fair tactical marines really dont suck, theyre actually right in the "balanced" zone of unit power I think. They have decent survivability, decent weapons, and a good statline. Theyre effective against all targets in some way (very few troops units have this advantage) and they cost the same as a dire avengers, which while being stronger close range than tacticals, are not as flexible and far weaker. Also the argument for cover is actually a bit of a moot point when discussing eldar infantry due to their short weapon ranges.
Yes wave serpents are overpowered, and they make eldar infantry very good, everyone knows this and itll stay this way until the next eldar codex which hopefully puts the serpent shield back to something like it was in 4th ed.
Tacticals though, are not bad units. Infact I think armies with large numbers of tactical marines actually fare rather well. I think maybe some of it is the SM oriented metagame still, which means people plan their armies around killing space marines. This is starting to die out now which is a good thing, but definately around 4th and 5th, you would specifically build your army and rate weapon choices on "how good is this at killing space marines"
If you want to talk about a bad space marine unit lets bring up the subject of assault marines
Yes, they do suck because they overpay for being generalists. This is not a game of generalists.
"Oh no, you guys, don't get me started on Wave Serpents. I'm neither blind, nor stupid, I know where the overpowered piles lie smelling in my own codex, I'm railing against the fact that someone actually had the gall to claim that 1 AP2 wound out of 6 from a 10 man 130+ point unit of Dire Avengers would somehow make for a good example of how Space Marines in Power Armour was underpowered. In a straight up fire fight, Dire Avengers will slowly lose against Tactical Marines, with a slight evenness if assuming the same point cost, unless the Space Marines make it into close combat at which point they will slaughter the Dire Avengers. The only hope Dire Avengers have against Tactical Marines is to stack the odds, meaning bringing far superior numbers/points to bear to eliminate key targets.
Dire Avengers are nice, but they are on the same level as Tactical Marines.
The problem you have with Dire Avengers is, again, Wave Serpents. Which are with their Serpent Shield and the interaction of Scatter Laser, a pile of gak as far as game balance is concerned. Wave Serpents are not the same as Dire Avengers nor do Wave Serpents benefit much at all from Bladestorm. Bladestorm is there to make Eldar infantry NOT SUCK, since otherwise their weapon would be a heavily nerfed Bolter (which you guys seem to hate).'"
In the current meta, I'll take DIre Avengers everytime. They can put wounds on any toughness value, and rend though any armor. And run after the fact. Yes, maybe in a vacuum, the tacticals slowly kill them, but in the bigger picture, DA are way better.
Bobug wrote: Lets be fair tactical marines really dont suck, theyre actually right in the "balanced" zone of unit power I think. They have decent survivability, decent weapons, and a good statline. Theyre effective against all targets in some way (very few troops units have this advantage) and they cost the same as a dire avengers, which while being stronger close range than tacticals, are not as flexible and far weaker. Also the argument for cover is actually a bit of a moot point when discussing eldar infantry due to their short weapon ranges.
Yes wave serpents are overpowered, and they make eldar infantry very good, everyone knows this and itll stay this way until the next eldar codex which hopefully puts the serpent shield back to something like it was in 4th ed.
Tacticals though, are not bad units. Infact I think armies with large numbers of tactical marines actually fare rather well. I think maybe some of it is the SM oriented metagame still, which means people plan their armies around killing space marines. This is starting to die out now which is a good thing, but definately around 4th and 5th, you would specifically build your army and rate weapon choices on "how good is this at killing space marines"
If you want to talk about a bad space marine unit lets bring up the subject of assault marines
Yes, they do suck because they overpay for being generalists. This is not a game of generalists.
"Oh no, you guys, don't get me started on Wave Serpents. I'm neither blind, nor stupid, I know where the overpowered piles lie smelling in my own codex, I'm railing against the fact that someone actually had the gall to claim that 1 AP2 wound out of 6 from a 10 man 130+ point unit of Dire Avengers would somehow make for a good example of how Space Marines in Power Armour was underpowered. In a straight up fire fight, Dire Avengers will slowly lose against Tactical Marines, with a slight evenness if assuming the same point cost, unless the Space Marines make it into close combat at which point they will slaughter the Dire Avengers. The only hope Dire Avengers have against Tactical Marines is to stack the odds, meaning bringing far superior numbers/points to bear to eliminate key targets.
Dire Avengers are nice, but they are on the same level as Tactical Marines.
The problem you have with Dire Avengers is, again, Wave Serpents. Which are with their Serpent Shield and the interaction of Scatter Laser, a pile of gak as far as game balance is concerned. Wave Serpents are not the same as Dire Avengers nor do Wave Serpents benefit much at all from Bladestorm. Bladestorm is there to make Eldar infantry NOT SUCK, since otherwise their weapon would be a heavily nerfed Bolter (which you guys seem to hate).'"
In the current meta, I'll take DIre Avengers everytime. They can put wounds on any toughness value, and rend though any armor. And run after the fact. Yes, maybe in a vacuum, the tacticals slowly kill them, but in the bigger picture, DA are way better.
Maybe they only suck for your Meta
In my local Meta, the only reason only feild 3 Tactical Squads is I only have 3, but I am working on my 4th and posibly 5th.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Do you know what has bladestorm other than Dire Avengers? Shuriken Cannons. Do you know what platform Shuriken Cannons come on? I'll give you a hint: I never mentioned Dire Avengers, that was you.
Also, for the record, you still missed the 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots that I mentioned.
I'll just direct you to earlier parts of the thread where we pointed out how troops that don't overpay for their armour save is much better than those that do, because cover is free.
Oh, skip the exaggregation, please.
10 Dire Avengers kill 1,42 Space Marines without Rending and 2,2 with Rending shots.
7 Space Marines kill 3 and a slightly larger fraction of a Dire Avenger in return fire.
6 Space Marines kill 2,61 Dire Avengers
Assumptions:
1. Space Marines do not have a heavy weapon.
2. Dire Avengers are not able to Battle Focus out of Rapid Fire range.
3. Space Marines do not have cover.
4. Dire Avengers actually got lucky and didn't miss
Bladestorm on Shuriken Cannons are nearly a no-factor. On three shots you are lucky to get a single rend. It's when you mass this fire that things start get interesting, but you don't really see this unless it's on Cheap Walkers/Vypers in which case I beg to ask the question why the hell you didn't shoot them down. It's not like Shuriken Weapons have decent range. And if we're looking at those vehicles we're really starting to go off topic, really damned hard. Shuriken Cannons are weapons that are meant to be a threat against just about everything, but it's not a good solution to anything. You will optimally kill Space Marines better with Starcannons, or Scatter Lasers if they are in cover. Shuriken Cannon is what I'd categorise as a fun weapon, not an awesome weapon.
The bottom line is, Tacticals pay a lot of points for being able to do a lot of things. Yes, they are going to be worse than Howling Banshees in melee, they are going to be worse than Dire Avengers in a close ranged fire fight, yes they are going to be worse than Dark Reapers in a long ranged fire fight - but they can do all of those things. And not have to worry about morale. And combat squad. And Chapter tactic for extra tastiness.
You mean to say they shouldn't pay for being able to do those things? That specialist units should pay as if they could?
The issue is that while they can beat Avengers in melee and Banshees at range, they will never be allowed to choose. If the tacticals want to charge the Avengers, the Avengers can ensure that they are in the 12-18" range to fire at full effect and then Battle Focus away. The tacticals chase them but are still only in range to fire single shots, and if they run in order to try to catch them in melee, the Avengers can keep the dance up for quite some time.
Avengers are simply better. The vaunted T4/3+ is irrelevant when there's Ion Accelerators all over the place. A bonus point of Str and T in melee is irrelevant, since it won't save them against anything strong enough to reach melee at all.
Bobug wrote: Lets be fair tactical marines really dont suck, theyre actually right in the "balanced" zone of unit power I think. They have decent survivability, decent weapons, and a good statline. Theyre effective against all targets in some way (very few troops units have this advantage) and they cost the same as a dire avengers, which while being stronger close range than tacticals, are not as flexible and far weaker. Also the argument for cover is actually a bit of a moot point when discussing eldar infantry due to their short weapon ranges.
Yes wave serpents are overpowered, and they make eldar infantry very good, everyone knows this and itll stay this way until the next eldar codex which hopefully puts the serpent shield back to something like it was in 4th ed.
Tacticals though, are not bad units. Infact I think armies with large numbers of tactical marines actually fare rather well. I think maybe some of it is the SM oriented metagame still, which means people plan their armies around killing space marines. This is starting to die out now which is a good thing, but definately around 4th and 5th, you would specifically build your army and rate weapon choices on "how good is this at killing space marines"
If you want to talk about a bad space marine unit lets bring up the subject of assault marines
Yes, they do suck because they overpay for being generalists. This is not a game of generalists.
"Oh no, you guys, don't get me started on Wave Serpents. I'm neither blind, nor stupid, I know where the overpowered piles lie smelling in my own codex, I'm railing against the fact that someone actually had the gall to claim that 1 AP2 wound out of 6 from a 10 man 130+ point unit of Dire Avengers would somehow make for a good example of how Space Marines in Power Armour was underpowered. In a straight up fire fight, Dire Avengers will slowly lose against Tactical Marines, with a slight evenness if assuming the same point cost, unless the Space Marines make it into close combat at which point they will slaughter the Dire Avengers. The only hope Dire Avengers have against Tactical Marines is to stack the odds, meaning bringing far superior numbers/points to bear to eliminate key targets.
Dire Avengers are nice, but they are on the same level as Tactical Marines.
The problem you have with Dire Avengers is, again, Wave Serpents. Which are with their Serpent Shield and the interaction of Scatter Laser, a pile of gak as far as game balance is concerned. Wave Serpents are not the same as Dire Avengers nor do Wave Serpents benefit much at all from Bladestorm. Bladestorm is there to make Eldar infantry NOT SUCK, since otherwise their weapon would be a heavily nerfed Bolter (which you guys seem to hate).'"
In the current meta, I'll take DIre Avengers everytime. They can put wounds on any toughness value, and rend though any armor. And run after the fact. Yes, maybe in a vacuum, the tacticals slowly kill them, but in the bigger picture, DA are way better.
Maybe they only suck for your Meta
In my local Meta, the only reason only feild 3 Tactical Squads is I only have 3, but I am working on my 4th and posibly 5th.
If tactical are useful for you, your opponents are doing something wrong. Not even my BA respects them.
Bobug wrote: Lets be fair tactical marines really dont suck, theyre actually right in the "balanced" zone of unit power I think. They have decent survivability, decent weapons, and a good statline. Theyre effective against all targets in some way (very few troops units have this advantage) and they cost the same as a dire avengers, which while being stronger close range than tacticals, are not as flexible and far weaker. Also the argument for cover is actually a bit of a moot point when discussing eldar infantry due to their short weapon ranges.
Yes wave serpents are overpowered, and they make eldar infantry very good, everyone knows this and itll stay this way until the next eldar codex which hopefully puts the serpent shield back to something like it was in 4th ed.
Tacticals though, are not bad units. Infact I think armies with large numbers of tactical marines actually fare rather well. I think maybe some of it is the SM oriented metagame still, which means people plan their armies around killing space marines. This is starting to die out now which is a good thing, but definately around 4th and 5th, you would specifically build your army and rate weapon choices on "how good is this at killing space marines"
If you want to talk about a bad space marine unit lets bring up the subject of assault marines
Yes, they do suck because they overpay for being generalists. This is not a game of generalists.
"Oh no, you guys, don't get me started on Wave Serpents. I'm neither blind, nor stupid, I know where the overpowered piles lie smelling in my own codex, I'm railing against the fact that someone actually had the gall to claim that 1 AP2 wound out of 6 from a 10 man 130+ point unit of Dire Avengers would somehow make for a good example of how Space Marines in Power Armour was underpowered. In a straight up fire fight, Dire Avengers will slowly lose against Tactical Marines, with a slight evenness if assuming the same point cost, unless the Space Marines make it into close combat at which point they will slaughter the Dire Avengers. The only hope Dire Avengers have against Tactical Marines is to stack the odds, meaning bringing far superior numbers/points to bear to eliminate key targets.
Dire Avengers are nice, but they are on the same level as Tactical Marines.
The problem you have with Dire Avengers is, again, Wave Serpents. Which are with their Serpent Shield and the interaction of Scatter Laser, a pile of gak as far as game balance is concerned. Wave Serpents are not the same as Dire Avengers nor do Wave Serpents benefit much at all from Bladestorm. Bladestorm is there to make Eldar infantry NOT SUCK, since otherwise their weapon would be a heavily nerfed Bolter (which you guys seem to hate).'"
In the current meta, I'll take DIre Avengers everytime. They can put wounds on any toughness value, and rend though any armor. And run after the fact. Yes, maybe in a vacuum, the tacticals slowly kill them, but in the bigger picture, DA are way better.
Maybe they only suck for your Meta
In my local Meta, the only reason only feild 3 Tactical Squads is I only have 3, but I am working on my 4th and posibly 5th.
If tactical are useful for you, your opponents are doing something wrong. Not even my BA respects them.
^^ this !!! ^^
I only use two because I have to and they don't exactly do a lot either
Mahtamori wrote: McNinja: An ap2 weapon on every vehicle? Really? I can understand if someone complains about the Scatter Laser, but the AP2 weapons?! You do realize that Space Marines have access to better AP2 weapons, right? And you realize that this is a thread about Tactical Marines and their supposed short comings and not about Terminators?
You do realize that I started the thread, right? Anyway, the fact that the Eldar have access on every single vehicle to powerful AP2 weaponry is indeed an issue for Marines.
They do not have access to better AP2 weapons. Sure, grav-guns are good, but those are really only taken on Bikes or Centurions so you can get full number of shots. SM plasma is not as good as Eldar plasma, if only because it can't be spammed nearly as much. Not only does almost every weapon have the potential to be AP2/1, but you can put those weapon on literally every vehicle. There is not a single Eldar vehicle than cannot be equipped with an AP2 weapon.
Can every marine vehicle have an AP2 weapon stuck on it? And for that matter, why do marines pay 20 points for an assault cannon when Eldar pay half or less for a Shuriken Cannon or Starcannon?
In my local Meta, the only reason only feild 3 Tactical Squads is I only have 3, but I am working on my 4th and posibly 5th.
Then I would have to say you must not be playing experienced players OR that your meta is almost the opposite of competative (or some combination of both). No tactical marine squad I have ever used has lived for longer than two turns.
In my local Meta, the only reason only feild 3 Tactical Squads is I only have 3, but I am working on my 4th and posibly 5th.
Then I would have to say you must not be playing experienced players OR that your meta is almost the opposite of competative (or some combination of both). No tactical marine squad I have ever used has lived for longer than two turns.
Actually we are very experienced players [Me since 1989]. No we don’t play the “Ultra-Competitive” way.
We are very competitive within our local group. We are taking the Triple Riptide or Screaming whatever it is called, but be make good solid list. We have played the “Competitive Meta” and don’t enjoy it.
By the way Tactical Marines Do Not Suck, The Local Meta in witch they are forced to be played in that makes them.
If you have not noticed there are others out there that seem to make them work so they must be good.
The vaunted T4/3+ is irrelevant when there's Ion Accelerators all over the place.
Your actually expecting tacticals to survive anti-tank/anti-TEQ weapons, because that's what ion cannons and ion accelerators are. You can't expect them to survive against battle cannons, so why expect them to survive other armies BC equivalents.
In my local Meta, the only reason only feild 3 Tactical Squads is I only have 3, but I am working on my 4th and posibly 5th.
Then I would have to say you must not be playing experienced players OR that your meta is almost the opposite of competative (or some combination of both). No tactical marine squad I have ever used has lived for longer than two turns.
Actually we are very experienced players [Me since 1989]. No we don’t play the “Ultra-Competitive” way.
We are very competitive within our local group. We are taking the Triple Riptide or Screaming whatever it is called, but be make good solid list. We have played the “Competitive Meta” and don’t enjoy it.
By the way Tactical Marines Do Not Suck, The Local Meta in witch they are forced to be played in that makes them.
If you have not noticed there are others out there that seem to make them work so they must be good.
That doesn't make them good. That means some people have weak sauce opponents. Tac marines are awful because not even my BA fear them. Dire avengers give me some pause due to the fact that they can deliver max firepower at a range where they can't be assaulted.
In my local Meta, the only reason only feild 3 Tactical Squads is I only have 3, but I am working on my 4th and posibly 5th.
Then I would have to say you must not be playing experienced players OR that your meta is almost the opposite of competative (or some combination of both). No tactical marine squad I have ever used has lived for longer than two turns.
Actually we are very experienced players [Me since 1989]. No we don’t play the “Ultra-Competitive” way.
We are very competitive within our local group. We are taking the Triple Riptide or Screaming whatever it is called, but be make good solid list. We have played the “Competitive Meta” and don’t enjoy it.
By the way Tactical Marines Do Not Suck, The Local Meta in witch they are forced to be played in that makes them.
If you have not noticed there are others out there that seem to make them work so they must be good.
That doesn't make them good. That means some people have weak sauce opponents. Tac marines are awful because not even my BA fear them. Dire avengers give me some pause due to the fact that they can deliver max firepower at a range where they can't be assaulted.
Just becouse somthing is not Good, does not mean it is Bad.
That does not make them bad either. They are just there, They do thier job and that is about it.
What is that job exactly? Scoring. That's it. They don't have the firepower to threaten anything meaningful. And their HTH is an absolute joke. Both in getting there and capability.
Compare to the humble sniper Kroot, who can at least do anti-MC duty or anti-teq duty. Tacticals take NO pressure off any other slot in the list.
Now unless they are TH/SS Terminators or the equivalent...S10 AP2 Pie is going to remove them from that spot, but that is ANY UNIT out there. Tactical Marines [Or insert ANY Troop Choice] are just the victom of the ability to SPAM S10 AP2 Pie.
[Breath]
"They Do not Suck" That is the statement that is raising my blood presure. They are just there. If you can get a Space Marine Player to Play them Good, you will see.
I see this all of the time. The game is won with Tactical Marines sitting on their obejctives giveing me VPs while the Sternguard/Terminators takes down my oponents Scoring Units.
You don't have enough Sternguard and terminators to take out my scoring units because YOUR scoring units can't help. The story of your tactic is the Sternguard and terminators do SOME damage, die, and then you try to outlast with tacticals. Marine lists just don't pack enough scary units to make this work if you bring lots of tacticals. That's why marine players are going with bikers as troops because at least then they get grav guns. At a price of durability, though. This is a dilemma other lists literally don't face.
On the other hand, lists like the Tau can have their Kroot kill the terminators and then have their other slots kill your Sternguard and have plenty of time left over to wipe up your *helpless* tacticals.
The problem you are missing is that tacticals don't contribute any meaningful offense in 6th edition. They didn't really in 5th, either, but the incoming fire wasn't as bad. Now that incoming fire is *withering*, doing damage back is a number one priority, since you literally can't live to end of the battle against, say, Eldar unless you have killed quite a few of them.
The troops in other lists are cheaper or cost the same and DO contribute meaningful offense. Just standing there with a 3+ save gets the marines NOTHING now against a GOOD opponent. If I pay points for something, and they contribute nothing other than scoring, then that unit does indeed suck. Especially with how much tacticals still cost.
What is so hard to belive that there are people out there that belive Tactical Squads do not suck?
And the reason they belive it is They work for thoise people.
It's not tit for tat. I'm showing you examples of how other lists' troops contribute in meaningful ways for fewer points. These lists, by definition, will have an incredible advantage over marines.
Your assertion that they "work" for some people is easily countered by own crushing of those who spam tacticals, as well as tournament results. It's even easier to play against someone with tactical squads, because those squads can be largely ignored until the wipe up phase of the game.
Unless you are somehow debating that sniper Kroot don't have more offensive utility than tactical marines while costing less. Their lack of defenses is largely irrelevant since this game is about what you can kill, not what damage you can absorb. Unless you are the magical few with 2+ rerollable. That's the save that matters now. Not 2+. Not 3+.
Tau and Eldar can do that to ANY Troop, I aknowldge that, I did a while ago...
You want to make them not "Suck": Get rid of all of the AP3 SPAM, problem solved. As soon as that is done Tacticals will come back as stroing as they should be.
Anpu42 wrote: You know we have gooten so far off topoic.
Tau and Eldar can do that to ANY Troop, I aknowldge that, I did a while ago...
You want to make them not "Suck": Get rid of all of the AP3 SPAM, problem solved. As soon as that is done Tacticals will come back as stroing as they should be.
It's not AP 3/2. It's weight of wounds. Weight of wounds is especially heinous because cover means nothing.
It's not just Eldar and Tau. Tacticals don't carry their weight in ANY matchup, not even BA. It just shows the most against Tau and Eldar because they get out shot so badly.
Martel732 wrote: It's not AP 3/2. It's weight of wounds. Weight of wounds is especially heinous because cover means nothing.
It's not just Eldar and Tau. Tacticals don't carry their weight in ANY matchup, not even BA. It just shows the most against Tau and Eldar because they get out shot so badly.
Actualy 80% of the games in my group are MEQ on MEQ. The Non-MEQ on MEQ action, I had two games in a row where I was never given a chance to make my Saves, not even cover so I am Very familiar with the problem.
My Space Wolves are built around a core of 2-4 Grey Hunter Packs. They always do well exept for one Pie Plate Guard army, and I lost that game becouse one of my Lone Wolves did not Die!
The games I get crushed in are the ones where I don't get to make saves.
BTY: every time I see BA All I see is Blood Angels.
That's not my experience at all. I regularly am forced to make 40-50 saves a turn. You can do the math on how fast meqs die at a 33% rate with that many wounds to save. As I said, this method is better than AP because cover doesn't help. Of course, Riptides are the worst with ignore cover and AP 2.
Also note that grey hunters are far, far better than tactical marines. This may skew your perception of the situation. Although their advantages are mostly negated by Tau/Eldar.
Martel732 wrote: That's not my experience at all. I regularly am forced to make 40-50 saves a turn. You can do the math on how fast meqs die at a 33% rate with that many wounds to save. As I said, this method is better than AP because cover doesn't help. Of course, Riptides are the worst with ignore cover and AP 2.
Also note that grey hunters are far, far better than tactical marines. This may skew your perception of the situation. Although their advantages are mostly negated by Tau/Eldar.
I know they do, but I also play Dark Angles, Blood Angels and Normal Marines.
But what has been our group's probem has been the denial of cover and saves. [Stupid DoM]
As for the buckets of saves I usaly do well. Tacticals can also put out buckets of wounds if toolled up right.
How exactly do tacticals put out buckets of wounds? That's where you are losing me. Please provide an example of such a load out. Because as far as I can tell, tacticals have to be within 12" to really do anything remotely meaningful.
Also, are you claiming to go against the statistics of 50 wounds killing about 17 marines a turn consistently? Which marine list can afford these kinds of losses?
[First I had done a realy long reply with math and everything, but the Machine-God ate it]
Yes One Tactical Squad can't do that, but three can [what I normaly run]. I can dish out 24+ wounds a turn. I belive in Kill Zones.
3 tactical squads let's say with two plasmas each get an average of 40 hits at 12" range and against say Dire Avengers.
So statistically, 8 hits will be plasma and 32 will be bolters.
That's ~7 AP 2 wounds and 24 AP 5 wounds. That's around 19 dead dire avengers. That's pretty good.
But this drops to HALF beyond 12". And that's also assuming we get 30 tactical marines to within 12" of two squad of dire avengers. This is where the problem comes in. Most fire fights are outside 12".
Against more sturdy troops, like meqs, these numbers go down a lot more. But you what doesn't go down much? The carnage created by Wave Serpents. Oh, and they can move 12" and unload on your face. And are immune to bolters.
Any of the other troop choices in other books can do killzones with 2-3 squads of their own as well.
^beat me to it, close range fire fighting might be our strong suit but we're going to be pie-plated or charged the second our turn is done if 2-3 squads have to all be within 12" of the enemy unit to shoot it.
Martel732 wrote: 3 tactical squads let's say with two plasmas each get an average of 40 hits at 12" range and against say Dire Avengers.
Against more sturdy troops, like meqs, these numbers go down a lot more. But you what doesn't go down much? The carnage created by Wave Serpents.
Well we don't have Eldar players, so I would not know.
Martel732 wrote: 3 tactical squads let's say with two plasmas each get an average of 40 hits at 12" range and against say Dire Avengers.
Against more sturdy troops, like meqs, these numbers go down a lot more. But you what doesn't go down much? The carnage created by Wave Serpents.
Well we don't have Eldar players, so I would not know.
Suddenly I see why you think tacticals are "okay". Your data set is completely biased by taking out the top army in the game.
Martel732 wrote: 3 tactical squads let's say with two plasmas each get an average of 40 hits at 12" range and against say Dire Avengers.
Against more sturdy troops, like meqs, these numbers go down a lot more. But you what doesn't go down much? The carnage created by Wave Serpents.
Well we don't have Eldar players, so I would not know.
Martel732 wrote: 3 tactical squads let's say with two plasmas each get an average of 40 hits at 12" range and against say Dire Avengers.
Against more sturdy troops, like meqs, these numbers go down a lot more. But you what doesn't go down much? The carnage created by Wave Serpents.
Well we don't have Eldar players, so I would not know.
Do you have Tau players?
Even if he does, Eldar are far worse imo. He's literally not playing the best list and thinking tacticals rock the house.
Martel732 wrote: 3 tactical squads let's say with two plasmas each get an average of 40 hits at 12" range and against say Dire Avengers.
Against more sturdy troops, like meqs, these numbers go down a lot more. But you what doesn't go down much? The carnage created by Wave Serpents.
Well we don't have Eldar players, so I would not know.
Do you have Tau players?
Even if he does, Eldar are far worse imo. He's literally not playing the best list and thinking tacticals rock the house.
We do have one starting Tau Player, but only a few games. I am also putting together a small Tau Force, in fact I am working getting together a decent sized "Allied Force" for each Army.
In the nicest way possible your opinion dosnt really count any more if you haven't had the displeasure of your tactical marines being destroyed by eldar and tau
Anpu42 wrote: Then perhaps the thread should be:
Making Tactical Marines suck less vs Eldar and Tau
Considering that those armies are the top 2 armies right now, it makes sense that Tactical marines would be compared to them and their troops.
Of course I would have to agree, in what is a basically a 5th edition meta, Tactical marines are just fine because they got a point reduction. However, if you start playing with 6th edition armies, and especially the two best armies, you'll soon realize that tactical marines really aren't that good.
Anpu42 wrote: Then perhaps the thread should be:
Making Tactical Marines suck less vs Eldar and Tau
Considering that those armies are the top 2 armies right now, it makes sense that Tactical marines would be compared to them and their troops.
Of course I would have to agree, in what is a basically a 5th edition meta, Tactical marines are just fine because they got a point reduction. However, if you start playing with 6th edition armies, and especially the two best armies, you'll soon realize that tactical marines really aren't that good.
But tacticals don't even stand up to BA. BA ASM will literally jump over your optimum range and take minimal casualties in the process. BA ASM work against SM tacticals because tacticals represent a nontrivial investment. Compare this to assaulting Kroot only to get hit with the Riptide splat cannon as a reward for winning. SM have to work HARD to get my BA off the table. The Tau and Eldar yawn and I die.
Martel732 wrote: But tacticals don't even stand up to BA. BA ASM will literally jump over your optimum range and take minimal casualties in the process. BA ASM work against SM tacticals because tacticals represent a nontrivial investment. Compare this to assaulting Kroot only to get hit with the Riptide splat cannon as a reward for winning. SM have to work HARD to get my BA off the table. The Tau and Eldar yawn and I die.
Yes. And BA are the worst list and vanilla marines still have to work pretty hard. Even grav bikers don't get a pass because I have SoS and FNP. Marines just can't shell out the wounds fast enough to cripple me.
Mahtamori wrote: McNinja: An ap2 weapon on every vehicle? Really? I can understand if someone complains about the Scatter Laser, but the AP2 weapons?! You do realize that Space Marines have access to better AP2 weapons, right? And you realize that this is a thread about Tactical Marines and their supposed short comings and not about Terminators?
You do realize that I started the thread, right? Anyway, the fact that the Eldar have access on every single vehicle to powerful AP2 weaponry is indeed an issue for Marines.
They do not have access to better AP2 weapons. Sure, grav-guns are good, but those are really only taken on Bikes or Centurions so you can get full number of shots. SM plasma is not as good as Eldar plasma, if only because it can't be spammed nearly as much. Not only does almost every weapon have the potential to be AP2/1, but you can put those weapon on literally every vehicle. There is not a single Eldar vehicle than cannot be equipped with an AP2 weapon.
Can every marine vehicle have an AP2 weapon stuck on it? And for that matter, why do marines pay 20 points for an assault cannon when Eldar pay half or less for a Shuriken Cannon or Starcannon?
Even thread starters can go off topic.
AP2 weapons: yeah, I think the Imperium has better AP2 weapons. They usually shoot longer, hard and/or on a larger area than the Eldar variants (and typically pay for it with Gets Hot!)
Assault Cannon: I love those things. Why more expensive than the Shuriken Cannon? One extra shot and real rending, maybe? Can't gauge whether these advantages are worth the price difference, 'cause I haven't reflected on it at all. All I have reflected on them is that they are oddly highly priced when compared to the Cyclone Missile Launcher (which I should note is a very inexpensive, all things considered) - but they look so much more cool, which is why I still have them modelled and tend to use them as a stand-in.
Scatter Laser? Don't understand why those got both a cost decrease (by 5 in most cases, iirc) and Laser Lock. Either or would've done it if they needed even that. I'm not going to defend Scatter Lasers.
Vehicles: Imperium loves their asymmetrical Dreadnought set ups, which makes min/maxing harder. I've gone through the Dark Angels codex (right now I don't know where I put my iPad so can't check C:SM) and I can say "Yes, all Marine chassis can take one or more AP2 weapons, with the exception of the Drop Pod". Lascannons are extremely common, and multi-meltas are likewise common on models that do not have access to Lascannons. However, is AP2 a big deal? What do you need AP2 against? Other Space Marines? Terminators? Weren't those the kind of troops that suck because there's too much AP2? I'll grant you that Marine vehicles are bad at AP3 (although so is Eldar vehicles, where Marine weapons tend to be AP4 or AP2, Eldar tend to be AP- with gimmick or AP2). Also, the Nightspinner can't fit any AP2 weapons on it, it's only getting 1-in-6 hits to be AP2.
My stance remains unimpressed. Tacticals do not suck. Yeah, of course stuff could do with refinements, but the amount of fan service some people seem to be demanding is ridiculous (and the hyperbole when griefing about the Eldar). And before you say anything, that's exactly how I often reacted about some (recurring) suggestions to make Eldar suck less during 5th edition, there are just so many fewer die-hard Eldar players on these forums that those threads didn't need to spill over from the proposed rules forum.
Give them a chainsword (reward them when they get into that juicy place where their power armour really shine). Maybe allow them to choose between any combination of 1 to 2 heavy or special weapons. That's about it.
Now if you make a thread about assault marines, I'll jump aboard the band wagon, 'cause a chainsword is not as good as a bolter and a jump pack do not cost 4 points per model and loss of scoring/troop slot.
Martel732 wrote: Yes. And BA are the worst list and vanilla marines still have to work pretty hard. Even grav bikers don't get a pass because I have SoS and FNP. Marines just can't shell out the wounds fast enough to cripple me.
Martel732 wrote: Yes. And BA are the worst list and vanilla marines still have to work pretty hard. Even grav bikers don't get a pass because I have SoS and FNP. Marines just can't shell out the wounds fast enough to cripple me.
What Chapter Tactics have you delt with so far?
All the usual, IH, White Scars, Salamanders, the siege dudes. They are jokes compared to Tau and Eldar. There's nothing they can field that kills me even 2/3 as quickly as the Tau or Eldar. Inquisition allies help a lot, but at the end of the day, they have too few weapons being hit by that cheap prescience. Imperials can't compete with a prescienced war walker squad. I still lose about half the time, but I'm using BA. My games against Eldar are usually over by turn 3.
Mahtamori wrote: McNinja: An ap2 weapon on every vehicle? Really? I can understand if someone complains about the Scatter Laser, but the AP2 weapons?! You do realize that Space Marines have access to better AP2 weapons, right? And you realize that this is a thread about Tactical Marines and their supposed short comings and not about Terminators?
You do realize that I started the thread, right? Anyway, the fact that the Eldar have access on every single vehicle to powerful AP2 weaponry is indeed an issue for Marines.
They do not have access to better AP2 weapons. Sure, grav-guns are good, but those are really only taken on Bikes or Centurions so you can get full number of shots. SM plasma is not as good as Eldar plasma, if only because it can't be spammed nearly as much. Not only does almost every weapon have the potential to be AP2/1, but you can put those weapon on literally every vehicle. There is not a single Eldar vehicle than cannot be equipped with an AP2 weapon.
Can every marine vehicle have an AP2 weapon stuck on it? And for that matter, why do marines pay 20 points for an assault cannon when Eldar pay half or less for a Shuriken Cannon or Starcannon?
Even thread starters can go off topic.
AP2 weapons: yeah, I think the Imperium has better AP2 weapons. They usually shoot longer, hard and/or on a larger area than the Eldar variants (and typically pay for it with Gets Hot!)
Assault Cannon: I love those things. Why more expensive than the Shuriken Cannon? One extra shot and real rending, maybe? Can't gauge whether these advantages are worth the price difference, 'cause I haven't reflected on it at all. All I have reflected on them is that they are oddly highly priced when compared to the Cyclone Missile Launcher (which I should note is a very inexpensive, all things considered) - but they look so much more cool, which is why I still have them modelled and tend to use them as a stand-in.
Scatter Laser? Don't understand why those got both a cost decrease (by 5 in most cases, iirc) and Laser Lock. Either or would've done it if they needed even that. I'm not going to defend Scatter Lasers.
Vehicles: Imperium loves their asymmetrical Dreadnought set ups, which makes min/maxing harder. I've gone through the Dark Angels codex (right now I don't know where I put my iPad so can't check C:SM) and I can say "Yes, all Marine chassis can take one or more AP2 weapons, with the exception of the Drop Pod". Lascannons are extremely common, and multi-meltas are likewise common on models that do not have access to Lascannons. However, is AP2 a big deal? What do you need AP2 against? Other Space Marines? Terminators? Weren't those the kind of troops that suck because there's too much AP2? I'll grant you that Marine vehicles are bad at AP3 (although so is Eldar vehicles, where Marine weapons tend to be AP4 or AP2, Eldar tend to be AP- with gimmick or AP2). Also, the Nightspinner can't fit any AP2 weapons on it, it's only getting 1-in-6 hits to be AP2.
My stance remains unimpressed. Tacticals do not suck. Yeah, of course stuff could do with refinements, but the amount of fan service some people seem to be demanding is ridiculous (and the hyperbole when griefing about the Eldar). And before you say anything, that's exactly how I often reacted about some (recurring) suggestions to make Eldar suck less during 5th edition, there are just so many fewer die-hard Eldar players on these forums that those threads didn't need to spill over from the proposed rules forum.
Give them a chainsword (reward them when they get into that juicy place where their power armour really shine). Maybe allow them to choose between any combination of 1 to 2 heavy or special weapons. That's about it.
Now if you make a thread about assault marines, I'll jump aboard the band wagon, 'cause a chainsword is not as good as a bolter and a jump pack do not cost 4 points per model and loss of scoring/troop slot.
Assault cannons are crap. Not to derail, but Imperial heavy weapons are not good. Not at all. Especially those for loyalist marines.
Okay; I'll change from "tacticals suck" to "tacticals are awful". Better?
Martel732 wrote: Assault cannons are crap. Not to derail, but Imperial heavy weapons are not good. Not at all. Especially those for loyalist marines.
Okay; I'll change from "tacticals suck" to "tacticals are awful". Better?
They don't suck. Actually, some of them may suck in the same way that Starcannons and Brightlances used to suck*. Which is to say that a small cost decrease can very well make them ultimately more attractive. Just keep in mind that Eldar did pay for their buffs in a very weird way - I now have to rip all my missile launchers off my vehicles because they are so bloody expensive they're indefensible to use. (They cost more than a Cyclone Missile Launcher, which has double rate of fire and near exact same stats)
I don't see the big fuss at all with regards to Tacticals. I'm sure you and me would be able to sit down and make a through analysis of the entire codex and eventually come to an agreement, but I just don't see a major issue here that requires massive buffs.
* Honestly, my Marine list building is more an exercise in "what kind of weapons can I actually use on my models" rather than min/maxing, because I'm dead set on only using Scibor models and that sort of limits my use of missile launchers and heavy bolters. I still do fairly well, albeit my Gets Hot! rolls are strictly below average usually resulting in me losing more plasma models to Gets Hot! than I do to enemy actions prior to turn 3.
Tacticals suck because they don't DO anything. No pro-tactical person has explained how they accomplish anything with these troops. I have given very specific reasons why tacticals are terrible.
They're objective sitters or drop-pod troops in a low objectives game for me. Usually does the job fine. Needs other more dedicated troops to accomplish things. Glorious? No. Suck? No.
Okay. I understand your point. Now understand mine. Other books have troops that do the same job for less points, AND can contribute meaningfully in the offensive portion of the game. I don't understand why you are content to throw away points on units that don't contribute in a list with model count issues.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Do you know what has bladestorm other than Dire Avengers? Shuriken Cannons. Do you know what platform Shuriken Cannons come on? I'll give you a hint: I never mentioned Dire Avengers, that was you.
Also, for the record, you still missed the 1204162371254609125460125402184658021652401625402.5 shots that I mentioned.
I'll just direct you to earlier parts of the thread where we pointed out how troops that don't overpay for their armour save is much better than those that do, because cover is free.
Oh, skip the exaggregation, please.
10 Dire Avengers kill 1,42 Space Marines without Rending and 2,2 with Rending shots.
7 Space Marines kill 3 and a slightly larger fraction of a Dire Avenger in return fire.
6 Space Marines kill 2,61 Dire Avengers
Assumptions:
1. Space Marines do not have a heavy weapon.
2. Dire Avengers are not able to Battle Focus out of Rapid Fire range. 3. Space Marines do not have cover.
4. Dire Avengers actually got lucky and didn't miss
That's a rather big assumption. If you're at 18" (so max range for Dire Avengers) you need to roll a 1 to get out of Rapid Fire range, so yeah... Number four also assume that the Marines don't miss, so that's a wash. Further, Dire Avengers are a point cheaper than the Marines as well.
And you're stuck on the Dire Avengers; you're the one who brought them up.
Martel732 wrote: Okay. I understand your point. Now understand mine. Other books have troops that do the same job for less points, AND can contribute meaningfully in the offensive portion of the game. I don't understand why you are content to throw away points on units that don't contribute in a list with model count issues.
This, for the love of small furry critters, this! Being able to plop down 10 Guardians with a heavy weapon, or 10 Cultists, or 10 Grots, or 10 Kroot, or 10 Nurglings, or 10... in cover, sitting on an objective is better than paying 50+ points more to do the same. Those 50 points add up across the army (as I've demonstrated). If you're going to throw a unit at a backfield objective it really needs to be cheap so it can benefit from cover. Plopping 5 Marines with a Lascannon down at a backfield objective isn't done because it's good, it's done because there's no option to take 10 models for 50 points who can simply hide all game, while investing the saved 40-odd points in something that'll actually kill people.
Martel732 wrote: Okay. I understand your point. Now understand mine. Other books have troops that do the same job for less points, AND can contribute meaningfully in the offensive portion of the game. I don't understand why you are content to throw away points on units that don't contribute in a list with model count issues.
They are suposed to do the same job as every other Troop out there. I think with the exeption of Imperial Guard evey other Army's Troop Choice has a specific Job they perform within the Army.
Space Marine Tactical Squads are suposed to do everything! Whehn you do that you loose out on some things. Thier Flexability is thier weakness. You are givien the tools to do any job that is required, but it is always in a Stop-Gap way. This is the way they have been designed from day one.
You need to Assault a position you want Assualt Marines
You want to take down Vehicles you take Devistaters
You want to Assisnate a HQ/MC you take Sternguad/Terminators
You want to do everything you take Tactical Marines. That is what they are for. That is what they do.
If I know I am facing Tau or Eldar, I will probably go with a pod list just to get close to you, most lickly using Imperial Fist or Ultramarines to get thos re-rolls with my weapons and try to inflict as much damage as posible and I have the tools to do it. Your Riptide will probably take 20 Plasma Shots from my Sternguard, Broadside will take 7 Boltguns, 4 Plasma Shots and probably Heavy Bolters or Multi Melta's., thene there is my turn 2. If I realy felt I needed to kill somthing add 10 Melta-Guns in there someplace from my second Sternguard inplace of one of my Tactical Squads.
Martel732 wrote: Okay. I understand your point. Now understand mine. Other books have troops that do the same job for less points, AND can contribute meaningfully in the offensive portion of the game. I don't understand why you are content to throw away points on units that don't contribute in a list with model count issues.
They are suposed to do the same job as every other Troop out there. I think with the exeption of Imperial Guard evey other Army's Troop Choice has a specific Job they perform within the Army.
Space Marine Tactical Squads are suposed to do everything! Whehn you do that you loose out on some things. Thier Flexability is thier weakness. You are givien the tools to do any job that is required, but it is always in a Stop-Gap way. This is the way they have been designed from day one.
And the approach sucks. We've been over why generalists are rubbish already.
Martel732 wrote: Okay. I understand your point. Now understand mine. Other books have troops that do the same job for less points, AND can contribute meaningfully in the offensive portion of the game. I don't understand why you are content to throw away points on units that don't contribute in a list with model count issues.
They are suposed to do the same job as every other Troop out there. I think with the exeption of Imperial Guard evey other Army's Troop Choice has a specific Job they perform within the Army.
Space Marine Tactical Squads are suposed to do everything! Whehn you do that you loose out on some things. Thier Flexability is thier weakness. You are givien the tools to do any job that is required, but it is always in a Stop-Gap way. This is the way they have been designed from day one.
You need to Assault a position you want Assualt Marines
You want to take down Vehicles you take Devistaters
You want to Assisnate a HQ/MC you take Sternguad/Terminators
You want to do everything you take Tactical Marines. That is what they are for. That is what they do.
If I know I am facing Tau or Eldar, I will probably go with a pod list just to get close to you, most lickly using Imperial Fist or Ultramarines to get thos re-rolls with my weapons and try to inflict as much damage as posible and I have the tools to do it. Your Riptide will probably take 20 Plasma Shots from my Sternguard, Broadside will take 7 Boltguns, 4 Plasma Shots and probably Heavy Bolters or Multi Melta's., thene there is my turn 2. If I realy felt I needed to kill somthing add 10 Melta-Guns in there someplace from my second Sternguard inplace of one of my Tactical Squads.
Bronzefists42 wrote: This whole thread has devolved into worshipping our new Taudar overlords and how much SM suck in the light of their immense glory.
So the main problem lies within durability+firepower+cost. Marine's durability was good back in the 5 ed, firepower was meh but oki and point cost was a bit high like 1 point more than it should have been. So what changes now. They get significant point decrease and have all the things like they used to have...but now this rate of firepower is not nearly enough and they have real problems with durability. It's not the marines but xenos that got overbuffed.
So you want to make them more durable? Look at plague marines. Are csm all totally happy with them? t5 fnp is awesome. And they pay for it appropriately pointwise. And when you pay 300 pts for 10 definitely tough guyz they apear to be a pointsink cause they lack punch. At range those 7 bolters, 2 plazmas/meltas and combi-something on serg are not nearly worth 300 pts. So what's left to a really tough guy that has bad firepower? Right - go chop things in mellee. So by increasing toughness you shift tacticals to a heavilly assault-oriented choice.
Don't get me wrong. Plague marines are amazing but i'd never take them en masse cause 1 unit is great and rather reliable. When you mass them - you loose so much firepower - you can no longer do anything.
So you want marines to be shootier! Imagine they all got analogues of pulse rifles but with same durability they got now. U pay points apropriately for it once again. And here you go - stuck with a gunline army that sits behind an adl and shoots the hell out of opponent. So you get a slightly more durable tau gunline for more pointscost that's even more afraid of helldrakes and ap3 barrage.
The way to make them shine is either to nerf others or buff them a bit with a lil point increase. Why not give them all fnp? It's rather fluffy. Why not buff bolter a bit to be something like rapid fire 2/3 and stormbolters rapid fire 3/4. Give them 2 base attacke. And make them cost around 20 pts for all that goodness. I think that will make them good without going over-the top.
koooaei wrote: So the main problem lies within durability+firepower+cost. Marine's durability was good back in the 5 ed, firepower was meh but oki and point cost was a bit high like 1 point more than it should have been. So what changes now. They get significant point decrease and have all the things like they used to have...but now this rate of firepower is not nearly enough and they have real problems with durability. It's not the marines but xenos that got overbuffed.
So you want to make them more durable? Look at plague marines. Are csm all totally happy with them? t5 fnp is awesome. And they pay for it appropriately pointwise. And when you pay 300 pts for 10 definitely tough guyz they apear to be a pointsink cause they lack punch. At range those 7 bolters, 2 plazmas/meltas and combi-something on serg are not nearly worth 300 pts. So what's left to a really tough guy that has bad firepower? Right - go chop things in mellee. So by increasing toughness you shift tacticals to a heavilly assault-oriented choice.
Don't get me wrong. Plague marines are amazing but i'd never take them en masse cause 1 unit is great and rather reliable. When you mass them - you loose so much firepower - you can no longer do anything.
So you want marines to be shootier! Imagine they all got analogues of pulse rifles but with same durability they got now. U pay points apropriately for it once again. And here you go - stuck with a gunline army that sits behind an adl and shoots the hell out of opponent. So you get a slightly more durable tau gunline for more pointscost that's even more afraid of helldrakes and ap3 barrage.
The way to make them shine is either to nerf others or buff them a bit with a lil point increase. Why not give them all fnp? It's rather fluffy. Why not buff bolter a bit to be something like rapid fire 2/3 and stormbolters rapid fire 3/4. Give them 2 base attacke. And make them cost around 20 pts for all that goodness. I think that will make them good without going over-the top.
You can give then FNP or more accuracy though Chapter Tactics.
I also started another thread on making the Bolter better hell I only recommended giving it an extra shot and the thread turned into "stfu!! look at the marine player moaning again" from a lot of xenos players
The Xeno players are just high on being OP. Although I must say that Xenos have had more zeniths than marines now for some time. 3rd edition was the only edition where marines were truly, truly OP.
I was thinking that too, but in another way: make Rhinoes and Drop Pods cheaper for Tactical Marines only. They're the ones who are supposed to be going places, so shouldn't it be better to get a Rhino for a Tactical Squad than for, say, a Devestator Squad?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I was thinking that too, but in another way: make Rhinoes and Drop Pods cheaper for Tactical Marines only. They're the ones who are supposed to be going places, so shouldn't it be better to get a Rhino for a Tactical Squad than for, say, a Devestator Squad?
Just do it across the board, who takes Rhinos for Devs anyways, now Razorbacks.
I think they're pretty effective units for what they do. 3+, scoring units with equipment flex?
Packed in drop pods, I think they're one of the best objective takers in the game.
No, they're not, because I don't need any gear to be an "objective taker". If you read my earlier posts, I explained how tacticals are a liability because they don't contribute meaningful offense to your list unlike dire avengers or Kroot or fire warriors.
BTW, drop pod is an extremely hazardous thing for a tac squad. You have to commit them very early in the game and after they drop, they are foot slogging. They can't repel an assault-based attack, and *more importantly*, don't have the firepower to cripple most assault-based squads.
Making them cheaper might help but it would have to be by at least 10points
But that's not the biggest problem they have. Marines need that cc weapon to be included in their war gear and I would even accept an increase in points for this. But their low damage output is the main problem IMO make the Bolter 2 shots
Give devs relentless
All cc units need increase in attacks
Terminators need serious help in this edition
And with psychic powers having a bigger emphasis in 6th why did they change the psychic hood ??
How would people feel if you could buy one type of sternguard ammo I.e. ap3 3pts per model ??
brother marcus wrote: Exactly my point still got swamped with basically "shut up enjoy what you've got" and pulling the ATSKNF card
I think ATSKNF is great, but it does not make up for all of the AP3 Weapons out there.
It's not AP 3, it's sheer volume of wounds. At least against AP 3 you can get cover.
Yes, the sheer volumes of wound to...
I point this out because things like grav and plasma actually aren't that fearsome against BA jumpers. We can get mobile cover from a libby and have FNP everywhere. What IS still a problem is taking 50+ wounds a turn or things that double me out and are AP 2/3. Do marines in general have such weapons? NO. It's all Xenos/IG. Even Necrons, a demonstrably superior list to BA, still can't remove my units nearly as easily as the Tau/Eldar.
brother marcus wrote: Making them cheaper might help but it would have to be by at least 10points
Well we keep getting price decreases…I am not sure that is the solution.
But that's not the biggest problem they have. Marines need that cc weapon to be included in their war gear and I would even accept an increase in points for this. But their low damage output is the main problem IMO
We just need the Combat Knife, I don’t think we need a price increase for that.
make the Bolter 2 shots
either that or AP4
Give devs relentless
That seems to be everyone’s answer, but, giving the Sergeant an Asuspecs would help a lot.
All cc units need increase in attacks
Chain Swords AP5 would make a big difference or the ability to trade in their chain sword for a second Pistol.
Terminators need serious help in this edition
A price decrease, they should never be more than twice a Tactical Marine.
And with psychic powers having a bigger emphasis in 6th why did they change the psychic hood ??
[Shrugs]
How would people feel if you could buy one type of sternguard ammo I.e. ap3 3pts per model??
We do not need more AP3 out there, we need less [and I am not talking about just marines.
brother marcus wrote: Making them cheaper might help but it would have to be by at least 10points
Well we keep getting price decreases…I am not sure that is the solution.
But that's not the biggest problem they have. Marines need that cc weapon to be included in their war gear and I would even accept an increase in points for this. But their low damage output is the main problem IMO
We just need the Combat Knife, I don’t think we need a price increase for that.
make the Bolter 2 shots
either that or AP4
Give devs relentless
That seems to be everyone’s answer, but, giving the Sergeant an Asuspecs would help a lot.
All cc units need increase in attacks
Chain Swords AP5 would make a big difference or the ability to trade in their chain sword for a second Pistol.
Terminators need serious help in this edition
A price decrease, they should never be more than twice a Tactical Marine.
And with psychic powers having a bigger emphasis in 6th why did they change the psychic hood ??
[Shrugs]
How would people feel if you could buy one type of sternguard ammo I.e. ap3 3pts per model??
We do not need more AP3 out there, we need less [and I am not talking about just marines.
I used to love running terminators now its not even funny to watch them fold :(
Marines desperately need the extra cc attacks the only good cc we have any more is honour guard
Tacticals should have the combat knife
Assault and vanguard 3 attacks each
I think relentless would better fit a marine though especially a devastator
And I wasn't restricting it to just the ap3 ammo I meant you could buy any type of sternguard ammo for X amount per guy. I think this would make tactical marines damage out put increase a lot and also help sternguard live longer than one turn.
I could go on but it would require a whole differnt threat that would turn into arguments with xenos players claiming "we've got it good"
brother marcus wrote: Making them cheaper might help but it would have to be by at least 10points
Well we keep getting price decreases…I am not sure that is the solution.
But that's not the biggest problem they have. Marines need that cc weapon to be included in their war gear and I would even accept an increase in points for this. But their low damage output is the main problem IMO
We just need the Combat Knife, I don’t think we need a price increase for that.
make the Bolter 2 shots
either that or AP4
Give devs relentless
That seems to be everyone’s answer, but, giving the Sergeant an Asuspecs would help a lot.
All cc units need increase in attacks
Chain Swords AP5 would make a big difference or the ability to trade in their chain sword for a second Pistol.
Terminators need serious help in this edition
A price decrease, they should never be more than twice a Tactical Marine.
And with psychic powers having a bigger emphasis in 6th why did they change the psychic hood ??
[Shrugs]
How would people feel if you could buy one type of sternguard ammo I.e. ap3 3pts per model??
We do not need more AP3 out there, we need less [and I am not talking about just marines.
I used to love running terminators now its not even funny to watch them fold :(
Marines desperately need the extra cc attacks the only good cc we have any more is honour guard
Tacticals should have the combat knife
Assault and vanguard 3 attacks each
I think relentless would better fit a marine though especially a devastator
And I wasn't restricting it to just the ap3 ammo I meant you could buy any type of sternguard ammo for X amount per guy. I think this would make tactical marines damage out put increase a lot and also help sternguard live longer than one turn.
I could go on but it would require a whole differnt threat that would turn into arguments with xenos players claiming "we've got it good"
Don't let them get you down. The mathematics doesn't lie.
Bolters should be 2 shots 3 rapid fire I've actually play tested this Already and it works great. It allows marines to hold their own in fire fights again
Storm bolters 3 shots and heavy bolters 4. This would make heavy bolters slightly better
@martel732
Don't worry dude dosnt get me down I still love playing with marines especially when I win and my opponent goes "that's not supposed to happen" or " I got lucky" but I will bide my time till marines are good again
I think they're pretty effective units for what they do. 3+, scoring units with equipment flex?
Packed in drop pods, I think they're one of the best objective takers in the game.
No, they're not, because I don't need any gear to be an "objective taker". If you read my earlier posts, I explained how tacticals are a liability because they don't contribute meaningful offense to your list unlike dire avengers or Kroot or fire warriors.
BTW, drop pod is an extremely hazardous thing for a tac squad. You have to commit them very early in the game and after they drop, they are foot slogging. They can't repel an assault-based attack, and *more importantly*, don't have the firepower to cripple most assault-based squads.
I did read them, I just don't agree
They can contribute meaningfully if you equip them accordingly. Yes, your tactical marines may come in early, but if you have enough pods, you can leave them in reserve. They're a good unit used in support, as long as you play them correctly.
They may not "auto-win" but as a rounded unit, can do most things in a pinch.
What do you legally equip them with to make them useful? I'm just curious. You say you don't agree, so explain. You just can't say "I don't agree" and not give specific reasons.
Reserves come in on a 3+. So, your tac marines will likely be down by turn 3 and on foot. That's pretty easy for most lists to deal with.
My contention is that they can't do ANYTHING in a pinch or not in a pinch. Show me why that is not true. Just don't say it's not true. Myself and others have pointed out very SPECIFIC problems. What is your SPECIFIC reason for disagreeing?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's a rather big assumption. If you're at 18" (so max range for Dire Avengers) you need to roll a 1 to get out of Rapid Fire range, so yeah... Number four also assume that the Marines don't miss, so that's a wash. Further, Dire Avengers are a point cheaper than the Marines as well.
And you're stuck on the Dire Avengers; you're the one who brought them up.
It's an assumption you have to make when making a mathematical model. How did they arrive in shooting range? Did they have to move around a corner? Did they advance across a field? Is there terrain in the way for normal advances? How far did the Battle Focus allow them to run? Did they arrive by transport and were dropped at the optimal range and if so how many points are we assigning the Space Marines? Regarding number 4: no, that's a typo. Meant to mean "assuming Dire Avengers didn't miss their pseudo-rending" and is a meta-comment regarding mathematical chance. I assure you that in no case I assumed either force had 100% accuracy. Both had 66% accuracy at all times.
Dire Avengers is the only place I can see where Bladestorm actually is a problem. The other two cases you either need to stop get out-played by Guardians and actually think about shooting them (they still die to a stiff breeze) or you don't get enough shots for the Bladestorm effect to actually be a constant factor enough to complain about. Possible exception is maxed units of War Walkers and Vypers. By the way, each ShuriShuri Vyper/Walker deals 3.33 wounds with a mathematical average of about 50% to have one of those wounds to be rending and it takes 36 bolter shots to destroy one Vyper/Walker. Of these two, the Walker is the mathematically more dangerous one since it can Battle Focus.
Martel732 wrote: Okay. I understand your point. Now understand mine. Other books have troops that do the same job for less points, AND can contribute meaningfully in the offensive portion of the game. I don't understand why you are content to throw away points on units that don't contribute in a list with model count issues.
This is a fair point. I do it because I feel I can make them count. I feel they are meaningful as they are designed right now, but that doesn't necessarily make me want to, or be able to, spam them - which I shouldn't feel about any unit, that's bad game design!
Slightly off topic, how do you feel about Scouts?
Don't get me wrong I feel like I've got objective sitters and cheerleaders in both 40k forces I play whenever I go into the troop section, but Elites and Heavy Support should do a better job (which is also a problem with Space Marines - you've got your buffed Tacticals, they're called Sternguard or Devastator or similar)
Scouts are interesting. They can obtain 2+ cover saves without a ton of effort. Unfortunately, they start looking really bad compared to sniper Kroot when the ignores cover starts flying around. Note that imperial armies can hose scouts badly with the good ol heavy flamer.
I'd like scouts a lot better if WS didn't ignore cover with the Serpent Shield and Tau didn't have it seemingly at will.
HTH scouts on storms actually have some utility. They are the Emperor's own Orks. I have used IH assault scouts in speeders with heavy flamers and totally pushed around Orks and DE and such. But Tau and Eldar don't give a feth.
Truth118 wrote: If you had to give tac marines something, give them Split Fire, it'd make them more tactical.
I gotta be honest. Given the constraints of the game, I have no idea how to make them better other than price. That way, you could add in more units that actually do something. Exercise: pay for some tactical squads but don't actually field them and see how different your army PLAYS, not SCORES. It's pretty shocking how much you don't miss them. Ever. Because they don't do anything. They are like the helpless fools in escort missions in MMORPGs.
Truth118 wrote: If you had to give tac marines something, give them Split Fire, it'd make them more tactical.
So much this. In the wider context of the army it allows tac squads to pick up the slack if your anti infantry or anti tank elements whiffed, but without wasting bolter shots against wraithlords or lascannon shots against guardians.
Nid players like myself might be a bit miffed though, as our T6 ends up being worthless due to the redirection of bolter fire towards squishier targets, but thems the breaks.
koooaei wrote: So the main problem lies within durability+firepower+cost. Marine's durability was good back in the 5 ed, firepower was meh but oki and point cost was a bit high like 1 point more than it should have been. So what changes now. They get significant point decrease and have all the things like they used to have...but now this rate of firepower is not nearly enough and they have real problems with durability. It's not the marines but xenos that got overbuffed.
So you want to make them more durable? Look at plague marines. Are csm all totally happy with them? t5 fnp is awesome. And they pay for it appropriately pointwise. And when you pay 300 pts for 10 definitely tough guyz they apear to be a pointsink cause they lack punch. At range those 7 bolters, 2 plazmas/meltas and combi-something on serg are not nearly worth 300 pts. So what's left to a really tough guy that has bad firepower? Right - go chop things in mellee. So by increasing toughness you shift tacticals to a heavilly assault-oriented choice.
Don't get me wrong. Plague marines are amazing but i'd never take them en masse cause 1 unit is great and rather reliable. When you mass them - you loose so much firepower - you can no longer do anything.
So you want marines to be shootier! Imagine they all got analogues of pulse rifles but with same durability they got now. U pay points apropriately for it once again. And here you go - stuck with a gunline army that sits behind an adl and shoots the hell out of opponent. So you get a slightly more durable tau gunline for more pointscost that's even more afraid of helldrakes and ap3 barrage.
The way to make them shine is either to nerf others or buff them a bit with a lil point increase. Why not give them all fnp? It's rather fluffy. Why not buff bolter a bit to be something like rapid fire 2/3 and stormbolters rapid fire 3/4. Give them 2 base attacke. And make them cost around 20 pts for all that goodness. I think that will make them good without going over-the top.
You can give then FNP or more accuracy though Chapter Tactics.
But it costs too much. Just what if all the tacticals wold be like slightly cheaper comsquads with better bolters? And Increase pointcost of bikes. They're just too cheap for the benefits they provide!
Automatically Appended Next Post: And price decrease...u kidding? They're allready very cheap. Ig veterans cost 6 and get ws3, t3, ini3, ld7, 5+ save and s3 ap- guns. If you give them carapace - they cost around 9 per model for a 4+ save. And you get totally better stats for 14 pts. Yep, they die as easilly to bale flamers and ap3 stuff but when they get shot at by something else - marines are like 5 times more durable. Also they can't even be compared in mellee. U're asking too much if you want a further point decrease. U've allready got atsknf and chapter tactix for 1 pts compared to chaos marines.
While i agree that tacticals are not great atm, i think they should be improved with a point increase and not remain the same with a point decrease. Just think logically.
A bit better mellee, better durability - but not over-the-top, and some shooting boost. As i've allready said, i find that their statline is fine, maybe cept for attack, but it's easier to give ccw for like 5 pts per 10 man-squad.
They lack survivability vs ignore-armor and rate of fire for their pointcost. Just a 5+ fnp will help without giving too much and still keeping them the same level as they are now vs s8+.
They lack ranged firepower - i think that increasing bolter's stats could be a good move. As said before, rapid fire 2/3 makes bolters effective now and not too overwhelming. No ignore-cover or rending or pinning - just plain bolter + 1 shot.
So let's count - base marine 14 pts atm. +2 pts for better bolter, +4 pts for fnp, +0.5 pts for extra ccw and you got a 20-21 pts cost marine that's totally playable and useful in offence, defence and board controle.
And make a price increase on bikes. They're supposed to be 1/10 of an army and not 9/10. Excluding white scars.
150 points for a 10 man squad and a combi weapon, small games take 5 for 80 points. Hard to beat that. I'm used to the idea of my troops floundering around soaking up shots and not doing much in the way of killing thanks to my adventures with CSM, so keeping them cheap makes sense.
And besides, they're just troops. Leave the real killing to the Elites and Heavies.
koooaei wrote: So the main problem lies within durability+firepower+cost. Marine's durability was good back in the 5 ed, firepower was meh but oki and point cost was a bit high like 1 point more than it should have been. So what changes now. They get significant point decrease and have all the things like they used to have...but now this rate of firepower is not nearly enough and they have real problems with durability. It's not the marines but xenos that got overbuffed.
So you want to make them more durable? Look at plague marines. Are csm all totally happy with them? t5 fnp is awesome. And they pay for it appropriately pointwise. And when you pay 300 pts for 10 definitely tough guyz they apear to be a pointsink cause they lack punch. At range those 7 bolters, 2 plazmas/meltas and combi-something on serg are not nearly worth 300 pts. So what's left to a really tough guy that has bad firepower? Right - go chop things in mellee. So by increasing toughness you shift tacticals to a heavilly assault-oriented choice.
Don't get me wrong. Plague marines are amazing but i'd never take them en masse cause 1 unit is great and rather reliable. When you mass them - you loose so much firepower - you can no longer do anything.
So you want marines to be shootier! Imagine they all got analogues of pulse rifles but with same durability they got now. U pay points apropriately for it once again. And here you go - stuck with a gunline army that sits behind an adl and shoots the hell out of opponent. So you get a slightly more durable tau gunline for more pointscost that's even more afraid of helldrakes and ap3 barrage.
The way to make them shine is either to nerf others or buff them a bit with a lil point increase. Why not give them all fnp? It's rather fluffy. Why not buff bolter a bit to be something like rapid fire 2/3 and stormbolters rapid fire 3/4. Give them 2 base attacke. And make them cost around 20 pts for all that goodness. I think that will make them good without going over-the top.
You can give then FNP or more accuracy though Chapter Tactics.
But it costs too much. Just what if all the tacticals wold be like slightly cheaper comsquads with better bolters? And Increase pointcost of bikes. They're just too cheap for the benefits they provide!
Automatically Appended Next Post: And price decrease...u kidding? They're allready very cheap. Ig veterans cost 6 and get ws3, t3, ini3, ld7, 5+ save and s3 ap- guns. If you give them carapace - they cost around 9 per model for a 4+ save. And you get totally better stats for 14 pts. Yep, they die as easilly to bale flamers and ap3 stuff but when they get shot at by something else - marines are like 5 times more durable. Also they can't even be compared in mellee. U're asking too much if you want a further point decrease. U've allready got atsknf and chapter tactix for 1 pts compared to chaos marines.
While i agree that tacticals are not great atm, i think they should be improved with a point increase and not remain the same with a point decrease. Just think logically.
A bit better mellee, better durability - but not over-the-top, and some shooting boost. As i've allready said, i find that their statline is fine, maybe cept for attack, but it's easier to give ccw for like 5 pts per 10 man-squad.
They lack survivability vs ignore-armor and rate of fire for their pointcost. Just a 5+ fnp will help without giving too much and still keeping them the same level as they are now vs s8+.
They lack ranged firepower - i think that increasing bolter's stats could be a good move. As said before, rapid fire 2/3 makes bolters effective now and not too overwhelming. No ignore-cover or rending or pinning - just plain bolter + 1 shot.
So let's count - base marine 14 pts atm. +2 pts for better bolter, +4 pts for fnp, +0.5 pts for extra ccw and you got a 20-21 pts cost marine that's totally playable and useful in offence, defence and board controle.
And make a price increase on bikes. They're supposed to be 1/10 of an army and not 9/10. Excluding white scars.
Totes agree with the Bolter and ccw but the FNP would be pushing the boat out way too far. It would make marines like plague marines super unkillable and it would just get annoying.
All they need is THAT boltgun and a cc weapon included in there stats
Split fire would be lovely but would make them too effective ( wouldn't they be able to then pop transports with a melta/lascannon and the Bolter who ever was in there ?? )
Totes agree with the Bolter and ccw but the FNP would be pushing the boat out way too far. It would make marines like plague marines super unkillable and it would just get annoying.
All they need is THAT boltgun and a cc weapon included in there stats
Split fire would be lovely but would make them too effective ( wouldn't they be able to then pop transports with a melta/lascannon and the Bolter who ever was in there ?? )
I've played vs a fw chapter with mass fnp (sorry, don't remember the name of a chapter - scorpions or something...they have Loth named character) with my orkses. And their survivability was just fine. I'd not say that 5+ fnp for additional points is over-the top. But the combination of t5 + fnp is tough. That's why i'm proposing on nerfing bikes a bit with some even stronger point-increase if we assume marines get fnp for like 4 pts per model.
If they just get a better weapon - they'll be more of a glass cannon which they're not supposed to be. While they need some durability increase, it's hard to say what's best. I just proposed fnp cause a 1/3 chance to prolong a living of a heavilly enchanced uman with a dozen of hearts, lungs and such stuff is not only fluffy but will be good and not shift the meta too hard. Cause they still die to rate of fire, ap3 and stuff. Just a bit more durable.
Iirc you can't shoot the disembarked models with split fire. Cause it happens simultaniously.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'll test 21 pts space marines with:
+ccw +bolter = rapid fire 2/3
+fnp 5+
Hm...also, what about indeps? Fnp on them is HUGE.
If enchanced marines pay 4 pts for a fnp. Let's say barebones captain is now 120 pts with extra 30 pts for fnp.
I'm not sure if i can take a combi-melta on a captain simultaniously with a stormshield. So just stealth cloaks for scouts for +10 pts per squad to round it up to 1250.
+4 pts for fnp for space marines while +30 for IC cause +20 is somewhat low for such an awesome thing, +2 pts for bolters and combi-bolters being rapid fire 2/3 and stormbolter being assault 3, +1 pts for ccw Scouts remain the same without any buffs yet.
I'll ask an opponent to go without mc-s or flyers and see what we get. It's just too hard to justify how this new stats are gona interact with stuff that ignores them. And take note, i don't take no dedicated AA or anti-mc.
And price decrease...u kidding? They're allready very cheap. Ig veterans cost 6 and get ws3, t3, ini3, ld7, 5+ save and s3 ap- guns. If you give them carapace - they cost around 9 per model for a 4+ save. And you get totally better stats for 14 pts. Yep, they die as easilly to bale flamers and ap3 stuff but when they get shot at by something else - marines are like 5 times more durable. Also they can't even be compared in mellee. U're asking too much if you want a further point decrease. U've allready got atsknf and chapter tactix for 1 pts compared to chaos marines.
And how many people take Carapace Vets, again?
CSM get double specials and the option to have both BP/CCW and bolters, AKA "stuff that's actually good for the midfield objective holders Tacticals are supposed to be". They're Grey Hunters without ATSKNF, more or less.
So let's count - base marine 14 pts atm. +2 pts for better bolter, +4 pts for fnp, +0.5 pts for extra ccw and you got a 20-21 pts cost marine that's totally playable and useful in offence, defence and board controle.
And make a price increase on bikes. They're supposed to be 1/10 of an army and not 9/10. Excluding white scars.
No. Just no. 21 PPM Marines with that stuff wouldn't be playable, because Bolters are rubbish. Ask BA players how much the FNP matters when they have a really low model-count T4 army. If you think 5+ FNP is worth 4 points I can't do anything other than tell you that you're wrong. An extra Bolter shot also isn't worth 2 points.
Your suggestions other than "we suck "?
People take carapace vets from time to time and occasionally take carapace ccs. Some people even take 'ard boyz for 11 pts per an ork boy! Now that's overpriced.
U tell me that +4 pts for fnp is bad? Or a 2 pts for extra bolt shot?.. U want a win button?
If it doen't play out - we can try to lower points a bit. But just giving buffs for free...is not a right way to go.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You remove Heldrakes, Codex: Tau and Codex: Eldar from the game.
That is about it.
It is not Tactical Squads that Suck. What sucks is the AP3/2 out there. I rairly fight them and My Tactical Squads do fine. If I take one of my Plasma SPAM List and Marine Army just melt away.
150 points for a 10 man squad and a combi weapon, small games take 5 for 80 points. Hard to beat that. I'm used to the idea of my troops floundering around soaking up shots and not doing much in the way of killing thanks to my adventures with CSM, so keeping them cheap makes sense.
And besides, they're just troops. Leave the real killing to the Elites and Heavies.
That's a losing recipe against Xenos. You are basically flushing 150 pts for those 10 men. Marines don't have the throw weight from their killy stuff to be able to throw away those points. That's the crux of my entire argument.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You remove Heldrakes, Codex: Tau and Codex: Eldar from the game.
That is about it.
It is not Tactical Squads that Suck. What sucks is the AP3/2 out there. I rairly fight them and My Tactical Squads do fine. If I take one of my Plasma SPAM List and Marine Army just melt away.
Tactical squads do suck. They specifically suck compared to what Tau/Eldar/Daemons/Necrons and even IG get for troops. The IG pay less for infantry but their guns are just as good as marines with only a 1 BS decrease. Again, tactical marines don't contribute during the match like other lists' troops do. Your tactical marine experience is skewed because you don't face Eldar ever. The suck because they can't threaten even my crappy BA. That's horrible. Especially for what they cost. There is a direct correlation between my win rate vs C:SM and how many tactical squads my opponent. If you bring a lot of tactical marines, my BA are probably going to paddle you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
koooaei wrote: Your suggestions other than "we suck "?
People take carapace vets from time to time and occasionally take carapace ccs. Some people even take 'ard boyz for 11 pts per an ork boy! Now that's overpriced.
U tell me that +4 pts for fnp is bad? Or a 2 pts for extra bolt shot?.. U want a win button?
If it doen't play out - we can try to lower points a bit. But just giving buffs for free...is not a right way to go.
Tactical squads do suck. They specifically suck compared to what Tau/Eldar/Daemons/Necrons and even IG get for troops. The IG pay less for infantry but their guns are just as good as marines with only a 1 BS decrease. Again, tactical marines don't contribute during the match like other lists' troops do. Your tactical marine experience is skewed because you don't face Eldar ever. The suck because they can't threaten even my crappy BA. That's horrible. Especially for what they cost. There is a direct correlation between my win rate vs C:SM and how many tactical squads my opponent. If you bring a lot of tactical marines, my BA are probably going to paddle you.
Ig also have 1 less str on their lazguns and they're not totally that great. But it is somewhat mitigated by making them rapid fire 2/3 with an order and a possibility of nice overwatch due to numbers once again.
koooaei wrote: Your suggestions other than "we suck "?
People take carapace vets from time to time and occasionally take carapace ccs. Some people even take 'ard boyz for 11 pts per an ork boy! Now that's overpriced.
U tell me that +4 pts for fnp is bad? Or a 2 pts for extra bolt shot?.. U want a win button?
If it doen't play out - we can try to lower points a bit. But just giving buffs for free...is not a right way to go.
Seemed to work fine for the Eldar.
Aaaand that's not the right way to go. Having buffs for free - eldar just got so op that they totally dominate. Which is wrong. Cause ideally you must have a 50/50 winrate vs other armies.
Tactical squads do suck. They specifically suck compared to what Tau/Eldar/Daemons/Necrons and even IG get for troops. The IG pay less for infantry but their guns are just as good as marines with only a 1 BS decrease. Again, tactical marines don't contribute during the match like other lists' troops do. Your tactical marine experience is skewed because you don't face Eldar ever. The suck because they can't threaten even my crappy BA. That's horrible. Especially for what they cost. There is a direct correlation between my win rate vs C:SM and how many tactical squads my opponent. If you bring a lot of tactical marines, my BA are probably going to paddle you.
Ig also have 1 less str on their lazguns and they're not totally that great. But it is somewhat mitigated by making them rapid fire 2/3 with an order and a possibility of nice overwatch due to numbers once again.
koooaei wrote: Your suggestions other than "we suck "?
People take carapace vets from time to time and occasionally take carapace ccs. Some people even take 'ard boyz for 11 pts per an ork boy! Now that's overpriced.
U tell me that +4 pts for fnp is bad? Or a 2 pts for extra bolt shot?.. U want a win button?
If it doen't play out - we can try to lower points a bit. But just giving buffs for free...is not a right way to go.
Seemed to work fine for the Eldar.
Aaaand that's not the right way to go. Having buffs for free - eldar just got so op that they totally dominate. Which is wrong. Cause ideally you must have a 50/50 winrate vs other armies.
Yes, and one way to do that is to make all lists as strong as Eldar. You'll get less complaining than if you make all lists as weak as BA.
Bronzefists42 wrote: This is a tad off topic but in Horus Heresy you can take tac squads with 20 marines for around 200 pts That sounds good to me.
It's actually 250 points for a 20 strong tac squad with no upgrades, because even though the additional marines are 10 points a pop, there's a very large tax built into the unit from the start (like almost all the other units in the HH rules, for who knows what reason).
And even within the context of HH, that tac squad isn't very good - they get no special or heavy weapons and they don't have ATSKNF (to be fair, no one does) so they quickly disappear in the face of enemy fire or assault. I'd say they're worth the 12 or so points per marine you're paying on average when they're 20 strong, but obviously not worth the 14 or 15 points you pay for the basic squad of 10. Then again, most of the unit costs in HH are pretty inflated.
Long story short, they aren't a good comparison to 40k marines.
Edit: HOWEVER,
The "Fury of the Legion" rule lets them shoot twice with bolters or bolt pistols in one shooting phase, in exchange for not being able to shoot next turn. Like the old Bladestorm exarch power for Dire Avengers. I don't know if that's come up in the thread yet, but I think giving that rule to Tactical Squads for free would be a better way of boosting their damage output than changing their stat line or the stats of their bolters.
Bronzefists42 wrote: This is a tad off topic but in Horus Heresy you can take tac squads with 20 marines for around 200 pts That sounds good to me.
It's actually 250 points for a 20 strong tac squad with no upgrades, because even though the additional marines are 10 points a pop, there's a very large tax built into the unit from the start (like almost all the other units in the HH rules, for who knows what reason).
And even within the context of HH, that tac squad isn't very good - they get no special or heavy weapons and they don't have ATSKNF (to be fair, no one does) so they quickly disappear in the face of enemy fire or assault. I'd say they're worth the 12 or so points per marine you're paying on average when they're 20 strong, but obviously not worth the 14 or 15 points you pay for the basic squad of 10. Then again, most of the unit costs in HH are pretty inflated.
Long story short, they aren't a good comparison to 40k marines.
Edit: HOWEVER,
The "Fury of the Legion" rule lets them shoot twice with bolters or bolt pistols in one shooting phase, in exchange for not being able to shoot next turn. Like the old Bladestorm exarch power for Dire Avengers. I don't know if that's come up in the thread yet, but I think giving that rule to Tactical Squads for free would be a better way of boosting their damage output than changing their stat line or the stats of their bolters.
Fury of the legion would definitely fix TAc squads. I mentioned the HHtac squads because of that rule.
centuryslayer wrote: what the heck? Tactical Marines are pretty darn great! O__o
Well not in the face OF OUR DIVINE TAUDAR OVERLORDS!!!!
HAIL TAUDAR!
EVERYTHING BUT TAUDAR SUCKS!
MAKE EVERYTHING TAUDAR!
I guess everyone has different coping mechanisms.
Coping with what... HAIL TAUDAR!
Exactly. You use mockery to frame the current state of 40K. To each their own.
Oh I see. Sorry just it begins to get tiring with absolutely everything being compared to Taudar. I know it's a popular tourney list but Tac marines aren' that terrible.
koooaei wrote: As said before, rapid fire 2/3 makes bolters effective now and not too overwhelming. No ignore-cover or rending or pinning - just plain bolter + 1 shot.
That's the Salvo rule. If you fire, you can't charge, if you move, you can't fire 3 shots, if you stay still, you can fire 3 shots. That's Salvo.
Though another issue is not being able to charge after firing their bolters. Why can a rather large man not charge into combat AND fire his bolter? I understand for IG maybe, but marines?
Which leads me to another issue...standardizing equipment. An IG bolter is the same as a SM bolter. An IG chainsword is the same as a SM chainsword. Considering that Space Marines are much stronger that IG, you'd think there would be some sort of difference.
koooaei wrote: As said before, rapid fire 2/3 makes bolters effective now and not too overwhelming. No ignore-cover or rending or pinning - just plain bolter + 1 shot.
That's the Salvo rule. If you fire, you can't charge, if you move, you can't fire 3 shots, if you stay still, you can fire 3 shots. That's Salvo.
rule nazieing (that's a word, I promise!) here, when you move you'd fire 2 shots at half range as well ^^
Martel732 wrote: What should we compare to then? Aren't NFL quarterbacks compared to Brady/Manning? Why shouldn't lists be compared to the best available competition.
Tac marines are terrible enough that they can be largely ignored in a real game, even by weaker codices. That's pretty damn bad.
Do they have some flaws.Yes. Are they so weak that they need a but ton of special rules to fix them? Definitely not. They need a few changes (putting in a variation of fury of the Legion rule would be nice) but I don't think that they are the paper thin weaklings everyones been making them seem like.
Martel732 wrote: What should we compare to then? Aren't NFL quarterbacks compared to Brady/Manning? Why shouldn't lists be compared to the best available competition.
Tac marines are terrible enough that they can be largely ignored in a real game, even by weaker codices. That's pretty damn bad.
Do they have some flaws.Yes. Are they so weak that they need a but ton of special rules to fix them? Definitely not. They need a few changes (putting in a variation of fury of the Legion rule would be nice) but I don't think that they are the paper thin weaklings everyones been making them seem like.
Martel732 wrote: What should we compare to then? Aren't NFL quarterbacks compared to Brady/Manning? Why shouldn't lists be compared to the best available competition.
Tac marines are terrible enough that they can be largely ignored in a real game, even by weaker codices. That's pretty damn bad.
Do they have some flaws.Yes. Are they so weak that they need a but ton of special rules to fix them? Definitely not. They need a few changes (putting in a variation of fury of the Legion rule would be nice) but I don't think that they are the paper thin weaklings everyones been making them seem like.
And Chapter Tactics help alot to.
I forgot that as well. The Forge World Chapter tactics fix a lot of problems.
Martel732 wrote: What should we compare to then? Aren't NFL quarterbacks compared to Brady/Manning? Why shouldn't lists be compared to the best available competition.
Tac marines are terrible enough that they can be largely ignored in a real game, even by weaker codices. That's pretty damn bad.
Do they have some flaws.Yes. Are they so weak that they need a but ton of special rules to fix them? Definitely not. They need a few changes (putting in a variation of fury of the Legion rule would be nice) but I don't think that they are the paper thin weaklings everyones been making them seem like.
Defensively, they are fine. They are offensive weaklings. Other, cheaper, troops are not. That's a massive problem.
koooaei wrote: As said before, rapid fire 2/3 makes bolters effective now and not too overwhelming. No ignore-cover or rending or pinning - just plain bolter + 1 shot.
That's the Salvo rule. If you fire, you can't charge, if you move, you can't fire 3 shots, if you stay still, you can fire 3 shots. That's Salvo.
Though another issue is not being able to charge after firing their bolters. Why can a rather large man not charge into combat AND fire his bolter? I understand for IG maybe, but marines?
Which leads me to another issue...standardizing equipment. An IG bolter is the same as a SM bolter. An IG chainsword is the same as a SM chainsword. Considering that Space Marines are much stronger that IG, you'd think there would be some sort of difference.
Salvo 2/3 and they'll end up like sitting ducks emperror's children. While rapid fire 2/3 makes them want to use droppods and be mobile rather than sitting immobile in 1 place with salvo. Also, salvo bolters on relentless models...
Have you actually tried rushing forward and shooting an analogue of an auto-gun at the same time? It's literally impossible to hit something when you move quickly with a 2-hand rifle. When you want precise shots on a move - you stop to shoot and then continue moving. That's exactly what a 6' move-and-fire range represents tabletop. While you can make some semi-accurate shots with a pistol or a very-very light auto-gun specifically designed to this. Also you need specific training to do so even with appropriate weaponry.
Charging speed is represented by a 6 + 2d6 move tabletop - exactly the speed of a very-fast running
I tested out giving bolters 2 shots and it works really well.
I played a 1v1v1 against tau AND eldar which are marines biggest problems and a squad of tactical marines actually won a toe to toe fire fight against dire avengers.
Rapid fire was quite brutal aswell
Never got to use the additional cc attack lol
And split fire was good aswell mm taking pops at vehicles whilst the marines rained death on the enemy
I lost though it was "the relic" and a tau commander grabbed in and he was in a massive unit of drones :/
I played a 1v1v1 against tau AND eldar which are marines biggest problems and a squad of tactical marines actually won a toe to toe fire fight against dire avengers.
So over the Dire Avengers the Tactical's have the ability to deal with MC's/vehicles with krak grenades, practical immunity to morale thanks to ATSKNF, greater durability due to T and save and chapter tactics for a single point per model and now you are happy? Add in the fact you gave them melee weapons as well so they can out-fight, out-shoot, out-survive and out-versatile the unit you hold up as being really good for a *single point per model* and you aren't asking for a balanced marine anymore at that point.
The existence of power build tourney meta lists that revolve around 1-2 undercosted units is no an excuse to expect your own army to get OP toys across the board.
The tactical marine's strength is in his versatility, there is no threat they cannot engage with the right loadout. Balancing them in a world where no-one plays anything but Triptide, Screamerstar, Jetseers when there are like 10 other dexes out there stacks the deck and is worse than what people claim GW do with balance. Tac's are already way better against units like Orks and Gaunts than Avengers, lets be reasonable in our expectations.
I'd love for every unit in the game to be in absolute balance, I really would, but what you guys are talking here isn't balance, it's favouritism.
I payed 18pts per marine which both my opponents where happy with.
One of my friends I played is an avid marine hater and even he agreed that they needed something extra and then we were both impressed how much of a difference that extra shot made
BrotherHaraldus wrote: Yep, they get that for 1 ppm. Dire Avengers still utterly outclass tacticals even with that, since they unlock Wave Serpents.
You need to look at everything a unit does.
Plus, battle focus + 2 shots at 18" is very very very powerful.
So now your balancing tacticals around Wave Serpents not Avengers and one of those 1-2 undercosted spammed tourney units I mentioned earlier. Compared to the Avenger they are fine. Remember the Serpent has a 100+pt buy in cost whereas the marines can be mobile for less than 40, swings and roundabouts. I'd love to be able to mount up 3 squads of Ulthwe Black Guard for the same cost as a Wave Serpent personally.
Eldar players weren't complaining that Guardians stacked up badly to Riptides.
As for 2 shots at 18:
Marines produce identical firepower at 12 or less, 1 less shot at 12-18 and 1 more shot at 18-24. Bladestorm means Avengers hit harder against good saves but they are hit harder by everyone in the S2-5 bracket with a huge drop in survivability against AP4.
18pts a marine, maybe, making them better but boosting cost is viable but it's not going to appease all the people who feel they aren't survivable enough (which as someone who plays armies with limited 3+ saves boggles my mind but hey) in fact it is going to make them worse in their eyes.
The other thing is we already have "elite marines" in Grey Knights and making bolters 2 shot is stepping on the Knights stormbolter toes at long range and making it better up close.
Now you raise all kinds of new balance issues: Do Stormbolters need to get cheaper or better? What effect does this have on Chaos or Sisters?
The bolter is so ubiquitous a weapon that changing it's stats creates an avalanche of potential balance issues.
I played a 1v1v1 against tau AND eldar which are marines biggest problems and a squad of tactical marines actually won a toe to toe fire fight against dire avengers.
So over the Dire Avengers the Tactical's have the ability to deal with MC's/vehicles with krak grenades, practical immunity to morale thanks to ATSKNF, greater durability due to T and save and chapter tactics for a single point per model and now you are happy? Add in the fact you gave them melee weapons as well so they can out-fight, out-shoot, out-survive and out-versatile the unit you hold up as being really good for a *single point per model* and you aren't asking for a balanced marine anymore at that point.
The existence of power build tourney meta lists that revolve around 1-2 undercosted units is no an excuse to expect your own army to get OP toys across the board.
The tactical marine's strength is in his versatility, there is no threat they cannot engage with the right loadout. Balancing them in a world where no-one plays anything but Triptide, Screamerstar, Jetseers when there are like 10 other dexes out there stacks the deck and is worse than what people claim GW do with balance. Tac's are already way better against units like Orks and Gaunts than Avengers, lets be reasonable in our expectations.
I'd love for every unit in the game to be in absolute balance, I really would, but what you guys are talking here isn't balance, it's favouritism.
I didn't make the suggestions you speak of. But to address your point, krak grandes are awful, ATSKNF has been neutered by the lethality of 6th edition. Most chapter tactics don't accomplish much in the scheme of things either. Some do, but they still aren't making tacticals great.
Tactical marines can out-shoot precious few models indeed. That is their biggest liability in general. The way 6th edition runs, I'd rather have Kroot troops for the sniper rifles. Sniper rifles have their niche targets they excel against, so at least the Kroot can contribute. You can point to scouts, but scouts cost way too much per shot taken compared to Kroot.
", there is no threat they cannot engage with the right loadout. "
That's the problem. They have no loadout that allows them to engage anything. I don't know if you own marines, but try them sometime. Tactical marines are awful and basically a tax on a list that can't afford one.
"So now your balancing tacticals around Wave Serpents"
Since Wave Serpents exist, they are the standard because I can't avoid them. If there was a way to get people to shun them like FW, I'd agree with you. But the Wave Serpent is the new bar. GW set it. I didn't. If ALL units were balanced around the BEST unit, then the game would be fair.
Melta: AV Plasma: High toughness
Bolters: Horde infantry.
Used correctly, then can do the job.
Yes, they aren't perfect and they're certainly very killable but I often run marines, and they function pretty well!
It's obvious that you're of the opinion that they are destinctly below par, and your reasoning is relatively solid. But there are enough of us who disagree, because at the end of the day... it's an opinion.
smithy12262 wrote: Melta: AV Plasma: High toughness
Bolters: Horde infantry.
Used correctly, then can do the job.
Yes, they aren't perfect and they're certainly very killable but I often run marines, and they function pretty well!
It's obvious that you're of the opinion that they are destinctly below par, and your reasoning is relatively solid. But there are enough of us who disagree, because at the end of the day... it's an opinion.
They don't have enough shots of plasma or melta to even be considered as having those weapons. They are easily ignorable, which is unacceptable for even their new reduced cost. Compare to Kroot snipers who can strip out multiple MCs out of a list over the course of a game. Or Dire Avengers, who can also engage any target with a T value. Then run after they shoot to boot. Bolters don't do good damage until the horde is on top of you, and then its too late because tac marines fold like wussies in assault.
The bottom line is this: they take zero pressure of any of the killy elements of a marine list. They are ONLY a consideration in how many you have to ROFL stomp off objectives.
I mean, as a BA player, I should be the ultimate litmus test. BA are the weakest list in the game right now, but BA still aren't threatened in any way by tactical squads. That's not good. Not at all.
Martel732 wrote: What should we compare to then? Aren't NFL quarterbacks compared to Brady/Manning? Why shouldn't lists be compared to the best available competition.
Tac marines are terrible enough that they can be largely ignored in a real game, even by weaker codices. That's pretty damn bad.
Do they have some flaws.Yes. Are they so weak that they need a but ton of special rules to fix them? Definitely not. They need a few changes (putting in a variation of fury of the Legion rule would be nice) but I don't think that they are the paper thin weaklings everyones been making them seem like.
Defensively, they are fine. They are offensive weaklings. Other, cheaper, troops are not. That's a massive problem.
If your up against triptide maybe but I do not find an issue with them. Chapter tactics (FW has great ones) fixes a lot of their problems.
smithy12262 wrote: Melta: AV Plasma: High toughness
Bolters: Horde infantry.
Used correctly, then can do the job.
Yes, they aren't perfect and they're certainly very killable but I often run marines, and they function pretty well!
It's obvious that you're of the opinion that they are destinctly below par, and your reasoning is relatively solid. But there are enough of us who disagree, because at the end of the day... it's an opinion.
They don't have enough shots of plasma or melta to even be considered as having those weapons. They are easily ignorable, which is unacceptable for even their new reduced cost. Compare to Kroot snipers who can strip out multiple MCs out of a list over the course of a game. Or Dire Avengers, who can also engage any target with a T value. Then run after they shoot to boot. Bolters don't do good damage until the horde is on top of you, and then its too late because tac marines fold like wussies in assault.
The bottom line is this: they take zero pressure of any of the killy elements of a marine list. They are ONLY a consideration in how many you have to ROFL stomp off objectives.
I mean, as a BA player, I should be the ultimate litmus test. BA are the weakest list in the game right now, but BA still aren't threatened in any way by tactical squads. That's not good. Not at all.
Orks are a barely functional mono list right now. not sure what is worse than that...
Since Wave Serpents exist, they are the standard because I can't avoid them. If there was a way to get people to shun them like FW, I'd agree with you. But the Wave Serpent is the new bar. GW set it. I didn't. If ALL units were balanced around the BEST unit, then the game would be fair.
This way lies madness where every unit has to punch at the weight class of Riptides and Wave Serpents. If that is the litmus then even Eldar and Tau players have the right to stand up and say hey 95% of my army is underpowered I need the buffs now.
The tourney meta is not dominated by Eldar, Tau and Daemons they are dominated by a small selection of units from those dexes. Suggesting everything in a codex punched at that weight class as a solution simply does not work as it means 99% of units in the *game* must be rebalanced not simply tac marines.
Tac marines punch at an Avengers level, a solid troop choice. Are there undercosted units that fry all basic units? Yeah, but if that's what we're balancing around then marines need to get in line behind everyone else in need to damage buffs and price cuts and we will be here a *long* time.
Since Wave Serpents exist, they are the standard because I can't avoid them. If there was a way to get people to shun them like FW, I'd agree with you. But the Wave Serpent is the new bar. GW set it. I didn't. If ALL units were balanced around the BEST unit, then the game would be fair.
This way lies madness where every unit has to punch at the weight class of Riptides and Wave Serpents. If that is the litmus then even Eldar and Tau players have the right to stand up and say hey 95% of my army is underpowered I need the buffs now.
The tourney meta is not dominated by Eldar, Tau and Daemons they are dominated by a small selection of units from those dexes. Suggesting everything in a codex punched at that weight class as a solution simply does not work as it means 99% of units in the *game* must be rebalanced not simply tac marines.
Tac marines punch at an Avengers level, a solid troop choice. Are there undercosted units that fry all basic units? Yeah, but if that's what we're balancing around then marines need to get in line behind everyone else in need to damage buffs and price cuts and we will be here a *long* time.
"Suggesting everything in a codex punched at that weight class as a solution simply does not work as it means 99% of units in the *game* must be rebalanced not simply tac marines. "
Quoted for truth. I think that all units, in every list, need to be rebalanced against the best units in the game in order to balance out the game.
For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in the game. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.
"This way lies madness"
It's too late for that. We already have madness. 2++ rerollable should never have been allowed, nor made necessary.
"The other thing is we already have "elite marines" in Grey Knights and making bolters 2 shot is stepping on the Knights stormbolter toes at long range and making it better up close."
I really don't care how much Grey Knights get stepped on. Their codex is practically Xeno anyway. Also, compared to the capabilities of tac marines, Grey Knight troops are incredibly undercosted. Even compared to the new marine codex.
Martel732 wrote: For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.
Martel732 wrote: For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.
This should be what was said.
No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.
Martel732 wrote: For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.
This should be what was said.
No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.
Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?
Martel732 wrote: For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.
This should be what was said.
No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.
Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?
I like them the way they are. Chapter tactics opened up the way for a lot of meaningful buffs. I understand why people think Tac marines are weaklings but the games I've played have not supported these claims.
Martel732 wrote: For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.
This should be what was said.
No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.
Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?
Define "work". How much are they actually killing? Survival is not in question more than any other troop that gets mercilessly gunned down. Yeah, I win with C:SM sometimes and the lists have tac marines in them, but I'd rather not have them at all.
My first guess is that people might be conflating their army winning matches with tactical marines actually contributing.
Martel732 wrote: For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.
This should be what was said.
No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.
Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?
Define "work". How much are they actually killing? Survival is not in question more than any other troop that gets mercilessly gunned down. Yeah, I win with C:SM sometimes and the lists have tac marines in them, but I'd rather not have them at all.
?
I mean their not the best units ever but I mean they are really solid scoring units. It doesn't matter how much you "Kill" it's how much you accomplish in a game. It doesn't matter if they killed a carnifex if those Gaunts still have objective.
Martel732 wrote: For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.
This should be what was said.
No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.
Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?
Define "work". How much are they actually killing? Survival is not in question more than any other troop that gets mercilessly gunned down. Yeah, I win with C:SM sometimes and the lists have tac marines in them, but I'd rather not have them at all.
My first guess is that people might be conflating their army winning matches with tactical marines actually contributing.
Work as in they do there jobs. Hold Objectives, Take Obejecyives and kill off enemy Units. What more do they need to do?
Martel732 wrote: For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.
This should be what was said.
No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.
Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?
Define "work". How much are they actually killing? Survival is not in question more than any other troop that gets mercilessly gunned down. Yeah, I win with C:SM sometimes and the lists have tac marines in them, but I'd rather not have them at all.
My first guess is that people might be conflating their army winning matches with tactical marines actually contributing.
Work as in they do there jobs. Hold Objectives, Take Obejecyives and kill off enemy Units. What more do they need to do?
Fire strength 10 blasts every other turn and re roll to hit
I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.
What do you mean by "solid"? They have become pretty easy to take off the board via Xeno firepower. They don't shoot well. They aren't cheap. They aren't good in HTH. So what are the "solid" at? Standing there? Costing you points with no return other than "scoring"? CSM at least can get cultists if that's your criteria.
Please give examples of them being "solid". As in, specific contributions. Because I can tell you exactly how Kroot and DA and fire warriors contribute against my marine lists, but I can't tell you how my tac marines are contributing in the reverse.
Martel732 wrote: I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.
What do you mean by "solid"? They have become pretty easy to take off the board via Xeno firepower. They don't shoot well. They aren't cheap. They aren't good in HTH. So what are the "solid" at? Standing there? Costing you points with no return other than "scoring"? CSM at least can get cultists if that's your criteria.
Please give examples of them being "solid". As in, specific contributions. Because I can tell you exactly how Kroot and DA and fire warriors contribute against my marine lists, but I can't tell you how my tac marines are contributing in the reverse.
Do marines die fairly quickly. Yeah. But you seem to be obsessed with how many things marines can kill. Their mid range troops their job IS to stand their and occasionally kill some other midrange stuff. They are pricey but Kroot are terrible example.Their a T3 assault unit with no armor. That's not very helpful.
Martel732 wrote: I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.
What do you mean by "solid"? They have become pretty easy to take off the board via Xeno firepower. They don't shoot well. They aren't cheap. They aren't good in HTH. So what are the "solid" at? Standing there? Costing you points with no return other than "scoring"? CSM at least can get cultists if that's your criteria.
Please give examples of them being "solid". As in, specific contributions. Because I can tell you exactly how Kroot and DA and fire warriors contribute against my marine lists, but I can't tell you how my tac marines are contributing in the reverse.
Do marines die fairly quickly. Yeah. But you seem to be obsessed with how many things marines can kill. Their mid range troops their job IS to stand their and occasionally kill some other midrange stuff. They are pricey but Kroot are terrible example.Their a T3 assault unit with no armor. That's not very helpful.
I just like Kroot a lot because they can bring the hurt on MCs (very important now as MCs are way tougher than vehicles).
I'm obsessed with killing power because marines can't weather a Xeno list for 5-6 turns without killing a lot in return to reduce incoming fire. Ie, the best defense in 6th ed is a good offense. I realize that many tournament games end early. Maybe that's a difference in perception.
Martel732 wrote: I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.
For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.
Martel732 wrote: I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.
For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.
Same here. Not everyones a tourney-power-lookatmyriptides-TAUDAR player.
Martel732 wrote: I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.
For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.
Yeah, unfortunately, tac marines can't do much to the Battlewagons I usually face when I play against Orks. Or do much to the biker Nobz. Did I mention that tacticals don't have much firepower? I wish I could play against lists with 3-4 tactical squads.
Martel732 wrote: I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.
For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.
Yeah, unfortunately, tac marines can't do much to the Battlewagons I usually face when I play against Orks. Or do much to the biker Nobz. Did I mention that tacticals don't have much firepower? I wish I could play against lists with 3-4 tactical squads.
You said in an earlier post that you wish you couldn't take tac marines. Also give them lascannons and meltas. And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?
Martel732 wrote: I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.
For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.
Yeah, unfortunately, tac marines can't do much to the Battlewagons I usually face when I play against Orks. Or do much to the biker Nobz. Did I mention that tacticals don't have much firepower? I wish I could play against lists with 3-4 tactical squads.
First Play 3-4 Tactical Suqads a few time ans see what happens.
Ork Trucks and Bikers, Why are you not taking them out with something other than your Tactical Squads. Cover also helps alot. You would be supried how a couple of Multi-Melta Land Speeders or Las Cannons into the sides of those truck can shut them down quickly.
I said AGAINST tactical marines. Marine players who use a lot of them are usually much easier to beat than biker lists. I personally don't want anything to do with them, but scouts aren't really any better for the points.
A single lascannon does squat in 6th ed. A single special weapon does squat. That's why tacs are bad. And imperial weapons are kinda crappy to begin with. That doesn't help in this whole mess. If tac marines could get scatter lasers, or poison DE weapons, that would be something.
" And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?"
If you don't know the answer to this, then I suspect that may be why you think tacs are "solid". Or did the other guy say that?
Martel732 wrote: I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.
For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.
Yeah, unfortunately, tac marines can't do much to the Battlewagons I usually face when I play against Orks. Or do much to the biker Nobz. Did I mention that tacticals don't have much firepower? I wish I could play against lists with 3-4 tactical squads.
First Play 3-4 Tactical Suqads a few time ans see what happens.
Ork Trucks and Bikers, Why are you not taking them out with something other than your Tactical Squads. Cover also helps alot. You would be supried how a couple of Multi-Melta Land Speeders or Las Cannons into the sides of those truck can shut them down quickly.
I have played marines since 1994. I have literally 15K of BA. I have fielded any number of combinations in 5th and 6th deducing the meta. I know what to do with Battlewagons and bikers. But shooting tactical squads at them isn't one of them.
Martel732 wrote: I said AGAINST tactical marines. Marine players who use a lot of them are usually much easier to beat than biker lists. I personally don't want anything to do with them, but scouts aren't really any better for the points.
A single lascannon does squat in 6th ed. A single special weapon does squat. That's why tacs are bad. And imperial weapons are kinda crappy to begin with. That doesn't help in this whole mess. If tac marines could get scatter lasers, or poison DE weapons, that would be something.
" And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?"
If you don't know the answer to this, then I suspect that may be why you think tacs are "solid". Or did the other guy say that?
...
I don't like these kind of arguments because eventually i just leads back to "BUT TAUDAR CAN..." or "BUT BIKE LISTS CAN..." ultimately how good Tac marines are depend entirely on your own play style and not how many units it has the potential to kill. Also I've done more than just fight Battlewagons and Nob bikers with Tac marines, I've played against tac marines with Nob bikers and Battlewagons. It's all really just a matter of play style not what it is compared to X and how it isn't as good as Y.
Martel732 wrote: I said AGAINST tactical marines. Marine players who use a lot of them are usually much easier to beat than biker lists. I personally don't want anything to do with them, but scouts aren't really any better for the points.
A single lascannon does squat in 6th ed. A single special weapon does squat. That's why tacs are bad. And imperial weapons are kinda crappy to begin with. That doesn't help in this whole mess. If tac marines could get scatter lasers, or poison DE weapons, that would be something.
" And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?"
If you don't know the answer to this, then I suspect that may be why you think tacs are "solid". Or did the other guy say that?
No a single Las-Cannon will not do alot, but 2 Plasma Gun Shots, 2 Combi-Plasma Shots and a Plasma Cannon will for a Tactical Squad.
or
Twin Linked Assualt Cannons from the Razorback
or
Multible Las-Cannons from Razorback/Preadtors/Devistators/Centriuns
or
The Terminator Squad
Martel732 wrote: I said AGAINST tactical marines. Marine players who use a lot of them are usually much easier to beat than biker lists. I personally don't want anything to do with them, but scouts aren't really any better for the points.
A single lascannon does squat in 6th ed. A single special weapon does squat. That's why tacs are bad. And imperial weapons are kinda crappy to begin with. That doesn't help in this whole mess. If tac marines could get scatter lasers, or poison DE weapons, that would be something.
" And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?"
If you don't know the answer to this, then I suspect that may be why you think tacs are "solid". Or did the other guy say that?
...
I don't like these kind of arguments because eventually i just leads back to "BUT TAUDAR CAN..." or "BUT BIKE LISTS CAN..." ultimately how good Tac marines are depend entirely on your own play style and not how many units it has the potential to kill. Also I've done more than just fight Battlewagons and Nob bikers with Tac marines, I've played against tac marines with Nob bikers and Battlewagons. It's all really just a matter of play style not what it is compared to X and how it isn't as good as Y.
Play style doesn't alter the math behind shooting phases. You don't like it when someone compares a unit that can do something (bikers) to the unit that I'm asserting really can't do anything (tacticals)?
Everything in this game is a comparison. Looking at a unit in a vacuum is useless because it is always up against something else on the board. If your play style does not involve minimizing the fire you take from the enemy by killing the enemy, I'm not sure what to say.
"No a single Las-Cannon will not do alot, but 2 Plasma Gun Shots, 2 Combi-Plasma Shots and a Plasma Cannon will for a Tactical Squad. "
How is your tactical squad getting this many weapons?
Assault cannons are awful for the points you pay. And tactical squads don't have them. RAZORBACKS do. That's different. Because that opens the door for the Dire Avengers having the Wave Serpent, and you don't want to go there.
.
war Walkers 
zooka bit. Come On You Know He Is That Dumb 
