I see a lot of people on dakkadakka saying that marines are a pretty terrible deal for their price and quite frankly, I don't see why.
OK, they die pretty nastily to AP 3, Ignores Cover weapons, but those aren't that easy to come by and kill everything else just as effectively as they kill marines. You can buy a larger number of cheaper troops, but then you have to choose between not fitting into cover and being clumped up for blast weapons to get more hits. Meanwhile, anything with AP 4 and above is ineffective against marines but pretty damn good against everyone else. Unexceptional units like Hellhounds and Burna Bommas can wipe out AM Veterans, Dire Avengers and Fire Warriors by the dozen, but only a handful can do the same to marines.
Tau are often cited as an army which simply ignores cover saves, but they need to invest around 50 points to get that ability for one unit per turn (or significantly more if they want to keep their markerlights alive). Stack that onto a riptide and you get something which will kill maybe three or four marines a turn on average for land raider prices. Around twice the cost of a unit which can do the same thing to 4+ save units. Only the Heldrake really offers a truly efficient method of slaughtering marines.
In short, marines are one of the most survivable units for their points cost. In addition, they have ATSKNF, which means they will keep fighting after taking much heavier casualties than most other units. In my opinion, keeping your units fighting longer than they would otherwise is almost as good as them not dying at all, making models with ATSNKF worth at least 10% more than they would be otherwise. I'd say it's better than FNP (6+) or a 6+ Invulnerable save. Of course, you can get FNP (6+) on your marines as well if you take the right chapter tactics.
Their killing power is admittedly a bit lacking for their points cost, but hardly appalling. They have a decent basic weapon and good BS, allowing them to rack up a couple of casualties per squad every turn when facing moderately tough enemies. Under ideal conditions (i.e. at 13-18"), Fire Warriors or Dire Avengers can inflict maybe twice a many casualties against similar targets for the same points, but they also die twice as quickly.
And those troops have to worry about staying close enough to get the most out of their weapons while keeping far enough away not to get charged. Meanwhile, marines are a lot less concerned with being attacked in close combat by average troops and can hold position or advance and try to charge themselves. If a dozen ork shoota boys get to within 6" of a Tau or Eldar gunline there isn't much they can do about it other than hope to inflict a few casualties with shooting before they get overrun. Marines can draw their bolt pistols, charge and wipe the orks off the board. That freedom to get as close as you like to the enemy makes marines a lot better at holding mid-field positions.
Basically, I think that tactical marines are actually some of the best troops in the game and I'm baffled as to why so many other posters don't seem to value them. The only troops which seem clearly better are marine bikes and eldar jetbikes, both of which are good because they offer similar capabilities to tactical marines in a more mobile unit.
Tactical marines are one of the worst troops in the game because of the decline of power armor and because their firepower is a joke. Their killing power IS appalling for their cost. Their durability is a joke in a world of cheap AP 2 and things like ion accelerators and Eldar laying down 50+ wounds a turn with S6/7 fire.
Compare to sniper kroot who can threaten MCs.
Compare to Orks that have a 18" assault gun, can still get cover, and are fearless and dirt cheap.
Compare to dire avengers, that unlock the mighty wave serpent. And have battle focus. And pseudo rending.
ATSKNF is almost worthless against good lists, and they will murder your meqs down to the last man fairly easily.
Tactical marines are also miserable in CC on a per-point basis. Tactical marines aren't wiping any Orks off any boards I'm aware of. They are far too outnumbered. CC-wise, I point to the Grey Hunter to show you how crappy tac marines are.
In short, tac marines are fighting it out as one of the worst troops in the game because of their total lack of efficacy for the points.
pm713 wrote: I really dont see how dire avengers are that much better considering shorter range and lower T.
The thing that makes them better is really down to three minor factors and one big reason. One, they are cheaper. Two, battlefocus can do some pretty tricky things. Three, pseudo-rending means that they can be scary to all armor saves. The biggest reason though, isn't them in and of themselves but instead due to what they can come with. BEHOLD! The Waveserpent. That's really what makes DA so good.
They bring a Wave Serpent. And have their max firepower 6" further out AND can run after the fact to keep tacs at 18' bracket. AND have pseudo rending. How is that even a debate?
To get to Dire Avenger toughness you have to get past the WS. Good luck with that chief. Especially playing marines, who have crap firepower in general because the whole list overpays for stats that don't matter.
pm713 wrote: So as usual its just the wave serpent. The rending doesnt help much against the cover saves people seem to live in.
Let me come eat all your loser tac marines with MCs and see how much you like the pseudo rending then. You aren't thinking big picture. Tac marines suck because they don't threaten anything I care about. MCs, heavy tanks, elite infantry, etc. All of them can safely ignore tac marines. You know what? I can get troops that don't do anything a lot cheaper in other codices. Even my suck-out-loud BA don't give a feth about your tac marines. The more you bring, the fewer of my models you can engage effectively and it increases my chances of winning/tabling you. I've tabled a couple of tac heavy 6th ed marines with BA. They can't hurt me, which means I shoot and fight at full capacity much longer than they can stand up to. 40K is a game of taking away your opponent's capabilities, since there is no list durable enough to stand up to 5 turn of Eldar shooting if they don't hurt the Eldar in return. Which tac marines don't.
Marines are priced like they're still amazing. But the problem is, they're not amazing. They're mediocre. Stats wise, they aint bad at all. But they're priced too high for what they do. Ten bolters is pretty underwhelming. Special weapons make them "not lame."
Basically its GW believing their own propaganda on how great Marines are.
pm713 wrote: So as usual its just the wave serpent. The rending doesnt help much against the cover saves people seem to live in.
Let me come eat all your loser tac marines with MCs and see how much you like the pseudo rending then. You aren't thinking big picture. Tac marines suck because they don't threaten anything I care about. MCs, heavy tanks, elite infantry, etc. All of them can safely ignore tac marines. You know what? I can get troops that don't do anything a lot cheaper in other codices. Even my suck-out-loud BA don't give a feth about your tac marines. The more you bring, the fewer of my models you can engage effectively and it increases my chances of winning/tabling you. I've tabled a couple of tac heavy 6th ed marines with BA. They can't hurt me, which means I shoot and fight at full capacity much longer than they can stand up to. 40K is a game of taking away your opponent's capabilities, since there is no list durable enough to stand up to 5 turn of Eldar shooting if they don't hurt the Eldar in return. Which tac marines don't.
So low T and a 4+ save makes you immune to boltguns now? Do remember I asked about dire avengers alone.
They're cheaper and have better offense. Tac marines have no way to close and so are only getting half as many shots in return at the 18" bracket. Even if DA and tac marines had the same transport options, I'd still take DA because of their overall better efficacy in the meta of offense.
Tac marines can take a single heavy, but this is a horrible choice usually, as all other weapons in the squad are rapid fire. And costly now in 6th ed.
Tac marines aren't bad. They can usually outfight what they can't outshoot for equivalent points, and outshoot what they can't oufight for equivalent points typically (granted there are exceptions, but not many). They're very good troops. The problem is that their mechanisms for delivery to engage that flexibility are somewhat naff in 6E with the massive nerfs to vehicles and transports, and several of the loyalist Sub-chapter books like to make them look bad by comparison because GW likes to make them "Space Marines +1" as a way of making them different.
Many of the problems people are bringing up with Tac's either aren't new or they apply to a whole lot of other units as well. Masses of AP2 fire have been available forever, Tac's have never really been that much of a scary threat to MC's in CC. These are things that have been largely constant in every edition. meanwhile, Tac's have never been better equipped for the points they pay than they are now, they're certainly better than a lot of other units in that pricerange.
pm713 wrote: I really dont see how dire avengers are that much better considering shorter range and lower T.
Lower T, lower S, shorter range, worse save, no ATSKNF. They're not better. They're better at engaging in short range firefights against other infantry in the open at 12-18", and have some means of keeping that distance constant. Outside of that, they're inferior. The bigger thing is that the DA's dedicated transport is a ridiculous main battle tank.
pm713 wrote: So as usual its just the wave serpent. The rending doesnt help much against the cover saves people seem to live in.
Let me come eat all your loser tac marines with MCs and see how much you like the pseudo rending then. You aren't thinking big picture. Tac marines suck because they don't threaten anything I care about. MCs, heavy tanks, elite infantry, etc. All of them can safely ignore tac marines. You know what? I can get troops that don't do anything a lot cheaper in other codices. Even my suck-out-loud BA don't give a feth about your tac marines. The more you bring, the fewer of my models you can engage effectively and it increases my chances of winning/tabling you. I've tabled a couple of tac heavy 6th ed marines with BA. They can't hurt me, which means I shoot and fight at full capacity much longer than they can stand up to. 40K is a game of taking away your opponent's capabilities, since there is no list durable enough to stand up to 5 turn of Eldar shooting if they don't hurt the Eldar in return. Which tac marines don't.
So low T and a 4+ save makes you immune to boltguns now? Do remember I asked about dire avengers alone.
If you were to play a game of just Tac marines versus Dire Avengers the Marines would probably seem quite solid. It's the armies and options around them where the comparison is decided.
Here's the thing: while Tactical Marines have a decent gun and good armor in theory, they simply cannot match the damage output of other armies. A 3+ save means little when you're having to roll 30+ saves in one turn. And every marine you lose, reduces your overall firepower, leaving your opponent with the advantage.
Yep. They need a either a way to buff themselves a la the "dakka" banner or the rules need to be altered. As in, less AP 2/3 and buff vehicles. Tactical Marines are good where they are.
Or they could revamp the army as a small, elite strike force like they are meant to be.
They really are not that bad, combat squad ability allows you to park a heavy weapon (LC or ML for me) at the back on an objective to take pot shots at tanks or infantry blobs while the other half trek up the table with a flamer or melta.
ATSKNF is also a great rule, your tacticals will fight till they are all gone.
The bolter is a decent weapon and a cheapish combi weapon on the sgt is a decent addition if you have 10pts
In a small 1k pts list I tend to run 20 tacticals combat squaded into 5's, two teams with heavys holding back two with assault weapons moving up in rhinos or razorbacks.
And don't even get me started on scouts, most serious players don't rate them a jot (snipers maybe excepted) but I have so much fun (and a decent hit rate to boot) with shotgun scouts in a landspeeder they are the first unit on my army list every single game.
Ignore everything that punk says. He bases everything off extreme high level tournament play. In heavy competitive environments tac marines are very subpar. It is true they cost a lot for the little they do. But I play them casual (Martel's loathed BA no less) and they've been pretty solid.
In casual play, every unit is solid. So why is that even worth discussing? I can make (and have made) a Rough Riders army work and do well in a casual environment, playing against casual players. That doesn't mean that rough riders aren't a broken, gakky unit.
Tactical marines are bad. That's not their fault though, it's the games' fault. 40K doesn't reward jack-of-all-trades units, for one. Almost any dedicated shooting unit will hand a tac squad its ass in shooting, any dedicated assault unit will hand a tac squad its ass in assault. So what are tactical squads good at fighting? They're a bully unit, essentially. But bully units have no place in this game without an effective means of transportation to get them around the units that will beat them and into the face of those soft squishy units they can beat. That's problem #1.
Problem #2 is the rising proliferation of AP3 and below. Pie-plates, Death Stars that gak out AP2/3 and eat bolter fire for breakfast, FMC's (an abomination of a unit type, AP2 should never be on a 24'' moving chassis that can only be hit on 6's with standard weapons), mass rending (both Eldar and Slaaneshi daemons), the list goes on. It's way too much, and it's not even just AP3 and better, it's just the number of attacks both melee and shooting in general. Every codex that's been released so far has put price drops on almost everything that was in it, which means more models on the table. In addition to that, weapons are getting higher and higher rates of fire. The result of this is that there's moar dakka on the field than ever before, and the moar dakka there is, the less a 3+ save matters. For 300 points, a single platoon in my guard army can put out 72 las shots, 4 Str9AP2 shots and 6Str7AP2 shots, that all ignore cover and re-roll failed to-hits. What the feth is a 10 man squad of tactical marines supposed to do against that? Nothing, it's erased from the board. 2 Tactical squads? 2 Tactical squads both armed with heavy bolters in 4+ cover? Erased from the board, one after another. If you want to go smaller than that, a single squad of triple-plasma vets under FRFSRF will kill 5 tacs in a single round of shooting. What are tacs supposed to do against that?
So it's kind of a tri-fold problem. In a nut-shell, the other faction's have been getting exponentially more deadly over the editions while tactical squads have more or less stayed the same.
The 6E game has made it so big guns doesn't really mean a win, but more guns and more special rules is the win. When you have characters that now dispense twin-linking, ignores cover, tank hunter, monster hunter, etc. etc. for free, and make them battle brother with other strong armies, you get this mixture of rules that makes something like a TAC marine impotent.
The current game favors highly elite units that are buffed into god-tier status or lots of cheap chaff as bullet catchers. A good list probably involves both.
They just don't work as they used. I'm sure a points efficiency analysis would do better. My Battle Sisters suffer from this and only make up for it with having two special weapons at 5 girls and using their lower points cost to spam rhinos. 115pts for 5 bodies, flamer, heavy flamer, Rhino is a pretty solid unit and the Rhino for SoB is just a smidge tougher with a 6++ save. The comparison TAC squad is 5 marines, tougher and better in close combat, but only have one flamer and their Rhino has no save.
^ i pretty much got ninjad twice saying the same thing. Good job evreyone!
The way I see it they suffer from being a "solid generalist" choice in a game that is increasingly rewarding specialization. The average tactical marine pays a lot of points for things they don't need in a lot of areas because they try to be average in durability, shooting, and close combat all at the same time.
Basicly what I'm trying to say is that they are the perfect example of "opportunity cost". They take their points and spread them around in the above three areas instead of doing any one thing very well. This results in a troop unit that isn't durable enough to be incredibly tanky (they have good armor and above average toughness, but they're far from the most durable thing out there, even in troops, and they don't come in numbers you need for staying power), isn't shooty enough to be incredibly killy at range, and not good enough in close combat to murder opponents up close (ignoring any other problems with 6th edition and close combat).
This results in them pretty much never being the best choice for their points. You can either get something that's more tanky, more shooty, or more choppy, and as such is capable of dealing with them relatively easily for equivalent points costs (either up close, from range, or just by being too tough for them to kill).
There's really nothing wrong with the tactical marine squad, it's just that there is always something better than them at (insert what you want done) for an equivalent points cost. They would actually be pretty good if you could get them for less points.
Tac marines fall prey to the same thing jack-of-all-trades units do in almost every game I can think of. Because the tac is okay at everything, they get their point cost jacked way up. However, a unit like the Fire Warrior or Dire Avenger, which is only good at one thing but kind of stinks at everything else, only gets points tacked on for that one thing.
Think about this: A tac marine is paying to be half decent at shooting, half decent at close combat, and have this pretty solid armor save. Except, you can only shoot OR close combat one at a time, even though you're always paying for both. Even then, that Dire Avenger is cheaper and, 10 marines v 10 DAs, the Dire Avengers win. Same with, say, hormagaunts in close combat. Plus, what good is the decent armor save when everything is AP2-3, or has rending, and you're relying on a cover save anyway? You're forced to pay points for abilities that just won't get used.
So, look, if you like tac marines, use them. I REALLY like tac marines. My Ultramarine army pretty much always runs four full tac squads in rhinos; they are FUN. However, I realize that this army is only okay, at best, and it's ability to win against Eldar or Tau (or Guard now, I assume) will always be capped by the fact that I am grossly overpaying for the backbone of my army.
Perfect Organism wrote:Basically, I think that tactical marines are actually some of the best troops in the game and I'm baffled as to why so many other posters don't seem to value them.
I agree, except about the bafflement part.
Most people see 40k as a fight between HS slots, and a single marine isn't as good as a riptide, therefore they must be awful. Most people also don't understand the basics of fighting with infantry in this game. Using small arms and Sv is somewhat subtle (especially if you think it's a game about HS slots).
Also, versatility is a more advanced concept. Most people seem to only learn to not mix special weapons and to give everything a role, and to just stop there. While this brings a lot of people from noob to proficient, it ignores the fact that sometimes when things have mandatory upgrades that do different things, they're still worth taking.
It's like how people are always hating on 1ksons. They are really expensive, but they get a TON of upgrades. Just because a person can't figure out how to make use of all those upgrades doesn't make them not worth taking. But that's a bit too nuanced for people rabidly looking for easy, black and white answers in order to win games easiest.
Perfect Organism wrote:Basically, I think that tactical marines are actually some of the best troops in the game and I'm baffled as to why so many other posters don't seem to value them.
I agree, except about the bafflement part.
Most people see 40k as a fight between HS slots, and a single marine isn't as good as a riptide, therefore they must be awful. Most people also don't understand the basics of fighting with infantry in this game. Using small arms and Sv is somewhat subtle (especially if you think it's a game about HS slots).
Also, versatility is a more advanced concept. Most people seem to only learn to not mix special weapons and to give everything a role, and to just stop there. While this brings a lot of people from noob to proficient, it ignores the fact that sometimes when things have mandatory upgrades that do different things, they're still worth taking.
It's like how people are always hating on 1ksons. They are really expensive, but they get a TON of upgrades. Just because a person can't figure out how to make use of all those upgrades doesn't make them not worth taking. But that's a bit too nuanced for people rabidly looking for easy, black and white answers in order to win games easiest.
I thought Tactical marines were bad because if you run up 300 points of infantry up against 1500 points of your opponent's army they die horribly. I mean, if they can't take on an entire army with just 20 guys and APCs they must totally suck.
It's like how people are always hating on 1ksons. They are really expensive, but they get a TON of upgrades. Just because a person can't figure out how to make use of all those upgrades doesn't make them not worth taking. But that's a bit too nuanced for people rabidly looking for easy, black and white answers in order to win games easiest.
So basically nobody has bothered playing with Thousand Sons at all? Or just not enough?
It couldn't be that they've tried and tested multiple times and the consensus is that there are few situations in which they are adequate and many more in which they fail to perform?
Making a claim like this is open for discussion provided there is evidence to support it. Suggesting that people don't understand the game because they consider a unit is bad is a tad insulting. Lets say I have a bike. My friends and I all try to ride it and the thing is so bad that none of us can stay on it for more than 10 seconds before falling off. You can't say that I'm not using the bicycle right unless you can show that you can ride it for more than ten seconds.
If you want to say Thousand Sons are good, then you have to give the example with credible evidence.
I just don't think Tac marines put out enough damage to account for their points. A 3+ save doesn't win games if you can't also output enough damage to actually beat your opponent. That's true of a lot of troops choices, but due to their cost it makes tac marines worse. 300-350pts will get you two tac squads which really don't do a lot compared to what most other armies can take in their troops slots for the same points.
I'm actually wondering how you should point cost Tactical Marine squads now. It's kind of bothering me. I'm not a game designer, but I enjoy trying to puzzle out mechanics and create interesting ones, so it's a subject that has captured my interest.
I guess you have to cost models based on the best thing they can do, then add a very small additional cost if they can do something else as well. I think GW is applying an "additive capability" mindset to their costing where the ability to do multiple things adequately is costed like the sum of all their abilities.
What's wrong with you? You've stated, three times now, that Martel "has nothing constructive to say", but what have you contributed to this thread topic? Nothing at all. You've yet to make a single on-topic post in here with the exception of "well Space Marines are fine in a casual environment!"
Seriously. Get the hell out of the thread if you have nothing to offer to it. I'm not saying that some of the criticisms of Martel's posts aren't warranted sometimes, but if you have a personal problem with the man, take it to fething PM's. No one here is interested in watching you guys' argue like an old couple.
Martel732 wrote: Tactical marines are one of the worst troops in the game because of the decline of power armor and because their firepower is a joke. Their killing power IS appalling for their cost. Their durability is a joke in a world of cheap AP 2 and things like ion accelerators and Eldar laying down 50+ wounds a turn with S6/7 fire.
Cheap AP 2? For every AP 2 weapon, I'm pretty sure that you can find a far cheaper AP 4 weapon. I just showed that for the cost of one riptide with basic support elements you can get two or three vehicles which can do worse to 4+ armour. The only reason you see lots of stuff that can kill marines is because marines are so good that everyone buys stuff to kill them.
Marines can take special weapons to deal with MCs, plus a load of things that kroot can't handle. Against their optimal target, kroot are better than marines. Against something else, like guardsmen for example, marines will be better. And kroot are hilariously easy to deal with; any pinning weapon will shut them down and a decent round of shooting will have them running for the hills.
Martel732 wrote: Compare to Orks that have a 18" assault gun, can still get cover, and are fearless and dirt cheap.
I'm guessing you don't play orks, because you either pay for your cover with a KFF or have to cram into limited space (which means you have to take a unit too small to be useful and make yourself vulnerable to blasts). Wouldn't really say that 18" Assault 2 is any better than 24" rapid fire. The fearless isn't too helpful either, since it only lasts until you take serious casualties.
Martel732 wrote: Compare to dire avengers, that unlock the mighty wave serpent. And have battle focus. And pseudo rending.
Battle focus just makes up for the fact they have a very narrow range band where they can outshoot marines. Bladestorm is part of their superior firepower, but as I said they die so much faster that it's pretty much a wash. The wave serpent is really good, but that doesn't make what is inside it great.
Martel732 wrote: ATSKNF is almost worthless against good lists, and they will murder your meqs down to the last man fairly easily.
Forcing the enemy to finish off every single model is worth something.
Martel732 wrote: Tactical marines are also miserable in CC on a per-point basis. Tactical marines aren't wiping any Orks off any boards I'm aware of. They are far too outnumbered. CC-wise, I point to the Grey Hunter to show you how crappy tac marines are.
Marines can take twice their number in orks easily if they get the charge, more if they have a flamer. Yeah, orks are cheap, but marines are at least twice as good as them at pretty much everything.
Martel732 wrote: In short, tac marines are fighting it out as one of the worst troops in the game because of their total lack of efficacy for the points.
Dire Avengers are one point less, shoot a little better, die a lot easier, don't stay in the fight and are weak in CC. I wouldn't say they are any better than marines.
Chaos Marines are one point cheaper, but don't get ANSKNF or chapter tactics.
Grey Hunters trade Chapter Tactics for a boost in CC ability. I'd rather have chapter tactics.
Guardsmen and orks are less than half the cost of a marine, but generally achieve less than half as much. Their main advantage is that they die to anti-marine shooting at the same rate as marines, but that's only an advantage because people choose to focus on anti-marine shooting. If ork boys were the default troop choice for most players, everyone would take whirlwinds and wyverns and marines would be fine.
Fire Warriors are two thirds the cost of marines, shoot about as well as DA, die like DA, but are more likely to run away and utterly hopeless in CC. They will beat marines in a simple shooting match, but not by that much and they lack a lot of flexibility.
Let's crunch some numbers. Assume a firefight at 12", with 5+ cover.
A marine scores 0.44 wounds against a dire avenger, ork or fire warrior with 2 shots, on average. 0.59 against guardsmen, guardians or pathfinders. 0.22 against a marine (0.19 if the marine has CT:IH).
A Fire Warrior scores 0.42 wounds against a DA or fellow FW, 0.44 against an ork, 0.56 against guardsmen, etc. 0.22 against a marine (0.19 if he's an Iron Hand).
So, the FW has roughly the same damage output as the marine, but about half the survivability. Multiply those factors together, take the square root and it looks like the FW is about 10% better than the marine point-for-point at this one thing. He's also got slightly better range and can threaten a slightly wider variety of targets. On the other hand, the marine has ATSKNF, chapter tactics and better close combat ability. I'd say that's worth a point or two.
An ork shoota boy has around half the damage output as the marine and half the survivability. He's a little better than half as good in close combat and a little worse when it comes to morale. Based on that, he's under-costed by around one point compared to the marine. But you could argue that packing more power into a single model has some advantage of it's own - specifically, it lets you minimise exposure to blasts and templates while still benefiting from cover.
I shan't crunch the numbers for every unit in the game, but I think it's fairly clear that marines are not drastically overpriced compared to other troops.
As a person who plays multiple armies, including non-imperial flavors my perspective may be a bit more contrary, but it IS based upon actual experience and not just "grass is greener" thinking.
Marines are fine.
I think its more a matter of what the expectations are, and how they are used.
"They die too easily".
The things that kill marines easily are few and far between....and those weapons that do so...evaporate other armies scoring units. Couple this with the immunity to being swept... and their leadership, and they have amazing durability.
"they don't put out enough damage"
Compared to? That elite squad somewhere else?
To a squad of sternguard? To equal points of hormagants?
Is this the damage of two units just putting out shots with no context?
How much damage does a squad of marines put out after being hit by a squad of biovores? Eldar and tau troops dont put out squat for damage once hit this way, as they are dead.
Have you ever tried to pin a squad of marines? My marines mock your silly pinning attempts.
A friend the other day said "my troops just die too fast..."
I pointed out..."all troops dies faster now..."
He had to remember this...as he was only thinking of his eldar...then he remembered his marines and said "well, yeah, I guess....".
When sixth edition came out we all realized things die a LOT more. Ask a guard player or a tyranid player about how fast their troops die compared to their cost.
Don't get me wrong, yes, marines die.
We also have to remember that the basic tac marine is not the end all be all of a game - other units matter.
They are great for what they are.... troops.
I strongly encourage other players to play non-marine armies...until I did, I did not appreciate marines and the unique strengths of their book.
Or they could revamp the army as a small, elite strike force like they are meant to be.
problem is they're supposed to be,but for a varity of reasons Marines are the "base line" this won't ever change given the number of SM players, and space Marine codexes out there. even if we generlously assume equal numbers of players play each codex, you're still looking at a scenerio where over half the player base plays "guys with toughness 4, 3+ armor saves and uses boltguns on their troops" and THAT is why Space Marines might seem "not as great as they could be" not because they actually suck, but because people tend to plan around them when they craft their TAC lists.
It also means of course that GW is going to, essentially design all armies with space Marines in mind, so few if any armies are going to not have something that can handle the SMs "useal tricks"
Or they could revamp the army as a small, elite strike force like they are meant to be.
problem is they're supposed to be,but for a varity of reasons Marines are the "base line" this won't ever change given the number of SM players, and space Marine codexes out there. even if we generlously assume equal numbers of players play each codex, you're still looking at a scenerio where over half the player base plays "guys with toughness 4, 3+ armor saves and uses boltguns on their troops" and THAT is why Space Marines might seem "not as great as they could be" not because they actually suck, but because people tend to plan around them when they craft their TAC lists.
It also means of course that GW is going to, essentially design all armies with space Marines in mind, so few if any armies are going to not have something that can handle the SMs "useal tricks"
Hmm. Well, what they could do is to just ignore the players on this count and just build a balanced game that doesn't screw over part of it's fanbase. With this revamp they could start giving more love to the other factions too to encourage more variety.
It would be better, from both a mechanics standpoint and a narrative standpoint, if the standard Tac-Marine was both an expensive unit, but also designed in such a way that a 1000-point army includes maybe 10-15 of them (with upgrades and bling) and 1 DT, but they're feasibly able to handle three to five times their numbers of any other infantry... assuming intelligent use of terrain, tactics, etc.
Not saying that the Tac-Marine should be an auto-win, but if you wanted to keep it fluff-friendly, but also fairly balanced, 10 Marines should (again with proper tactics and deployment...i.e., not playing like a moron) be able to handle 10 other line-troops of any army.
Of course, if you walk your 10 Marines out into an open field in the face of a Fire Warrior gunline... yes, expect to get shot to pieces and die, and consider renaming your army to the StupidMarines, but again, that's also fluff-friendly.
"Of course, if you walk your 10 Marines out into an open field in the face of a Fire Warrior gunline... yes, expect to get shot to pieces and die, and consider renaming your army to the StupidMarines, but again, that's also fluff-friendly."
Cover doesn't help against fire warriors. They are wound-spamming you to death. You might as well be in an open field. The math is the same.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
davethepak wrote: As a person who plays multiple armies, including non-imperial flavors my perspective may be a bit more contrary, but it IS based upon actual experience and not just "grass is greener" thinking.
Marines are fine.
I think its more a matter of what the expectations are, and how they are used.
"They die too easily".
The things that kill marines easily are few and far between....and those weapons that do so...evaporate other armies scoring units. Couple this with the immunity to being swept... and their leadership, and they have amazing durability.
"they don't put out enough damage"
Compared to? That elite squad somewhere else?
To a squad of sternguard? To equal points of hormagants?
Is this the damage of two units just putting out shots with no context?
How much damage does a squad of marines put out after being hit by a squad of biovores? Eldar and tau troops dont put out squat for damage once hit this way, as they are dead.
Have you ever tried to pin a squad of marines? My marines mock your silly pinning attempts.
A friend the other day said "my troops just die too fast..."
I pointed out..."all troops dies faster now..."
He had to remember this...as he was only thinking of his eldar...then he remembered his marines and said "well, yeah, I guess....".
When sixth edition came out we all realized things die a LOT more. Ask a guard player or a tyranid player about how fast their troops die compared to their cost.
Don't get me wrong, yes, marines die.
We also have to remember that the basic tac marine is not the end all be all of a game - other units matter.
They are great for what they are.... troops.
I strongly encourage other players to play non-marine armies...until I did, I did not appreciate marines and the unique strengths of their book.
I've army swapped quite a bit. There is no substitute for firepower in this edition, and marines don't have it. Well, tac marines at least. And most of the codex, actually. They have very specific units that have to be used very specific ways. T 4 is largely useless against all the ST 5/6/7 shots being tossed around like candy now. Marines are spitting back S4. Our elites spit out S4. So many weapons in this army are S4 and S4 is just not cutting it in the S 5/6/7 paradigm.
BlaxicanX wrote: For 300 points, a single platoon in my guard army can put out 72 las shots, 4 Str9AP2 shots and 6Str7AP2 shots, that all ignore cover and re-roll failed to-hits. What the feth is a 10 man squad of tactical marines supposed to do against that? Nothing, it's erased from the board. 2 Tactical squads? 2 Tactical squads both armed with heavy bolters in 4+ cover? Erased from the board, one after another. If you want to go smaller than that, a single squad of triple-plasma vets under FRFSRF will kill 5 tacs in a single round of shooting. What are tacs supposed to do against that?
What's that platoon build? Four Infantry Squads, four lascannons, a command squad, three plasma guns and a psyker? How is that under 300 points? Seems more like 400 to me.
As to what the marines can do, well they can start by killing off the command squad. That reduces the enemy firepower by a considerable margin and one tactical squad should be able to do it in a single turn of shooting (you may need two squads if the PCS goes to ground in decent terrain, I guess).
Then they can advance, forcing the guard to either enter close combat or retreat. In close combat, the guard will struggle even harder to deal with the marine's armour saves, don't benefit from orders and can be swept (unless you spend the points to take a priest). If they retreat they can only snap-fire their lascannons and may be forced away from objectives or cover.
As for the plasma vets, I'm not sure how you are calculating your numbers, but that doesn't seem right to me...
3 Plasma Guns: 6 shots, 4 hits, 3.33 wounds, 2.22 casualties with 5+ cover. Also causes one gets hot result, on average.
6 lasguns: 18 shots, 12 hits, 4 wounds, 1.33 casualties after armour saves.
1 laspistol: 1 shot, 0.67 hits, 0.22 wounds, 0.07 casualties after saves. Goes up to 0.22 if he has a boltgun or 0.37 with a plasma pistol.
The only way it approaches five casualties is if there is no cover or the squad has something buffing it to ignore cover. In the first instance, the guardsmen are going to take terrible casualties if they don't have carapace and still get pretty chewed up if they do. If there's a buff, then the total cost is way more than a tooled-up marine squad.
Actually, we know that there's a command squad around somewhere, because the FRFSRF has to be coming from an officer. Might as well add 4 lasgun shots from them for another 0.3 casualties. That's a minimum cost of 135 points for the two units though, so you're paying around the same price as you do for the ten-man marine squad. Probably 160 points, so you can take carapace and camo gear on the veterans.
If the marines get to shoot first:
8 bolters: 16 shots, 10.67 hits, 7.11 wounds, 3.56 casualties with carapace and/or cover and camo gear.
1 heavy bolter: 3 shots, 2 hits, 1.67 wounds, 0.88 casualties with cover and camo gear.
1 bolt pistol (assuming the special weapon guy has a flamer and isn't in range or something): 1 shot, 0.66 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.22 casualties.
So, the guardsmen are slightly more expensive and take slightly more casualties per turn (EDIT: actually about 30% more per turn, if you include plasma gunner suicides). They make up for that somewhat by having more bodies to soak up casualties (if you include the command squad). But once the guardsmen break, they are gone, while the marines will auto-rally. Plus chapter tactics could give the marines 17% more damage output (Imperial Fists) or 17% fewer casualties (Iron Hands). I'm not really seeing any real advantage for either side.
TheCustomLime wrote:I thought Tactical marines were bad because if you run up 300 points of infantry up against 1500 points of your opponent's army they die horribly. I mean, if they can't take on an entire army with just 20 guys and APCs they must totally suck.
Oh, my bad. It's also this.
Savageconvoy wrote:So basically nobody has bothered playing with Thousand Sons at all? Or just not enough?
I'm saying that versatility is subtle, and getting all the use out of 1ksons isn't pushing a big red easy button.
Savageconvoy wrote: couldn't be that they've tried and tested multiple times and the consensus is that there are few situations in which they are adequate and many more in which they fail to perform?
Lol. Let's ignore the ad populum fallacy for a moment. The internet is mostly populated by lemmings with absolutely zero creativity and no desire whatsoever to stick things out and try to make difficult stuff work.
A person can deconstruct the rules to draw correct conclusions. They don't need to race around and pick up a few lemming turds.
If you think Marines are specialized, you should try a Swordwind (Eldar) army. My Marines are a lot more adaptable.
Used correctly, my Tac Marines can pop light vehicles with Krak grenades, mop up troops with bolters, charge a weapons team or gunners, or counter-charge a Tide army. They'd obviously fail to take down AV12 unless I had a ton of them, and they can't charge a Heavy Weapons team if they're too far away, and if too many Orks are left when the Tide gets to my line, the countercharge will fail, so it all takes finesse.
For instance, if Marines play on Dire Avengers terms (kiting the Marines at 13-18 inches, no cover), of course the Dire Avengers should win. They chose the best possible terms of engagement. Now, most other terms of engagement Marines will beat Avengers, sometimes horrendeously:
->24" - Marine Heavy Weapons will kill Avengers. Just think about a Heavy Bolter...
-19-24" - Marines eat Avengers
-13-18" No Cover - Bolters are more deadly to Avengers than Catipults are to Marines shot-for-shot, but Avengers get 2 shots. So let them do this too much, and Avengers will win this one.
-13-18" 4+ or 5+ Cover - Marines outshoot Avengers, I think (might be close)
-6-12" - Regardless of Cover, Marines outshoot Avengers
-0-6" - Marines win shooting, and then if they charge, they destroy Avengers. If Avengers shoot and then charge, they might win melee, if shooting killed enough, but it is very risky.
-In Melee - Avengers get dominated.
So really, the only situation where the Marines are losing to the Avengers is when they don't have a special weapon, and let the Avengers choose the engagement terms. While Avengers alone are more mobile than Marines, Marines alone should still easily get first salvo, and neither unit should be alone, they both belong to combined-arms armies.
I'm saying that versatility is subtle, and getting all the use out of 1ksons isn't pushing a big red easy button.
You mean besides the fact that math-hammer has proven that point for point, a base unit of CSM does their job better except on an entirely open field and so long as they are shooting 3+ units?
And that point for point, they die just the same as a result? Especially to wave serpents, who care not for 4++.
Before the Codex Astartes update, the general consensus was that Marines were good for troops, but other parts of your list do the heavy lifting.
Since the update, they got a price decrease, and Chapter Tactics are generally seen as a buff. Now, everyone talks about how bad they are.
I don't think they've gotten worse. I think two things have happened:
-Other factions have gotten a lot better at killing marines (Die, stoopid riptide!)
-Probably more importantly, Bikes have become stupidly cost-effective en masse. I think that having a viable alternative is what really makes Tac Marines feel bad.
That said, 2x10man Tacs are still the backbone of my Marines force, because that's what I enjoy fielding. Fun games can be hand with fielding them. Assault Marines are in the same boat, and some people tell me my Devs are too (stupid Centurions), But as my chapter use Ultramarine gene seed, those are usually most of my lists.
Bharring wrote: If you think Marines are specialized, you should try a Swordwind (Eldar) army. My Marines are a lot more adaptable.
I don't think people are complaining they're specialised, quite the opposite, they pay for adaptable when adaptable isn't actually all it's cracked up to be.
Yeah, they can krak a vehicle... but a 60pt IG chaff squad can lay down just as many krak grenades in to a vehicle. They score. So does a 40pt Termagant squad. The can shoot with bolters, but less effectively than the significantly cheaper Tau. They can fight in close combat, but worse than basically any squad in the game that is remotely geared toward CC.
At least that's what I reckon, you're almost always better off buying a troop that has a dedicated task and balancing those different troops across your army than trying to do a one size fits all squad that is too expensive for any single role.
With my Marines I usaly run 3 10 model Tactical Squads.
>Sarge: Lighting Claw/Combi-Plasma
>Special Weapon: Plasma-Gun
>Heavy Weapon: Plasma-Cannon
I do well with them, nothing special, but they are leathal/durable enough to do their Jobs, Hold Objective.
I use Pedro and my Stern Guard to take objectives.
With My Space Wolves I take 2-4 Grey Hunter Packs and they also do their jobs to.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Yeah, they can krak a vehicle... but a 60pt IG chaff squad can lay down just as many krak grenades in to a vehicle. They score. So does a 40pt Termagant squad. The can shoot with bolters, but less effectively than the significantly cheaper Tau. They can fight in close combat, but worse than basically any squad in the game that is remotely geared toward CC.
You see that, though? You just had to compare it to three different units to make that statement. That's what versatility is about. It can't do krak grenades as cheaply as guard, but they do everything else better than guard. They don't score as cheaply as termagaunts, but they do everything else better. They don't shoot bolters as well, but do everything else better.
That's what you're missing. Other troops choices do one thing very well and everything else poorly. Space marines do everything regularly well.
Whatever your problem, a tac squad has a solution. That's really not true for most other infantry squads, much less most other troops choices.
Psienesis wrote: Not saying that the Tac-Marine should be an auto-win, but if you wanted to keep it fluff-friendly, but also fairly balanced, 10 Marines should (again with proper tactics and deployment...i.e., not playing like a moron) be able to handle 10 other line-troops of any army.
Tactical marines are pretty sweet. Certainly not the best unit in the codex, but damn tasty nevertheless. (And certainly the best troop choice, in my opinion.) They are extremely versatile, while at the same time not sucking in whatever role you put them in. They can't handle any specific primary role all on their own, but they can support your heavy-hitters (either at range, in melee, against infantry, or against vehicles) well enough to pick up any slack from bad dice rolls or just general over-extension. They work best when used against your opponent's weak points (up close against Tau, at range against Orks).
A few people seem to want 'generalist' to mean 'great at everything,' and decry the unit as worthless when it can't live up to that impossible standard. The advantage of the generalist is that while it might be average at everything, specialists will always suck at one thing, which is where the generalist can attack them. So should tac marines be used.
TheCustomLime wrote:I thought Tactical marines were bad because if you run up 300 points of infantry up against 1500 points of your opponent's army they die horribly. I mean, if they can't take on an entire army with just 20 guys and APCs they must totally suck.
Oh, my bad. It's also this.
Savageconvoy wrote:So basically nobody has bothered playing with Thousand Sons at all? Or just not enough?
I'm saying that versatility is subtle, and getting all the use out of 1ksons isn't pushing a big red easy button.
Savageconvoy wrote: couldn't be that they've tried and tested multiple times and the consensus is that there are few situations in which they are adequate and many more in which they fail to perform?
Lol. Let's ignore the ad populum fallacy for a moment. The internet is mostly populated by lemmings with absolutely zero creativity and no desire whatsoever to stick things out and try to make difficult stuff work.
A person can deconstruct the rules to draw correct conclusions. They don't need to race around and pick up a few lemming turds.
Yeah 1ksons aren't a big red easy button. They are actually a big, lovingly made button that is well crafted, surrounded by egyptions markings within gold and sapphire that, when pressed, detonates killing you. They aren't versatile by any means and are very bad at their job. They suck at killing marines and are even worse at survival. Their fluff is awesome though.
As per troops, I wouldn't really call Tactical Marines themself bad in comparison to other troops. There are a few exceptions (Kroot are phenominal), a few are worse (CSM), and a few are distinctively worse (Bloodletters and Thousand Sons come to mind). The problem more comes due to the sum of the parts. The meta has weapons to erase them from the board thanks to units such as the Riptide and the sorts. The only other problem with Tactical Marines is that they can't double up on special weapons. Thing is, Tactical Marines pay for versatility. They are pretty average at everything they do. That's their greatest strength and their greatest weakness.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Yeah, they can krak a vehicle... but a 60pt IG chaff squad can lay down just as many krak grenades in to a vehicle. They score. So does a 40pt Termagant squad. The can shoot with bolters, but less effectively than the significantly cheaper Tau. They can fight in close combat, but worse than basically any squad in the game that is remotely geared toward CC.
You see that, though? You just had to compare it to three different units to make that statement. That's what versatility is about. It can't do krak grenades as cheaply as guard, but they do everything else better than guard. They don't score as cheaply as termagaunts, but they do everything else better. They don't shoot bolters as well, but do everything else better.
That's what you're missing. Other troops choices do one thing very well and everything else poorly. Space marines do everything regularly well.
Whatever your problem, a tac squad has a solution. That's really not true for most other infantry squads, much less most other troops choices.
...yes, what you are calling a strength I am calling a weakness. Being able to do everything AND paying the points for being able to do everything is not an advantage. The IG squad can lay down as many Krak's at half the price... leaving you to spend points on the rest of the army to fill the other roles. The Termagants are scoring the same way the Marines are scoring, but at a fraction the cost so you can take other units that can kill even better and/or take vastly more units of Termagants so you can spread your scoring further. The Tau outshoot marines for a lower price, meaning you can take a crap ton more of them.
It means Marines get out special-weaponed by guard, they get well and truly out-gunned by anything that shoots, they get comprehensively out CC'd by anything that fights.
Having multiple units that fulfill individual roles at a lower cost means you can take more bodies in more dedicated roles and each casualty is less of an impact to the overall army.
At least that's how I feel, I don't play standard Space Marines, I play SW, by comparison, GH I think are much more viable to take in number than Tac marines because they pay only 1pt more for a lot more utility, thus actually fulfilling the all-rounder roll much more efficiently.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Yeah, they can krak a vehicle... but a 60pt IG chaff squad can lay down just as many krak grenades in to a vehicle. They score. So does a 40pt Termagant squad. The can shoot with bolters, but less effectively than the significantly cheaper Tau. They can fight in close combat, but worse than basically any squad in the game that is remotely geared toward CC.
You see that, though? You just had to compare it to three different units to make that statement. That's what versatility is about. It can't do krak grenades as cheaply as guard, but they do everything else better than guard. They don't score as cheaply as termagaunts, but they do everything else better. They don't shoot bolters as well, but do everything else better.
That's what you're missing. Other troops choices do one thing very well and everything else poorly. Space marines do everything regularly well.
Whatever your problem, a tac squad has a solution. That's really not true for most other infantry squads, much less most other troops choices.
An ineffectual solution that they never get to use. But hey, they paid the points for it!
Tactical marines are pretty sweet. Certainly not the best unit in the codex, but damn tasty nevertheless. (And certainly the best troop choice, in my opinion.) They are extremely versatile, while at the same time not sucking in whatever role you put them in. They can't handle any specific primary role all on their own, but they can support your heavy-hitters (either at range, in melee, against infantry, or against vehicles) well enough to pick up any slack from bad dice rolls or just general over-extension. They work best when used against your opponent's weak points (up close against Tau, at range against Orks).
A few people seem to want 'generalist' to mean 'great at everything,' and decry the unit as worthless when it can't live up to that impossible standard. The advantage of the generalist is that while it might be average at everything, specialists will always suck at one thing, which is where the generalist can attack them. So should tac marines be used.
Just curious. Do you play marines vs Eldar and Tau? Tac marines don't seem to "sweet" to me. I want to be able to sell back a lot of worthless tac gear and make my guys cheaper. I need cheaper guys because at least 50% of them die before they can do pretty much anything.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:Yeah, they can krak a vehicle... but a 60pt IG chaff squad can lay down just as many krak grenades in to a vehicle. They score. So does a 40pt Termagant squad. The can shoot with bolters, but less effectively than the significantly cheaper Tau. They can fight in close combat, but worse than basically any squad in the game that is remotely geared toward CC.
You see that, though? You just had to compare it to three different units to make that statement. That's what versatility is about. It can't do krak grenades as cheaply as guard, but they do everything else better than guard. They don't score as cheaply as termagaunts, but they do everything else better. They don't shoot bolters as well, but do everything else better.
That's what you're missing. Other troops choices do one thing very well and everything else poorly. Space marines do everything regularly well.
Whatever your problem, a tac squad has a solution. That's really not true for most other infantry squads, much less most other troops choices.
...yes, what you are calling a strength I am calling a weakness. Being able to do everything AND paying the points for being able to do everything is not an advantage. The IG squad can lay down as many Krak's at half the price... leaving you to spend points on the rest of the army to fill the other roles. The Termagants are scoring the same way the Marines are scoring, but at a fraction the cost so you can take other units that can kill even better and/or take vastly more units of Termagants so you can spread your scoring further. The Tau outshoot marines for a lower price, meaning you can take a crap ton more of them.
It means Marines get out special-weaponed by guard, they get well and truly out-gunned by anything that shoots, they get comprehensively out CC'd by anything that fights.
Having multiple units that fulfill individual roles at a lower cost means you can take more bodies in more dedicated roles and each casualty is less of an impact to the overall army.
At least that's how I feel, I don't play standard Space Marines, I play SW, by comparison, GH I think are much more viable to take in number than Tac marines because they pay only 1pt more for a lot more utility, thus actually fulfilling the all-rounder roll much more efficiently.
I agree. It's not a strength. It's a weakness. I think being a generalist in 6th ed is a death sentence.
Ailaros wrote:
You see that, though? You just had to compare it to three different units to make that statement. That's what versatility is about. It can't do krak grenades as cheaply as guard, but they do everything else better than guard. They don't score as cheaply as termagaunts, but they do everything else better. They don't shoot bolters as well, but do everything else better.
That's what you're missing. Other troops choices do one thing very well and everything else poorly. Space marines do everything regularly well.
Whatever your problem, a tac squad has a solution. That's really not true for most other infantry squads, much less most other troops choices.
I don't normally see eye to eye with Ailaros, but this explains it all really.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:...yes, what you are calling a strength I am calling a weakness. Being able to do everything AND paying the points for being able to do everything is not an advantage. The IG squad can lay down as many Krak's at half the price... leaving you to spend points on the rest of the army to fill the other roles.
Usually more of that same squad because when you need them the first one you bought will be dead, and the second will be pinned. Also if there's nothing particularly useful to do with Krak grenades the IG squad ends up doing nothing.
The Termagants are scoring the same way the Marines are scoring, but at a fraction the cost so you can take other units that can kill even better and/or take vastly more units of Termagants so you can spread your scoring further.
They also die at a much higher rate and individually lack the killing power of a Marine. With Combat Squads, marines can get as many if not more scoring units on the table as anyone else except the Imperial Guard.
The Tau outshoot marines for a lower price, meaning you can take a crap ton more of them.
Yes, they outshoot the marines. They also die significantly easier than the marines and are of negligible use against vehicles, unlike the Marine squad which can take anti-tank guns and comes equipped with anti-tank grenades at a lower marginal cost than the Fire Warrior can take them. The Fire Warriors also can only present a threat to an enemy from one vector, the Shooting phase, but remains highly vulnerable to morale, close combat, and enemy shooting, while your own Marines are much more resilient in each area and can present a threat in both the Shooting and Assault phases of the game.
It means Marines get out special-weaponed by guard, they get well and truly out-gunned by anything that shoots, they get comprehensively out CC'd by anything that fights.
And they can outfight the Guard and anything that shoots, and outshoot anything that fights. The marines can usually adapt much easier to a wider array of opponents than their foes can, and usually have a greater chance of recovery from a bad turn.
Having multiple units that fulfill individual roles at a lower cost means you can take more bodies in more dedicated roles and each casualty is less of an impact to the overall army.
In some cases this is true, however it's not always true, and by having squads that can do a little of everything you can always apply pressure no matter the circumstances while those other, cheaper, more specialized units often sit idle or dead.
Martel732 wrote:
An ineffectual solution that they never get to use. But hey, they paid the points for it!
Successful marine armies have always had to utilize those diverse capabilities to win, there's nothing wrong with the units themselves with regards to that. I regularly see MEQ units outshooting what they can't outfight and outfighting what they can't outshoot. The biggest problem to my eyes isn't the tac's themselves, but that their delivery systems one-dimensionally favor only the Shooting phase, meaning it's more difficult than it should be to make use of their Assault capabilities. To me this issue rests largely with the changes to the assault, transport, and vehicle rules changes in this edition.
". To me this issue rests largely with the changes to the assault, transport, and vehicle rules changes in this edition. "
Yes. Those changes make them suck. Other lists can blast them off the table and they can't use their assault "advantage" very often at all. This makes them suck. I understand what they are SUPPOSED to do, but the mechanics of the game don't usually allow for this. Making them suck. We are prevented from using these diverse capabilities after being scatter lasered to death.
Versatility has been rendered moot by the all-powerful shooting phase in 6th ed.
And, yes, marine tanks being awful doesn't help either.
They're bad because they're just too expensive, all things considered. Including the consideration of how weapons have gotten cheaper and deadlier. I find that they suck out loud in combat. I watched one tactical marine fight one tau fire warrior in melee from turn 2 to the game end just a couple weeks ago. Unlike guns, where each little step of skill or strength affects the dice rolls required, the weapon skill chart is...well...dumb. A marine may shoot twice as good as an ork, because his stat is double, but he only melees 17% better than a fire warrior, who his stat ALSO doubles. And the fire warrior hits back at a 4+ whether he's hitting another fire warrior, or a marine.
-They seriously, seriously, seriously, aren't the threat in melee that even an "all-rounder" should be for their cost. Maybe if they came with 2 base attacks, or the weapon skill chart was made less "let's give the low WS shooting guys a good chance in melee just to make it more lulzy" then maybe I'd respect them more.
-Dying in droves hurts marines more than any other army. If an IA blast knocks 3 marines off the table, and another knocks 6 orks off the table, the orks still lost quite a few less points. 30 to 42 in fact. They could have lost 2 more boyz and come out even.
-Ignoring their armor hurts more than ALMOST any other army. Such a huge part of their cost is in the power armor. And when it gets ignored, they just drop like an ork boy. A very expensive ork boy.
-Ignoring their T4 hurts more than most other armies. Guns have gotten, lets be honest, out of hand. S6-8 is everywhere and a half, and it all wounds marines just as easily as gretchin. This causes a squad of 10 marines to drop just through the sheer number of saves. I once suggested a fix to this by adding a rule to all astartes, including the chaos ones, where they could not be wounded on less than a 3, mainly due to all their genetic superhuman improvements. Our group plays with that rule regularly, and have found that, while on average it only stops about 3-6 wounds per game, it gives the much much more expensive marines a bit better foothold in survival than gretchin, guardsmen, and ratlings. Even the non-marine players like it. I'm still of the opinion that people wouldn't even blink at it if GW had already put it in in an older edition. If you want to hear more, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/581997.page is the thread.
-The old football saying "offense wins games, defense wins tournaments" does NOT apply in 40k. Every score you make in football does effectively nothing to influence the rest of the game (morale not withstanding.) Every kill you make in 40k reduces the amount of attacks you have to receive for the entire rest of the game though. Marines don't kill things. They were made to be able to take punishment, and the punishments have grown more severe. Now they can't take it, and they can't kill the enemies fast enough to stop the punishment. As was said above, the underlying goal of the game, as well as almost any strategy game, is to remove options from the opposition. Any tool you have that doesn't help towards that goal is of negligible use.
-Rhinos suck. Even when I see spam rhinos or razorbacks, they're up in flames SOOOO fast my head spins. Either that or they're just stunned or immobilized right in the spot where they deployed. This is somewhat related to the ever-rising amount of s6-8 shooting for lower and lower prices. So tac marines are walking everywhere unless you for some reason decide to shell out for a land raider or storm raven for one.
-Shooting rules, assault drools. The tac marines are paying for a slight bit of assault ability. (Part of which entails the almost-pointless weaponskill stat.) But they are typically only found in two states in the games I see: Shooting, or dead. Only rarely do I see one or two lucky men make it to assault, where...well...they just aren't as good as they're cracked up to be. See the first paragraph for example.
There is a reason I play Blood Angels over other marines. I can't stand taking tactical squads when I could have an ASM squad with two meltas actually go accomplish something, or at least be somewhat threatening to my opponent. Any time I play against other marines, I just focus everyone against their optional guys who CAN do things, and then go mop up tactical squads last. I haven't lost to a marine army in a loooooong time. Like...before 6th edition came out. Granted, I haven't played against the grav-star with my BA, so there's one high tier list that would probably bite into me. But your typical "here's some heavies, some elites, an HQ, and a couple tac squads" lists? I eat them the same way every time. Toppings then boring crust.
Whenever I want to run typical codex marines, I just take two bare bones 5 man scout teams and reserve them for objectives. The rest is all guys meant for actually fighting the battle.
I'm guessing you don't play orks, because you either pay for your cover with a KFF or have to cram into limited space (which means you have to take a unit too small to be useful and make yourself vulnerable to blasts). Wouldn't really say that 18" Assault 2 is any better than 24" rapid fire. The fearless isn't too helpful either, since it only lasts until you take serious casualties.
I played a game today where we rolled a 1 for terrain density for EVERY 2x2 square. During the first two turns, EVERY UNIT in both armies had cover against the entire enemy army. You get to place half the terrain. That means its half your fault if your orks can't find cover.
Forcing the enemy to finish off every single model is worth something.
Or he could just wait until he's out of other good targets to throw the last few shots and finish them off. If its down to a couple tac marines, they're now a .01 on the threat scale. Just work on the other stuff and come back to them.
Marines can take twice their number in orks easily if they get the charge, more if they have a flamer. Yeah, orks are cheap, but marines are at least twice as good as them at pretty much everything.
I have never ever ever seen a group of tactical marines win out against double their number in orks in an assault, even including the bolt pistols before-hand. The flamer is making things a little farfetched, as any ork player I know would bring their squad formation up in such a way that the flamer guy would only net a couple possible wounds, so that argument would imply that the ork player is just not moving tactically. Even shoota boyz get 2 attacks base, plus the literal always-there nob with klaw and pole. Even my furious charging BA assault squads are a little nervous going into the middle of twice their number of orks.
Marines are not twice as good at everything. They're worse at melee than shoota boyz are. They're going to get absolutely stomped by choppa slugga boyz. 6 times the attacks is way more than enough to make up for the fact that the orks aren't furious charging. Orks are also better at sucking up damage and not caring, since they just have more wounds on the table. Green tide is surprisingly effective when everyone else keeps bringing grav guns and such to take out riptides and knights.
I'm actually wondering how you should point cost Tactical Marine squads now. It's kind of bothering me. I'm not a game designer, but I enjoy trying to puzzle out mechanics and create interesting ones, so it's a subject that has captured my interest.
I guess you have to cost models based on the best thing they can do, then add a very small additional cost if they can do something else as well. I think GW is applying an "additive capability" mindset to their costing where the ability to do multiple things adequately is costed like the sum of all their abilities.
This would make a lot more sense. The tac marines can't use all their skills at once. If they're firing guns, they aren't in melee. If they're in melee, they aren't firing guns. They are literally less than the sum of their parts. I agree with your logic here, and immediately recognize you as a better game designer than the GW staff, if for no other reason than you actually like thinking about it instead of just writing something down to get it out the door.
It's fun but all that whining and desperation about tactical marines strengthens them. Everyyone starts believing that they're actually bad. Which is obviously not true. They're not overpowered but by no means bad. They're somewhere around fairly decent.
I've played a ravenguard list with 3-4 full squads of marines in rhinos and they worked good. When marines are backed up with drop-pod ironclads, sternguards, gravcents or some other good support units, they shine.
People just want to point, click and erase any target at will and not get killed in return. Tactical marines are just not working like this. You just need to use your brain a bit unlike in serpentspams, fmc spams, triptides and stuff alike.
No, I want troops that have an effect on the game remotely proportional to their high cost.
" Any time I play against other marines, I just focus everyone against their optional guys who CAN do things, and then go mop up tactical squads last. I haven't lost to a marine army in a loooooong time. Like...before 6th edition came out. Granted, I haven't played against the grav-star with my BA, so there's one high tier list that would probably bite into me. But your typical "here's some heavies, some elites, an HQ, and a couple tac squads" lists? I eat them the same way every time. Toppings then boring crust. "
This is how I pound other marine armies with my BA and counts-as Iron Hands. Been using a lot of sniper scouts with IH.
" But your typical "here's some heavies, some elites, an HQ, and a couple tac squads"
This part in particular stands out. This is a horrible way to build a marine list, and yet I see it ALL THE TIME on the army list section. Even BA kind of snicker at this.
" Which is obviously not true"
Actually, it pretty much is. So much for your "obviously".
"When marines are backed up with drop-pod ironclads, sternguards, gravcents or some other good support units, they shine. "
Except that tac marines still suck and those other units are all doing all the work. They are dead weight. Meq lists can't afford dead weight and against tier 1 lists.
" You just need to use your brain "
And if those other generals using those lists uses their brains as well? Then we are back to list building dominating. And marines without a gravstar lose that BECAUSE THEIR TROOPS ARE HORRIBLE.
It means Marines get out special-weaponed by guard, they get well and truly out-gunned by anything that shoots, they get comprehensively out CC'd by anything that fights.
And they can outfight the Guard and anything that shoots, and outshoot anything that fights.
What? Not without some dice-love they can't. A charging guard squad would annihilate their own point-cost in tac marines. And they can't dish out enough damage to stop "anything that fights" from getting in their face...and then removing their face.
Having multiple units that fulfill individual roles at a lower cost means you can take more bodies in more dedicated roles and each casualty is less of an impact to the overall army.
In some cases this is true, however it's not always true, and by having squads that can do a little of everything you can always apply pressure no matter the circumstances while those other, cheaper, more specialized units often sit idle or dead.
In terms of 40k, the only time a unit can literally do nothing is if they are non-scoring, and their only target is a vehicle or creature with sufficiently high armor/toughness. Even little squads of termagants with the twin-linked s3 guns can find something to do if you aren't completely high when you deploy them.
I regularly see MEQ units outshooting what they can't outfight and outfighting what they can't outshoot.
I do NOT regularly see this. I see them shoot barely better than the worst shooters, and fight barely better than the worst fighters. The slightest tip in the wrong direction of the dice, and they lose. I've lost a 3 on 5 melee with white scars charging into fire warriors before.
The biggest problem to my eyes isn't the tac's themselves, but that their delivery systems one-dimensionally favor only the Shooting phase, meaning it's more difficult than it should be to make use of their Assault capabilities. To me this issue rests largely with the changes to the assault, transport, and vehicle rules changes in this edition.
That IS a major problem, yes. Vehicles made of paper that you can't assault from even if it does somehow live. Heck, you can't even assault if it dies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
koooaei wrote: It's fun but all that whining and desperation about tactical marines strengthens them. Everyyone starts believing that they're actually bad. Which is obviously not true. They're not overpowered but by no means bad. They're somewhere around fairly decent.
And I think that it's obvious that they ARE bad. They're not so bad that you instantly lose when you deploy a squad of them, but I definitely wouldn't want more of my army points eaten up by them than I had to have eaten.
I've played a ravenguard list with 3-4 full squads of marines in rhinos and they worked good. When marines are backed up with drop-pod ironclads, sternguards, gravcents or some other good support units, they shine.
That sounds like the squads of marines are just kind of cheering and throwing some random shots while all the important damage came from the good support units. Almost any troop unit in any army in the game could have waltzed in and been effective at that point. And usually for cheaper. And they probably could've helped more than the marines.
People just want to point, click and erase any target at will and not get killed in return. Tactical marines are just not working like this. You just need to use your brain a bit unlike in serpentspams, fmc spams, triptides and stuff alike.
Or GW isn't perfect, and they aren't correctly priced? Is that not a possibility to you? You think GW has them nailed down perfectly?
As said above, the game has shifted to being hyper-offensive. Defense is weak. Instead of 7-6 games where a team won with the bonus kick, we (at least in my group) now see 42-14 blowouts all over the place. Only a couple games in the last 50 easily that I've played in or seen have even been close enough at the end to count up VP's. Most of them are just tabling or near-tabling of one force.
I don't see how "using my brain" suddenly makes a below-mediocre unit not below-mediocre. Unless maybe you mean I should like...use telekinesis to cheat when my opponent isn't looking.
It means Marines get out special-weaponed by guard, they get well and truly out-gunned by anything that shoots, they get comprehensively out CC'd by anything that fights.
And they can outfight the Guard and anything that shoots, and outshoot anything that fights.
What? Not without some dice-love they can't. A charging guard squad would annihilate their own point-cost in tac marines.
If you *get* charged by IG like that (and you've probably done something bad to get into that spot), assuming 3 naked infantry squad units (150pts) units and barring huge investments in power weapons and commissars (making the unit worth a whole lot more than that tac squad) the two should be fairly even, with an edge to the marines (10man tac, 150pts). If the guardsmen never break, they'll eventually grind down and kill the marine unit after 4 or 5 rounds of combat, but they'll be losing combat by 1-2 each round and having to test each time and risk breaking and getting swept.
And they can't dish out enough damage to stop "anything that fights" from getting in their face...and then removing their face.
You'll find even this is true even for the shootiest of troops, but generally, if an equal number of points of enemy killy are dumped on them, they can deal with it at least as well as other armies. I'd certainly take a Tac squad having to deal with a unit of Genestealers than an IG Vet squad.
In terms of 40k, the only time a unit can literally do nothing is if they are non-scoring, and their only target is a vehicle or creature with sufficiently high armor/toughness. Even little squads of termagants with the twin-linked s3 guns can find something to do if you aren't completely high when you deploy them.
Nothing may be in that table quarter for that krak grenade squad to engage, but the tac squads missile launcher may have range to something for example. The Grenade squad isn't going to be able to counter an outflanking unit, counterattack to retake a position, or do anything but shoot krak grenades at stuff. It can't pack a heavy weapon for long range, and it's not packing much heat for overwatch and it's damn sure not gonna hold a position against even depleted enemy units.
I do NOT regularly see this. I see them shoot barely better than the worst shooters, and fight barely better than the worst fighters. The slightest tip in the wrong direction of the dice, and they lose. I've lost a 3 on 5 melee with white scars charging into fire warriors before.
And I've lost Terminators to grots. Actually just today, I had my Rapier Laser Destroyer gun crew of 3 dudes fight off and sweep an enemy Necron Lord. Just because these ridiculous things happen doesn't mean they're good judges of the value of the unit. Typically, on average, 3 Space Marines will crush 5 firewarriors in close combat. I'm just not going to buy that they're so weak that Tau Firewarriors are a realistically worthy CC opponent that they only beat out with straight average dice. They can have the dice go pretty lame and still end up on top in that situation, 3 tac marines should outkill 5 firewarriors 2.44-1 in close combat, and that's not taking into account the fact that the marines strike first.
Or they could revamp the army as a small, elite strike force like they are meant to be.
problem is they're supposed to be,but for a varity of reasons Marines are the "base line" this won't ever change given the number of SM players, and space Marine codexes out there. even if we generlously assume equal numbers of players play each codex, you're still looking at a scenerio where over half the player base plays "guys with toughness 4, 3+ armor saves and uses boltguns on their troops" and THAT is why Space Marines might seem "not as great as they could be" not because they actually suck, but because people tend to plan around them when they craft their TAC lists.
It also means of course that GW is going to, essentially design all armies with space Marines in mind, so few if any armies are going to not have something that can handle the SMs "useal tricks"
Agree.
Once upon a time - a long time ago, in fact - the common guardsman with his flashligt was the base-stat of the game. Marines were way more expensive because they were, in every way imaginable, better that this base-stat.
Now, sadly, the Marines has, for all intents and purposes, become the base-stat of the game. Everyone tailors their lists to deal with 3+ armour. And, to make it worse, there's now an awful lot of weapons out there that has either high strength or low AP.
And let's not forget the effect of changing to an all-or-nothing save. With save modifiers Power Armour was tough as they would get a save against most things, bar the heaviest of weapons. But now there're plenty of weapons that will defeat their armour completely and they never really got a points adjustment to counter that.
In a sense, this is a logical outcome of Games Workshops insane drive to make this a mass-combat game. In second edition an Imperial Guard army might have one or two Russ' and a couple of Plasmaguns. Now Russ' are fielded in squadrons and Plasmaguns are nowhere near as rare as their fluff would suggest. The numbers have turned against Marines who now encounter so many "marine killers" that it's starting to hurt.
A Tactical Squad ought to be the premium all-round unit in the game. They're a basic unit, yes, but every other army needs either a specialist close combat unit to outfight them or a specialist ranged unit to outshoot them. Once parked on an objective they ought to be extremely tough to remove again as you need specialist units to do so. But now we see so many units on the table that seemingly every army has the tools to deal with Tactical Marines.
"You'll find even this is true even for the shootiest of troops, but generally, if an equal number of points of enemy killy are dumped on them, they can deal with it at least as well as other armies. I'd certainly take a Tac squad having to deal with a unit of Genestealers than an IG Vet squad. '
I wouldn't you lose less with the IG squad. They both die.
Psienesis wrote: Not saying that the Tac-Marine should be an auto-win, but if you wanted to keep it fluff-friendly, but also fairly balanced, 10 Marines should (again with proper tactics and deployment...i.e., not playing like a moron) be able to handle 10 other line-troops of any army.
Vaktathi wrote: If you *get* charged by IG like that (and you've probably done something bad to get into that spot), assuming 3 naked infantry squad units (150pts) units and barring huge investments in power weapons and commissars (making the unit worth a whole lot more than that tac squad) the two should be fairly even, with an edge to the marines (10man tac, 150pts). If the guardsmen never break, they'll eventually grind down and kill the marine unit after 4 or 5 rounds of combat, but they'll be losing combat by 1-2 each round and having to test each time and risk breaking and getting swept.
Nay sir, not according to math they aren't. 3 naked infantry squads on the charge, would beat the 10 tac marines by about 2 wounds. After the damage from that initial round, the guard are doing slightly more damage to the marines each round (by about 1/5 of a wound.) If the dice stay with the odds, the marines will either retreat or die after about 2.5 turns total of combat, while only taking out 8ish guard. Even if we assume that neither side got a charge bonus and they're fighting evenly, the marines only have an edge of less than 1 wound. If they just had 1 higher base attack, or the WS chart actually did something to people attacking against higher weapon skill, this math would all change to favor the marines.
Never mind that they'd probably ACTUALLY just stop and rapid fire lasguns instead, just so they could overwatch when the marines charge, or god help the marines, use an order. The only reason these infantry squads are entertaining the thought of melee is for this experiment, which shows us that tactical marines are bad enough at melee that equal points worth of some of the most hopeless fighters in the game beat them by odds if they get to charge. I would think that, for a unit that's supposed to be "somewhat good" at melee, that they would be able to at least take on their point cost in unequipped guard infantry when charged.
Additionally, plenty of guard players I know give the platoon commander, at least, a powerfist, and hand out squad sarges to eat challenges while the commander swings with the fist with impunity. I don't have the new AM codex, but in the old one, a platoon command squad and two infantry squads combined is 145 including the fist. With him crushing an average of a marine a turn by himself, that fight is going to turn ugly for the marines.
And they can't dish out enough damage to stop "anything that fights" from getting in their face...and then removing their face.
You'll find even this is true even for the shootiest of troops, but generally, if an equal number of points of enemy killy are dumped on them, they can deal with it at least as well as other armies. I'd certainly take a Tac squad having to deal with a unit of Genestealers than an IG Vet squad.
There are a few things that anyone with a gun, even a lasgun, can stop. Genestealers are one of them. If you get to shoot at them at all outside cover, they die. Don't see many of them on the table nowadays. Sad, because they were my favorite nid troop choice in 3rd.
I should have said "anything that fights that people actually run nowadays." 150 points of ork boyz that for some reason left their nob at home, assuming they ignore shooting and just move and run, and don't risk the first possible long assault, opting for the sure thing in the next turn, end up finally striking with 9 boys, killing 3 marines and winning the first combat by 1, after which the two sides whittle each other down until about 2 boyz remain, never having had to take a leadership, and the marines are dead. Note that it would be more advantageous for the mob to be smaller and include a PK nob. They would get into melee with under 10, and actually have to take one LD test before getting there, but the nob would then proceed to rip and tear.
If they tried to do this to 150 points of fire warriors, dark eldar warriors, the IG lasgunners from above, dire avengers, or sisters, they would most likely not make it to melee. The only shooting troop squads I can find with a quick look that they could realistically hope to challenge from full range without backup are tactical marines, chaos tactical marines, and necron warriors.
(fyi sorry if it seems like I reply slow. I open up army builder and calculator for all these hypotheticals. I'm science-y that way.
In terms of 40k, the only time a unit can literally do nothing is if they are non-scoring, and their only target is a vehicle or creature with sufficiently high armor/toughness. Even little squads of termagants with the twin-linked s3 guns can find something to do if you aren't completely high when you deploy them.
Nothing may be in that table quarter for that krak grenade squad to engage, but the tac squads missile launcher may have range to something for example. The Grenade squad isn't going to be able to counter an outflanking unit, counterattack to retake a position, or do anything but shoot krak grenades at stuff. It can't pack a heavy weapon for long range, and it's not packing much heat for overwatch and it's damn sure not gonna hold a position against even depleted enemy units.
99% of "engaging" in 40k is just hitting a unit with a certain strength and AP value. The stronger the strength, the more it can affect. In that respect, a squad of grenadiers is more versatile than a bolter tac squad, while also being much, much cheaper. So much so, in fact, that the guard player could use the spare points elsewhere on the board. Even putting them right next to the grenadier squad to fill in whatever role you think they lack. Say...a heavy weapons team of 3 missile launchers to trump your tactical squad's 1. And he STILL has spent less points than the tac squad, because, as we've been saying, they just cost too damn much.
niv-mizzet wrote: That sounds like the squads of marines are just kind of cheering and throwing some random shots while all the important damage came from the good support units. Almost any troop unit in any army in the game could have waltzed in and been effective at that point. And usually for cheaper. And they probably could've helped more than the marines.
For example, in my last game vs ig marines killed off 2 chimeras and vet squads, wrecked a basilisk, killed some guards and in the end scored 3 points even though only 12 out of 30 survived. But combat squading and ATSKNF helped alot. Probably ravenguard ct is the best for rhino rush out there though.
All in all, i'd not say they did nothing. Versatility helped them to deal with both vehicles and troops. Yep, they'd have no chance vs MC but that's what gravcents and sternguard are for.
I don't claim tacticals performance is amazing and they steamroll anything. They just do good enough to pull a win and are way more interesting to play with or against rather than bikespam for my liking.
Just saying, looking at the Adepticon top 16 there's 5 armies containing either Vanilla Marines or CSM (I'm not counting the one Space Wolves dude because Grey Hunters are much better than both CSM and Tactical Squads). Counting all the Tactical Marines and CSM squads, the grand total is 5 MODELS. One of the lists had 5 Tactical Marines with a Missile Launcher. Out of 5 MEQ Codices, one dude decided to bring the minimum number of Marines you can take while still taking them.
I guess that has to mean that they're just bad players that can't make Tactical Marines work...
niv-mizzet wrote: That sounds like the squads of marines are just kind of cheering and throwing some random shots while all the important damage came from the good support units. Almost any troop unit in any army in the game could have waltzed in and been effective at that point. And usually for cheaper. And they probably could've helped more than the marines.
For example, in my last game vs ig marines killed off 2 chimeras and vet squads, wrecked a basilisk, killed some guards and in the end scored 3 points even though only 12 out of 30 survived. But combat squading and ATSKNF helped alot. Probably ravenguard ct is the best for rhino rush out there though.
All in all, i'd not say they did nothing. Versatility helped them to deal with both vehicles and troops. Yep, they'd have no chance vs MC but that's what gravcents and sternguard are for.
I don't claim tacticals performance is amazing and they steamroll anything. They just do good enough to pull a win and are way more interesting to play with or against rather than bikespam for my liking.
Yeah, no one's saying that tacticals are totally useless. A 1/1 token creature in magic can win a game if it's in the right place at the right time. Just that for the points of those 30 marines, another non-marine army could've done more damage than they did. 35 Wyches with haywire grenades, taken as small seperate units would cost a little less than the same, and could've come in a bunch of cheap venoms, or fleet-running, for example. (ignoring that that breaks the FOC.) The chimeras and basilisk would have been one rounded without blowing up, so no wyches die there, and the guards on foot would easily get caught and slaughtered. Admittedly they'd lose some bodies from those vets in the following shooting phase, but that's at most two sets of 5 wyches, assuming the vets weren't pinned coming out of the chimeras. The remaining 25 could then split up to slaughter both units of vets, claim the objective nearby and have 2 other sets of 5 wyches spare to do whatever they want, like assist on the vets just to make sure, or go after other targets nearby. Not only this, but they could suddenly turn around and handle a tyranid MC with their poison pistols if they wanted to, or take on thunderhammer terminators in melee. (Wyches love fighting guys with low numbers of strong attacks.)
And of course, 35 wyches in some venoms, aside from not fitting in one FOC, isn't even considered good. That's just the first example I could think of where a single unit choice, brought up to the same point value as tac marines, could accomplish everything they did and more.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just saying, looking at the Adepticon top 16 there's 5 armies containing either Vanilla Marines or CSM (I'm not counting the one Space Wolves dude because Grey Hunters are much better than both CSM and Tactical Squads). Counting all the Tactical Marines and CSM squads, the grand total is 5 MODELS. One of the lists had 5 Tactical Marines with a Missile Launcher. Out of 5 MEQ Codices, one dude decided to bring the minimum number of Marines you can take while still taking them.
I guess that has to mean that they're just bad players that can't make Tactical Marines work...
Janthkin wrote: I had to clean a lot of garbage out of this thread. If I have to do it again, Bad Things will happen to the people involved.
praise be the emporer, he has sent his mailed fist!
Anyway I think the issue here is that as of 6th edition, things have gotten up in scale. I used to play in 4th and I knew people who played 3rd. Back in 4th the bread and butter of high point armies were your meq's, tanks, elites and hq's; in 5th you shaved off meq's and tanks. In 6th now: don't go f!cking anywhere without a flyer and a aaa battery, don't even think about a 2000pts game unless you have a solution to killing baneblade eq's and knights.
Fact is the scale of warfare has grown exponentially and now troops choices are becoming irrelevant for all armies. If you go out and ask any tournament player what foc slot could get lopped off tomorrow and he wouldn't lose sleep over it. It's the troops slot. It just doesn't matter anymore. They are a means to an end in competitive play. And with all the ap2, ignores cover, strength d, 2++ rerollable shenanigans, damage sponge tarpit bs going around its no wonder.
And they really are a means to an end. If an eldar player could take a wave serpent without taking his avengers, he would. And if the tau player could just designate targets to get markerlights he wouldn't take pathfinders, if a chaos player didn't need to take horrors (or whatever their filler unit is in flying circuses is) they wouldn't. The arms race has accelerated to the point where almost every infantry unit that isn't an elite slot or an hq simply doesn't matter anymore.
Tanks are quickly going this way too and one day when gw has shoehorned apocalypse into the rulebook they will be. And then the great debate will occur as to wether it's meaningful to even have them anyway.
Just you watch, in two codex revisions, it's going to be "don't go anywhere without strength d!" and "take at least two flyers or your screwed".
Its all coming to a head and tbh. If I was in gw's shoes I would consider radically rethinking their rulebook for 7th edition. Or saying f!ck it and making apocalypse the only game mode. Your going to get their one day; why drag it out ans make us all angrier at you.
Tourney warhammer is another world. If you're going competitive, you don't want 'decent' units. You want the best you can get to outcheeze the cheeze. That's the exact approach that eliminates definition - 'decent' from the candidates to-be-included in a list. It just leaves 'best' and 'not worth taking'.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just saying, looking at the Adepticon top 16 there's 5 armies containing either Vanilla Marines or CSM (I'm not counting the one Space Wolves dude because Grey Hunters are much better than both CSM and Tactical Squads). Counting all the Tactical Marines and CSM squads, the grand total is 5 MODELS. One of the lists had 5 Tactical Marines with a Missile Launcher. Out of 5 MEQ Codices, one dude decided to bring the minimum number of Marines you can take while still taking them.
I guess that has to mean that they're just bad players that can't make Tactical Marines work...
I don't think tacticals are that great but I'd argue that it also might not be that the troops in and of themself are bad in comparison to other troops but it might be in combination with nerfs to transports and specific devestating units (waverserpent, heldrake, and riptide come to mind). As per CSM, that's not really surprising. They are basically worse than SM in almost every way besides being able to field 2 plasma weapons in a squad of 10+.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just saying, looking at the Adepticon top 16 there's 5 armies containing either Vanilla Marines or CSM (I'm not counting the one Space Wolves dude because Grey Hunters are much better than both CSM and Tactical Squads). Counting all the Tactical Marines and CSM squads, the grand total is 5 MODELS. One of the lists had 5 Tactical Marines with a Missile Launcher. Out of 5 MEQ Codices, one dude decided to bring the minimum number of Marines you can take while still taking them.
I guess that has to mean that they're just bad players that can't make Tactical Marines work...
I don't think tacticals are that great but I'd argue that it also might not be that the troops in and of themself are bad in comparison to other troops but it might be in combination with nerfs to transports and specific devestating units (waverserpent, heldrake, and riptide come to mind). As per CSM, that's not really surprising. They are basically worse than SM in almost every way besides being able to field 2 plasma weapons in a squad of 10+.
Wait, so it's not the Tacticals being bad, it's everything else MAKING them bad? How is that not Tacticals being bad?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just saying, looking at the Adepticon top 16 there's 5 armies containing either Vanilla Marines or CSM (I'm not counting the one Space Wolves dude because Grey Hunters are much better than both CSM and Tactical Squads). Counting all the Tactical Marines and CSM squads, the grand total is 5 MODELS. One of the lists had 5 Tactical Marines with a Missile Launcher. Out of 5 MEQ Codices, one dude decided to bring the minimum number of Marines you can take while still taking them.
I guess that has to mean that they're just bad players that can't make Tactical Marines work...
I don't think tacticals are that great but I'd argue that it also might not be that the troops in and of themself are bad in comparison to other troops but it might be in combination with nerfs to transports and specific devestating units (waverserpent, heldrake, and riptide come to mind). As per CSM, that's not really surprising. They are basically worse than SM in almost every way besides being able to field 2 plasma weapons in a squad of 10+.
Wait, so it's not the Tacticals being bad, it's everything else MAKING them bad? How is that not Tacticals being bad?
I meant more in comparison to other troops and a problem of their own vehicle (rhino) being trash. That said, I never implied tacticals were all that great. I'm really not quite sure myself, but I personally lean them to a bit below decent level. Well, technically I use tactical marines as the unit to compare all other units to in terms of troops so they always become the decent unit in the end where others are above or below them but that's a different story.
Also Scouts. As AlmightyWalrus said, in Adepticon a pair of SM players made it into the top 16, and both used minimized Scouts as troops. There was a single tactical squad too. And cultists for CSM, of course.
Has someone pointed out, terrible firepower, hilariously outclassed by Bikes, moot point of surviviability and the fact they're absurdly expensive for what you really get out of them yet?
In a nut-shell, the other faction's have been getting exponentially more deadly over the editions while tactical squads have more or less stayed the same.
This summarises it for me. As new codex's are made with new races and new units, the relevance of Tactical Marines continues to decrease. Back in 4th edition, a lot of the current hero units and lists never existed, Tactical Marines only had to compete against Eldar Guardians, Ork Boyz and Imperial Guardsmen and they did a superior job. I would imagine most marine armies ran with two full squads. The other races didn't have fancy rules or as big death star units. With 6th edition, it is just too easy to kill a squad of marines and actually marines in general.
A 4th edition marine army may have looked something like this (or at least where i played) and it did pretty well most of the time:
Captain or Chaplain (still relevant)
Two Tactical Squads (bare minimum or none)
One Terminator Squad (irrelevant)
One Assault Squad (irrelevant)
One Devastator Squad (still relevant)
Land speeder (irrelevant)
Dreadnought (irrelevant)
Predator (still relevant)
In a nut-shell, the other faction's have been getting exponentially more deadly over the editions while tactical squads have more or less stayed the same.
This summarises it for me. As new codex's are made with new races and new units, the relevance of Tactical Marines continues to decrease. Back in 4th edition, a lot of the current hero units and lists never existed, Tactical Marines only had to compete against Eldar Guardians, Ork Boyz and Imperial Guardsmen and they did a superior job. I would imagine most marine armies ran with two full squads. The other races didn't have fancy rules or as big death star units. With 6th edition, it is just too easy to kill a squad of marines and actually marines in general.
A 4th edition marine army may have looked something like this (or at least where i played) and it did pretty well most of the time:
Captain or Chaplain (still relevant)
Two Tactical Squads (bare minimum or none)
One Terminator Squad (irrelevant)
One Assault Squad (irrelevant)
One Devastator Squad (still relevant)
Land speeder (irrelevant)
Dreadnought (irrelevant)
Predator (still relevant)
4th Edition had Falcon-spam and Fish of Fury, so it wasn't like they were that good by the end of 4th.
I'm so glad I missed most of 4th. Tau and Eldar.. .ugh!
I might point out against S6/7 shooting, bikes have inferior durability per point compared to tac marines. Marines are taking it up the behind on every front.
In a nut-shell, the other faction's have been getting exponentially more deadly over the editions while tactical squads have more or less stayed the same.
This summarises it for me. As new codex's are made with new races and new units, the relevance of Tactical Marines continues to decrease. Back in 4th edition, a lot of the current hero units and lists never existed, Tactical Marines only had to compete against Eldar Guardians, Ork Boyz and Imperial Guardsmen and they did a superior job. I would imagine most marine armies ran with two full squads. The other races didn't have fancy rules or as big death star units. With 6th edition, it is just too easy to kill a squad of marines and actually marines in general.
A 4th edition marine army may have looked something like this (or at least where i played) and it did pretty well most of the time:
Captain or Chaplain (still relevant)
Two Tactical Squads (bare minimum or none)
One Terminator Squad (irrelevant)
One Assault Squad (irrelevant)
One Devastator Squad (still relevant)
Land speeder (irrelevant)
Dreadnought (irrelevant)
Predator (still relevant)
Librarian w/term armor, fury of the ancients, fear of the darkness
5x6 tac marine w/lascannon, plasma gun
8 Assault Marines w/pf sarge, two flamers, meltabombs
2x1 Land Speeder w/assault cannon
8 Dev Marines w/4 missile launcher
6 Dev Marines w/4 heavy bolter
The tacticals can no longer be equipped that way (though I could go BT and get a similar effect).
The term command squad no longer exists.
The librarian no longer has access to those powers.
Meanwhile with the 6th edition rules I can no longer rely on the assault marines or land speeders grabbing objectives, nor can I (completely) rely on terrain to protect flanks.
With new army lists too I have little to no defense against flyers, and I wouldn't like my chances against wave serpents, let alone AP 2 large templates that ignore cover.
Thinking about this did bring to mind that tac marines have indeed gotten nerfed since I started playing, 4th ed marines were probably the best of the modern age (post 2nd) due to the ability to take two specials, or heavy/special without needing a full 10 men, and the ability to have hidden power fists. 3rd was straight up weaker, while 5th and 6th took away double specials and put in a "10 man to have both toys" requirement, while challenges make equipping sergeants with any kind of close combat weapon very dubious.
That makes them bad, since we have to pay points for them.
Stealth suits aren't bad, and they are to expensive (ans squishier than SMs if it's not AP3-). They are still good, it's just that some other things are better (it happens). Just because something isn't the best does not make it bad. They are not amazing, but they are most certainly not bad.
No, they're bad because they are dead weight dragging down the rest of the list in an environment where meqs can't afford dead weight. There is too much fire from lists like yours coming in.
There are worse troops out there. Despite thinking that tacs aren't great, I like them. They're just overcosted because almost every army out there has units that can wipe them off the board like kid sneezing on a dandelion.
And...wait...did someone say 1Ksons were good? They're made to kill MEQ. They die to MEQ as easy as any other marine. Oh, and they cost as much as terminators. To say they're "situational" would still be generous.
Here's my well thought out argument against 1KSons.
Ailaros wrote:You see that, though? You just had to compare it to three different units to make that statement. That's what versatility is about. It can't do krak grenades as cheaply as guard, but they do everything else better than guard. They don't score as cheaply as termagaunts, but they do everything else better. They don't shoot bolters as well, but do everything else better.
...yes, what you are calling a strength I am calling a weakness.
So a unit can do one thing better than another. Does that make the other unit bad? Are dire avengers bad because they're not good against vehicles? Are firewarriors bad because there is something else in the game that's better in close combat?
Of course not. That's just silly. If it's not an uber god of death that beats everything else it's not worth it? Pish tosh.
And that's really the point. Tervigons score cheaper, firewarriors bolter better, and guard krak grenade more cheaply, but until you show me a single unit that does all three of them better than marines, then the fact that some things are better at certain things than others doesn't make tac marines bad.
"then the fact that some things are better at certain things than others doesn't make tac marines bad. "
Once you factor in cost, they are bad. Lists with troops that actually have an effective application can build the rest of the list to take advantage of that. Tacs do NOTHING well and therefore, add very little efficacy to the list. And cost a lot.
I think the real problem is that the tacs don't do any one thing well enough to impact the flow of game, and so they are dead weight in the list. They do not end up having an answer for everything, they end up having no answers at all because none of their answers mechanically work in the game. They are the missile launcher of troops.
Some information I think some of you will find interesting.
Just for fun I compiled a list of the average units statline based on the total points available in it and the units cost.
These numbers are based on total sum of the statline divided by point cost. (I added the chance of a successful save against a wound instead of the actual armor save number, so a +3 save added 4 to the sum total and a - adds 0 for example, special rules were ignored)
Chaos Cultist:--------------------6.25
Termagant Brood:---------------6.25
Gretchin:---------------------------6
Hormagaunt Brood:------------5.4
IG Infantryman:-------------------5.2
IG Veteran:------------------------4.5
Kroot:-------------------------------4.3
Ork Boyz:--------------------------4.3
Storm Guardians:---------------3.4444
Kabalite Warriors:--------------3.4444
Daemonette of Slaanesh:----3.3333
Bloodletters of Khorne:--------3.1
Wyches:----------------------------3.1
Space Marine Scout:-----------2.9
Plaguebearer:-------------------2.7777
Fire Warrior:-----------------------2.7777
Pink Horrors of Tzeentch:-----2.6
Ranger:----------------------------2.5833
Necron Warrior:------------------2.5384
Dire Avengers:-------------------2.5384
Space Marine:--------------------2.4285
Necron Immortal:----------------2
Nurglings:-------------------------2
Windrider Jetbike:---------------2
Ripper Swarm Brood:----------1.9230
3.4042 is the average number of "statpoints" in the statline per 1 point of the cost of a model. This isn't a complete list so I am sure that this number isn't 100% accurate, and I did not factor in units that can be used as troops outside of their regular force-org slots.
The average statline based on this falls between the Storm Guardians/Kabalite Warriors and Daemonettes of Slaanesh. For the statline of a space marine to get close to the average "point cost per statpoint" listed it would need to total out at ~47 points (+13 from what it is now), that would increase the statline to something like (Ws:5 Bs:5 S:5 T:5 W:3 I:5 A:3 Ld:10 Sv:3+) if you were not going to improve the armor save beyond a 3+. Keep in mind that the statline I just posted is what it would take to be close to but not above the average at it's current points cost.
The only issue I personally see with Space Marines as they are now is a low number of wounds for the cost of the unit, if they had 2 wounds per model I believe they would be quite good, even a borderline exceptional troops choice.
This is the same problem I have with terminators at the moment, the point costs are very high, and because they have a low wound and model count they are very squishy, even if you use T5 3++ DA termies, as they just don't have the ability to shrug off a small number of unsaved wounds without losing bodies.
I mean, it's sort of useless because it's missing some pretty important things like how Ap works (Sv5+ doesn't stop 1/3rd of the bullets, it stops 1/3rd of the bullets that it even gets to attempt to stop). It also ignores things like invul saves and the fact that terminators can deepstrike and bikes are really fast.
An interesting way of thinking about it nonetheless.
niv-mizzet wrote: They're bad because they're just too expensive, all things considered. Including the consideration of how weapons have gotten cheaper and deadlier. I find that they suck out loud in combat. I watched one tactical marine fight one tau fire warrior in melee from turn 2 to the game end just a couple weeks ago. Unlike guns, where each little step of skill or strength affects the dice rolls required, the weapon skill chart is...well...dumb. A marine may shoot twice as good as an ork, because his stat is double, but he only melees 17% better than a fire warrior, who his stat ALSO doubles. And the fire warrior hits back at a 4+ whether he's hitting another fire warrior, or a marine.
-They seriously, seriously, seriously, aren't the threat in melee that even an "all-rounder" should be for their cost. Maybe if they came with 2 base attacks, or the weapon skill chart was made less "let's give the low WS shooting guys a good chance in melee just to make it more lulzy" then maybe I'd respect them more.
-Dying in droves hurts marines more than any other army. If an IA blast knocks 3 marines off the table, and another knocks 6 orks off the table, the orks still lost quite a few less points. 30 to 42 in fact. They could have lost 2 more boyz and come out even.
-Ignoring their armor hurts more than ALMOST any other army. Such a huge part of their cost is in the power armor. And when it gets ignored, they just drop like an ork boy. A very expensive ork boy.
-Ignoring their T4 hurts more than most other armies. Guns have gotten, lets be honest, out of hand. S6-8 is everywhere and a half, and it all wounds marines just as easily as gretchin. This causes a squad of 10 marines to drop just through the sheer number of saves. I once suggested a fix to this by adding a rule to all astartes, including the chaos ones, where they could not be wounded on less than a 3, mainly due to all their genetic superhuman improvements. Our group plays with that rule regularly, and have found that, while on average it only stops about 3-6 wounds per game, it gives the much much more expensive marines a bit better foothold in survival than gretchin, guardsmen, and ratlings. Even the non-marine players like it. I'm still of the opinion that people wouldn't even blink at it if GW had already put it in in an older edition. If you want to hear more, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/581997.page is the thread.
-The old football saying "offense wins games, defense wins tournaments" does NOT apply in 40k. Every score you make in football does effectively nothing to influence the rest of the game (morale not withstanding.) Every kill you make in 40k reduces the amount of attacks you have to receive for the entire rest of the game though. Marines don't kill things. They were made to be able to take punishment, and the punishments have grown more severe. Now they can't take it, and they can't kill the enemies fast enough to stop the punishment. As was said above, the underlying goal of the game, as well as almost any strategy game, is to remove options from the opposition. Any tool you have that doesn't help towards that goal is of negligible use.
-Rhinos suck. Even when I see spam rhinos or razorbacks, they're up in flames SOOOO fast my head spins. Either that or they're just stunned or immobilized right in the spot where they deployed. This is somewhat related to the ever-rising amount of s6-8 shooting for lower and lower prices. So tac marines are walking everywhere unless you for some reason decide to shell out for a land raider or storm raven for one.
-Shooting rules, assault drools. The tac marines are paying for a slight bit of assault ability. (Part of which entails the almost-pointless weaponskill stat.) But they are typically only found in two states in the games I see: Shooting, or dead. Only rarely do I see one or two lucky men make it to assault, where...well...they just aren't as good as they're cracked up to be. See the first paragraph for example.
There is a reason I play Blood Angels over other marines. I can't stand taking tactical squads when I could have an ASM squad with two meltas actually go accomplish something, or at least be somewhat threatening to my opponent. Any time I play against other marines, I just focus everyone against their optional guys who CAN do things, and then go mop up tactical squads last. I haven't lost to a marine army in a loooooong time. Like...before 6th edition came out. Granted, I haven't played against the grav-star with my BA, so there's one high tier list that would probably bite into me. But your typical "here's some heavies, some elites, an HQ, and a couple tac squads" lists? I eat them the same way every time. Toppings then boring crust.
Whenever I want to run typical codex marines, I just take two bare bones 5 man scout teams and reserve them for objectives. The rest is all guys meant for actually fighting the battle.
I'm guessing you don't play orks, because you either pay for your cover with a KFF or have to cram into limited space (which means you have to take a unit too small to be useful and make yourself vulnerable to blasts). Wouldn't really say that 18" Assault 2 is any better than 24" rapid fire. The fearless isn't too helpful either, since it only lasts until you take serious casualties.
I played a game today where we rolled a 1 for terrain density for EVERY 2x2 square. During the first two turns, EVERY UNIT in both armies had cover against the entire enemy army. You get to place half the terrain. That means its half your fault if your orks can't find cover.
Forcing the enemy to finish off every single model is worth something.
Or he could just wait until he's out of other good targets to throw the last few shots and finish them off. If its down to a couple tac marines, they're now a .01 on the threat scale. Just work on the other stuff and come back to them.
Marines can take twice their number in orks easily if they get the charge, more if they have a flamer. Yeah, orks are cheap, but marines are at least twice as good as them at pretty much everything.
I have never ever ever seen a group of tactical marines win out against double their number in orks in an assault, even including the bolt pistols before-hand. The flamer is making things a little farfetched, as any ork player I know would bring their squad formation up in such a way that the flamer guy would only net a couple possible wounds, so that argument would imply that the ork player is just not moving tactically. Even shoota boyz get 2 attacks base, plus the literal always-there nob with klaw and pole. Even my furious charging BA assault squads are a little nervous going into the middle of twice their number of orks.
Marines are not twice as good at everything. They're worse at melee than shoota boyz are. They're going to get absolutely stomped by choppa slugga boyz. 6 times the attacks is way more than enough to make up for the fact that the orks aren't furious charging. Orks are also better at sucking up damage and not caring, since they just have more wounds on the table. Green tide is surprisingly effective when everyone else keeps bringing grav guns and such to take out riptides and knights.
I'm actually wondering how you should point cost Tactical Marine squads now. It's kind of bothering me. I'm not a game designer, but I enjoy trying to puzzle out mechanics and create interesting ones, so it's a subject that has captured my interest.
I guess you have to cost models based on the best thing they can do, then add a very small additional cost if they can do something else as well. I think GW is applying an "additive capability" mindset to their costing where the ability to do multiple things adequately is costed like the sum of all their abilities.
This would make a lot more sense. The tac marines can't use all their skills at once. If they're firing guns, they aren't in melee. If they're in melee, they aren't firing guns. They are literally less than the sum of their parts. I agree with your logic here, and immediately recognize you as a better game designer than the GW staff, if for no other reason than you actually like thinking about it instead of just writing something down to get it out the door.
If I could exalt this 1000 times and then obtain your address so I could send you a 750 of Blue Label I would.Truer words have nenever been spoken (atleast during my time on Dakka. Having played every army except Sisters, Tau, GK and Orks I will say without any doubt that tac marines are a fething joke for every reason listed above. They suck to the point of being a handicap. I've been running Marines since 3rd and even then they weren't far above average. That was when you could rhino rush and bounce from combat to combat. Now they're terribad. I run two marine armies. CF with 2x scout squads, 2x sternguard and Scars with 4x biker squads. Tac marines are straight up deadweight.
Ansel Darach wrote: Some information I think some of you will find interesting.
Just for fun I compiled a list of the average units statline based on the total points available in it and the units cost.
These numbers are based on total sum of the statline divided by point cost. (I added the chance of a successful save against a wound instead of the actual armor save number, so a +3 save added 4 to the sum total and a - adds 0 for example, special rules were ignored)
Chaos Cultist:--------------------6.25
Termagant Brood:---------------6.25
Gretchin:---------------------------6
Hormagaunt Brood:------------5.4
IG Infantryman:-------------------5.2
IG Veteran:------------------------4.5
Kroot:-------------------------------4.3
Ork Boyz:--------------------------4.3
Storm Guardians:---------------3.4444
Kabalite Warriors:--------------3.4444
Daemonette of Slaanesh:----3.3333
Bloodletters of Khorne:--------3.1
Wyches:----------------------------3.1
Space Marine Scout:-----------2.9
Plaguebearer:-------------------2.7777
Fire Warrior:-----------------------2.7777
Pink Horrors of Tzeentch:-----2.6
Ranger:----------------------------2.5833
Necron Warrior:------------------2.5384
Dire Avengers:-------------------2.5384
Space Marine:--------------------2.4285
Necron Immortal:----------------2
Nurglings:-------------------------2
Windrider Jetbike:---------------2
Ripper Swarm Brood:----------1.9230
3.4042 is the average number of "statpoints" in the statline per 1 point of the cost of a model. This isn't a complete list so I am sure that this number isn't 100% accurate, and I did not factor in units that can be used as troops outside of their regular force-org slots.
The average statline based on this falls between the Storm Guardians/Kabalite Warriors and Daemonettes of Slaanesh. For the statline of a space marine to get close to the average "point cost per statpoint" listed it would need to total out at ~47 points (+13 from what it is now), that would increase the statline to something like (Ws:5 Bs:5 S:5 T:5 W:3 I:5 A:3 Ld:10 Sv:3+) if you were not going to improve the armor save beyond a 3+. Keep in mind that the statline I just posted is what it would take to be close to but not above the average at it's current points cost.
The only issue I personally see with Space Marines as they are now is a low number of wounds for the cost of the unit, if they had 2 wounds per model I believe they would be quite good, even a borderline exceptional troops choice.
This is the same problem I have with terminators at the moment, the point costs are very high, and because they have a low wound and model count they are very squishy, even if you use T5 3++ DA termies, as they just don't have the ability to shrug off a small number of unsaved wounds without losing bodies.
Interesting.
I fear though, that it ignores one important thing: some stats are far more important than others.
That why, for example, why Elves are so expensive in Blood Bowl - that agility stat counts for a lot. In the same way, I would suggest that toughness and save is worth a lot in 40K compared to, for example, leadership which is ignored by a plethora of fearless units. Likewise, strength isn't nearly as important to shooty units as it is to assault troops and initiative is quite important to assault troops whereas it's nearly worthless to shooty units.
I'm generalizing a lot, of course, but the point is that it's not as easy simply taking the average of a stat-line.
In addition, you also have to look at how the unit fits into the army at large and what equipment is available to it. A unit might, for example, have rubbish stats, but if it's the only unit in the army that has a particular weapon available to it, it would be worth more than it's stat-line would suggest.
OK, so if Tac Marines are so terribly overpriced, which troops are actually good value?
And if the answer is something with a 4+ or worse armour save, why are units which can kill them efficiently not considered great? Because nobody seems to think that a Leman Russ Eradicator is better than a Heldrake, despite killing Fire Warriors far more efficiently for it's cost.
Troops that have better firepower/pt and cost less in an absolute sense so that ion accelerators aren't blasting off triple digit chunks of your list. Sniper kroot come to mind.
@f2k, yes weighting some stats would be nice to do, problem is you would need a general consensus on just how much weight specific stats would need, and we all know how much fun getting people to agree on the internet is . Although I will say that the GW writers tend to weight the number of wounds and armor saves too highly.
@Perfect Organism, I would say they are very slightly overpriced. Even then I don't think it's the price of the model but that they have a mediocre gun and have lost a lot of resiliency that was needed for a low model count unit to work properly.
Don't think of them as overcosted, think of them as just too fragile to make use of the points, if that makes sense.
Perfect Organism wrote: OK, so if Tac Marines are so terribly overpriced, which troops are actually good value?
And if the answer is something with a 4+ or worse armour save, why are units which can kill them efficiently not considered great? Because nobody seems to think that a Leman Russ Eradicator is better than a Heldrake, despite killing Fire Warriors far more efficiently for it's cost.
It's basicly a catch 22. So many armies in 40k use 3+ armor saves as their basis. (of the top of my head, Space Marines, Chaos Marines. Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, SoBs, Grey Knights to a degree) as a result people plan around the +3 armor save, thus a good unit is one that defeats it. but because people plan around a 3+, that armor score is considered "Average" and not exceptional.
Really I doubt that'll ever change barring a sudden nose dive in SM popularity. but for now and the forseeable future SMs are the most common foe because everyone has it. it's a good starter army and is 40ks most iconic army as well. I suspect if you did a poll most people started with Marines of some sort
Because in 3rd they were equal to everyones elite choice and spacemarines were the strongest army so noone was buying anything else. So gw boosted every other army up to encourage people to buy them. Now even kabalite warriors have poisoned, guardians have rending, orks have (easy to obtain) ld 10, necrons and tau have insane guns and everyone else is half the points. That was one of the reasons i went to chaos as you have more variety for troops, with cultists and cult squads as well as tac marines that can be customised up the wazoo.
I haven't read all four pages, but Tactical Marines fail because they pay for their utterly terrible Close Combat ability (On the charge you're lucky to get 6 dead Guardsmen,) mediocre shooting, (Maybe 7 dead Guardsmen from a full volley,) and durability which means jack-all in this edition of mass Ap2/3. Their special weapons generally target different units than their boltguns, meaning you're wasting *someone's* firepower every time you bring one, and they will generally never use 2/3rds of what they pay for. T4 3+ means nothing against a huge number of weapons in this edition, making them hardly more durable than Ork Boys, Fire Warriors, or even Guardsmen.
Ansel Darach wrote: Some information I think some of you will find interesting.
Just for fun I compiled a list of the average units statline based on the total points available in it and the units cost.
These numbers are based on total sum of the statline divided by point cost. (I added the chance of a successful save against a wound instead of the actual armor save number, so a +3 save added 4 to the sum total and a - adds 0 for example, special rules were ignored)
Chaos Cultist:--------------------6.25
Termagant Brood:---------------6.25
Gretchin:---------------------------6
Hormagaunt Brood:------------5.4
IG Infantryman:-------------------5.2
IG Veteran:------------------------4.5
Kroot:-------------------------------4.3
Ork Boyz:--------------------------4.3
Storm Guardians:---------------3.4444
Kabalite Warriors:--------------3.4444
Daemonette of Slaanesh:----3.3333
Bloodletters of Khorne:--------3.1
Wyches:----------------------------3.1
Space Marine Scout:-----------2.9
Plaguebearer:-------------------2.7777
Fire Warrior:-----------------------2.7777
Pink Horrors of Tzeentch:-----2.6
Ranger:----------------------------2.5833
Necron Warrior:------------------2.5384
Dire Avengers:-------------------2.5384
Space Marine:--------------------2.4285
Necron Immortal:----------------2
Nurglings:-------------------------2
Windrider Jetbike:---------------2
Ripper Swarm Brood:----------1.9230
3.4042 is the average number of "statpoints" in the statline per 1 point of the cost of a model. This isn't a complete list so I am sure that this number isn't 100% accurate, and I did not factor in units that can be used as troops outside of their regular force-org slots.
The average statline based on this falls between the Storm Guardians/Kabalite Warriors and Daemonettes of Slaanesh. For the statline of a space marine to get close to the average "point cost per statpoint" listed it would need to total out at ~47 points (+13 from what it is now), that would increase the statline to something like (Ws:5 Bs:5 S:5 T:5 W:3 I:5 A:3 Ld:10 Sv:3+) if you were not going to improve the armor save beyond a 3+. Keep in mind that the statline I just posted is what it would take to be close to but not above the average at it's current points cost.
The only issue I personally see with Space Marines as they are now is a low number of wounds for the cost of the unit, if they had 2 wounds per model I believe they would be quite good, even a borderline exceptional troops choice.
This is the same problem I have with terminators at the moment, the point costs are very high, and because they have a low wound and model count they are very squishy, even if you use T5 3++ DA termies, as they just don't have the ability to shrug off a small number of unsaved wounds without losing bodies.
Interesting.
I fear though, that it ignores one important thing: some stats are far more important than others.
That why, for example, why Elves are so expensive in Blood Bowl - that agility stat counts for a lot. In the same way, I would suggest that toughness and save is worth a lot in 40K compared to, for example, leadership which is ignored by a plethora of fearless units. Likewise, strength isn't nearly as important to shooty units as it is to assault troops and initiative is quite important to assault troops whereas it's nearly worthless to shooty units.
I'm generalizing a lot, of course, but the point is that it's not as easy simply taking the average of a stat-line.
In addition, you also have to look at how the unit fits into the army at large and what equipment is available to it. A unit might, for example, have rubbish stats, but if it's the only unit in the army that has a particular weapon available to it, it would be worth more than it's stat-line would suggest.
Another problem is that while not all stats are equal, it's also true that not all stat *increases* are equal. Having 10 wounds doesn't matter on a T1 model, for example. The value of wounds goes up in relation to the model's toughness. Similarly, certain WS adjustments matter far less than others. Going from 8 to 9, for example, is huge against WS4 models. (See: over half the models in the game.) Going from 9 to 10, however, only matters against other WS 9/10 models. (Like half a dozen, tops.) In the same way, S9 is rarely better than S8 except with vehicles, but S10 is far better than S9.
My problem with Tactical Squads is that they don't have the tools to match their fluff or fulfill their tabletop roles, being less "jack of all trades" and more "master of none".
Problems in Melee --Weaker enemies will obviously never charge them, barring denial or tarpitting, and tend to be shooting oriented
--No reliable and affordable way to close with weaker enemies without taking serious casualties
--Enemy dedicated CC units are not afraid of Tactical Squads
Since fixing their offensive melee problems is a much more complex goal to meet, give them Counter-Attack to buff their defensive CC abilities to workable levels. They still wont be a powerhouse, but doing a bit more damage and surviving a bit longer will help them actually fulfill the role of "competent at CC".
Problems with Shooting --Boltgun damage output is unimpressive for the points cost
--Difficulty maximizing wargear usage
Buffing the boltgun isn't really an option since they are so widespread, so let's make sure they can actually make full use of their heavy weapon selection by giving them Split-Fire.
There is something to be said about their current level of versatility, but often it seems to come down to deciding to waste either my boltgun attacks or my heavy weapon attacks, with combat squads only somewhat mitigating these problems, as I still have 4 expensive boltguns keeping that heavy weapon company and playing bullet catcher
As the average game length is 6 turns, sacrificing 1/6 of my squads total damage potential to gain the minimal amount of versatility granted by the heavy weapon just doesn't cut it. I'm still paying for those boltgun attacks, even if i can't use them, and i'm still paying for that Lascannon or Plasma-Cannon, even if its only shooting at a gaunt.
This is compounded by the fact that the inherent cost for getting these weapons is often far higher for marines than for others. I can get 2 heavy weapon choices and 2 special weapon choices using guardsmen squads for about the same price as a full Tactical Squad, and while they are wielded by less effective models, I have more (and cheaper) shield wounds and more shots.
So far as making them more interesting to use, not that i want to further abuse CSM or DA, but I could see something along the lines of Marks or Banners for Tactical Marines based on the sergeants personal heraldry, probably as a one use item that does something like allow a second shot, grant pinning, or let Tactical Marines treat boltguns as assault weapons for a turn or something. The box already has this item in it for aesthetic purposes, so lets get some mechanics to go with it.
Grey Hunters are a good example of how Tactical Marines should be. I firmly insist that they are not overpowered. However, their versatility is massively boosted by the fact that they cause a reasonable amount of damage in Close Combat, can double down on Special Weapons, and have unique wargear options. Having 2 of the same special weapon vastly cuts down on target confusion, they are not utterly worthless in H2H, and their rules match their fluff rather nicely. They don't have as many build options as Tacticals, but the builds which they do have are more rounded and effective in-game.
A lot of these things seem to be basing the SMtac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.
Does anyone expect that they should be able to keep on par in a shooting war with an army that specializes in shooting and lacks CC ability almost entirely? I'd say expecting that is rather silly. Expecting tac marines to be able to match shooting with an IG platoon or a grip of Fire Warriors, while simultaneously also being able to massively outfight them, is somewhat silly.
Yes, a tac marine squad isn't putting out as much firepower as 2 kitted IG squads. That said, those IG squads are easier to break, easier to kill, and have a lot more trouble adapting to different targets and situations.
Much is made of Tac marines apparently meager CC abilities, yet generally dedicated CC units are typically required to defeat tac marines. Dire Avengers, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, Termagants, Sisters of Battle, Necron Warriors, DE Warriors, etc aren't going to win combat with Space Marines on equal terms. Such armies generally require either a killy HQ or CC specialist units to engage marines in CC with any degree of success.
As someone who plays CSM's, and who has enough stuff to run probably about 3k of loyalist marines, and as an IG player, I just don't see enough appreciation of the humble basic marine here.
For instance, when I'm playing an IG army and I see a tac squad, that unit is a threat to everything. No unit in my army is safe from a Tac squad. From my small 5man command squads to my heavy Leman Russ tanks, the tac squad can kill them all fairly effectively, even if not purpose fit to do so, it just has to get close. Even just a few marines surviving a hurricane of firepower can shove krak grenades into the AV10 rear of a Russ tank, wipe full strength heavy weapons units through assault, etc. Tac marines aren't a unit I ever see and think "oh I'm not worried about that".
Honestly, the big problem really isn't with tac squads, it's with the limited methods through which they can employ their versatility, with assault delivery being so punitive in this edition. In 5th edition, a tac squad split assaulting into a building held by 30 guardsmen was getting its full complement of attacks and likely clearing all 30, but in 6th this is a disordered charge and thus the Tac's have trouble with generating enough wounds to force sufficently punitive break tests. Additionally, transports add an extra turn to any assault operation, whereas in 5th at least if the transport didn't move (i.e. it got into position the turn before) the squad could still hop out and assault (and the transport was much more likely to survive).
That said, these problems aren't exactly unique to the Tac Squad either, ask any Eldar player how much use they're getting out of Howling Banshees this edition.
Vaktathi wrote: A lot of these things seem to be basing the SMtac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.
Does anyone expect that they should be able to keep on par in a shooting war with an army that specializes in shooting and lacks CC ability almost entirely? I'd say expecting that is rather silly. Expecting tac marines to be able to match shooting with an IG platoon or a grip of Fire Warriors, while simultaneously also being able to massively outfight them, is somewhat silly.
Yes, a tac marine squad isn't putting out as much firepower as 2 kitted IG squads. That said, those IG squads are easier to break, easier to kill, and have a lot more trouble adapting to different targets and situations.
Much is made of Tac marines apparently meager CC abilities, yet generally dedicated CC units are typically required to defeat tac marines. Dire Avengers, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, Termagants, Sisters of Battle, Necron Warriors, DE Warriors, etc aren't going to win combat with Space Marines on equal terms. Such armies generally require either a killy HQ or CC specialist units to engage marines in CC with any degree of success.
As someone who plays CSM's, and who has enough stuff to run probably about 3k of loyalist marines, and as an IG player, I just don't see enough appreciation of the humble basic marine here.
For instance, when I'm playing an IG army and I see a tac squad, that unit is a threat to everything. No unit in my army is safe from a Tac squad. From my small 5man command squads to my heavy Leman Russ tanks, the tac squad can kill them all fairly effectively, even if not purpose fit to do so, it just has to get close. Even just a few marines surviving a hurricane of firepower can shove krak grenades into the AV10 rear of a Russ tank, wipe full strength heavy weapons units through assault, etc. Tac marines aren't a unit I ever see and think "oh I'm not worried about that".
Honestly, the big problem really isn't with tac squads, it's with the limited methods through which they can employ their versatility, with assault delivery being so punitive in this edition. In 5th edition, a tac squad split assaulting into a building held by 30 guardsmen was getting its full complement of attacks and likely clearing all 30, but in 6th this is a disordered charge and thus the Tac's have trouble with generating enough wounds to force sufficently punitive break tests. Additionally, transports add an extra turn to any assault operation, whereas in 5th at least if the transport didn't move (i.e. it got into position the turn before) the squad could still hop out and assault (and the transport was much more likely to survive).
That said, these problems aren't exactly unique to the Tac Squad either, ask any Eldar player how much use they're getting out of Howling Banshees this edition.
Howling Banshees aren't troops, and so just never see the light of day.
Even if they were troops they'd never see the light of day. Their problem isn't FoC related, it's that they have no reliable delivery method to engage the opponent. Likewise, Tac marines problem isn't that they're inherently bad, but don't have a functional method of utilizing their versatility for largely the same reasons.
Ansel Darach wrote: Some information I think some of you will find interesting.
Just for fun I compiled a list of the average units statline based on the total points available in it and the units cost.
These numbers are based on total sum of the statline divided by point cost. (I added the chance of a successful save against a wound instead of the actual armor save number, so a +3 save added 4 to the sum total and a - adds 0 for example, special rules were ignored)
Chaos Cultist:--------------------6.25
Termagant Brood:---------------6.25
Gretchin:---------------------------6
Hormagaunt Brood:------------5.4
IG Infantryman:-------------------5.2
IG Veteran:------------------------4.5
Kroot:-------------------------------4.3
Ork Boyz:--------------------------4.3
Storm Guardians:---------------3.4444
Kabalite Warriors:--------------3.4444
Daemonette of Slaanesh:----3.3333
Bloodletters of Khorne:--------3.1
Wyches:----------------------------3.1
Space Marine Scout:-----------2.9
Plaguebearer:-------------------2.7777
Fire Warrior:-----------------------2.7777
Pink Horrors of Tzeentch:-----2.6
Ranger:----------------------------2.5833
Necron Warrior:------------------2.5384
Dire Avengers:-------------------2.5384
Space Marine:--------------------2.4285
Necron Immortal:----------------2
Nurglings:-------------------------2
Windrider Jetbike:---------------2
Ripper Swarm Brood:----------1.9230
3.4042 is the average number of "statpoints" in the statline per 1 point of the cost of a model. This isn't a complete list so I am sure that this number isn't 100% accurate, and I did not factor in units that can be used as troops outside of their regular force-org slots.
The average statline based on this falls between the Storm Guardians/Kabalite Warriors and Daemonettes of Slaanesh. For the statline of a space marine to get close to the average "point cost per statpoint" listed it would need to total out at ~47 points (+13 from what it is now), that would increase the statline to something like (Ws:5 Bs:5 S:5 T:5 W:3 I:5 A:3 Ld:10 Sv:3+) if you were not going to improve the armor save beyond a 3+. Keep in mind that the statline I just posted is what it would take to be close to but not above the average at it's current points cost.
The only issue I personally see with Space Marines as they are now is a low number of wounds for the cost of the unit, if they had 2 wounds per model I believe they would be quite good, even a borderline exceptional troops choice.
This is the same problem I have with terminators at the moment, the point costs are very high, and because they have a low wound and model count they are very squishy, even if you use T5 3++ DA termies, as they just don't have the ability to shrug off a small number of unsaved wounds without losing bodies.
It also ignores the weapon that the troop has (range, strength and ap are all pretty important) and special rules are also very important and need to be quantified if you want your chart to be an accurate depiction of which troop is best. The most glaring example that I can see is the difference between immortals and grots. Immortals being arguably one of the best troops in the game and grots being middle of the road. That is of course we are ignoring transport options that I assume that we have established we should. Immortals reanimation protocols is way better than the grots ability to clear minefields. Very rarely have I seen anyone use minefields, Actually I have never seen anyone use minefields ever... None of you have and don't lie about it. Also think about the weapons that they use. The immortals have double the range, almost double the shots (no matter which weapon that they take) 2 points more in strength and an average of 2 more points of ap. In reality Grots belong in the middle of the pack and immortals somewhere tword the top of the list but this chart has immortals on the bottom and grots way up on top. If you can somehow quantify special rules and the weapons that they use I Think that you may have a workable quantification of what a unit is "Worth" and perhaps a way to balance the game all together.
they arent and they are they are good at holding objectives but they are too versatile so to speak if you give them a rocket launcher?lascannon they cant fire and move and only one marine in the squad can take it its better to take a dev squad kitted the way you want or take smaller more specialized squads.
Vaktathi wrote: A lot of these things seem to be basing the SMtac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.
Does anyone expect that they should be able to keep on par in a shooting war with an army that specializes in shooting and lacks CC ability almost entirely?
No, people expect a decent, usable unit with a plug in for a role that is feasible. Firewarriors are excellent because they effectively hold objectives and pump out fire, whilst not having to worry about melee 90% of the time because of the bull that is Supporting Fire and the fact that melee units generally never reach the Tau anyway.
I'd say expecting that is rather silly. Expecting tac marines to be able to match shooting with an IG platoon or a grip of Fire Warriors, while simultaneously also being able to massively outfight them, is somewhat silly.
As above. An IG Platoon can take 6 freaking special weapons in slots, at the barebones level at 130. A Tactical Squad can get maximum 1.5 specials from a squad SW and a combi-weapon. Similar logic applies on Heavy Weapons. 1 For Tacs, 4 slots for the platoon at base. So IG Platoons can actually get decent supporting fire to tackle a specific threat - several meltaguns/autocannons/lascannons for tank hunting/mc hunting, for example.
Plus, they get a transport that doesn't suck, can feasibly objective sit efficiently, and can run across the board feasibly.
An IG platoon is made to get mullered by pie plates. A Tactical Squad gets invalidated by AP3+ pie plates. The only difference between a Battle Cannon shot hitting an IG blob and a Tactical Squad is that the former will lose far less points and effectiveness once the dust clears.
Yes, a tac marine squad isn't putting out as much firepower as 2 kitted IG squads. That said, those IG squads are easier to break,
Yet for an insanely low cost can buy fearless/LD10/LD9. The IG can easily mitigate leadership issues.
easier to kill,
The only real thing that separates them in the competitive meta is toughness against small arms and against infantry. I would take 30 Guardsmen with their LD buffer in CC over a reasonably kitted out Tactical Squad anyday of the week.
As above, many of the dedicated infantry killers most often are no better at killing Guardsmen than Marines, especially once cover comes in to play.
and have a lot more trouble adapting to different targets and situations.
This isn't true. A Tactical Squad is basically screwed if an MEQ killer vehicle/shooting unit they can't reach/feasibly damage gets in optimum range. At best, for AT, they have a melta/combi-melta and a multi-melta, if your opponent is a complete twit and rushed within 6'' of you. Against MC's and heavy infantry you may as well remove the entire unit. Enemy defences too strong for a direct attack? Too bad.
Meanwhile, an IG platoon has the bodies to absorb guns of similar killing power, they can take multiple meltaguns and AT heavy weapons, and their Codex inherently has great long ranged AT, while against MC's you can get Krak Grenades on every man, melta bombs on several Sergeants, and if they're T6 with a Priest's re-rolls to hit and wound you don't even really need any of these - if nothing else, they will tarpit the MC for a long, long time with fearless/LD9/LD10 stubborn.
Where a Marine mechanised assault would be screwed, an IG mechanised assault can still prosper by using Leman Russes as cover, or if non-mechanised infantry, you can move on foot very fast with MMM! issued every turn.
Much is made of Tac marines apparently meager CC abilities, yet generally dedicated CC units are typically required to defeat tac marines. Dire Avengers, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, Termagants, Sisters of Battle, Necron Warriors, DE Warriors, etc aren't going to win combat with Space Marines on equal terms.
Except you will never fight any of these in CC unless your opponent is incompetent or has made a mistake. The only exception here is Necron Warriors.
Because they'll either tarpit you into the ground, or beat you in CC regardless. With reanimation protocols they're harder to kill than Marines, and they hit just as hard back.
And the fact is, its not just dedicated CC units. Its any unit with above average melee ability by this point.
Such armies generally require either a killy HQ or CC specialist units to engage marines in CC with any degree of success.
Those armies just shoot them to death instead and never let the Marines get close unless luck rues their day.
As someone who plays CSM's, and who has enough stuff to run probably about 3k of loyalist marines, and as an IG player, I just don't see enough appreciation of the humble basic marine here.
"Humble" here sucks. People want raw effectiveness, none of which Tacticals have. There's nothing to truly, greatly appreciate when building a competitive list.
For instance, when I'm playing an IG army and I see a tac squad, that unit is a threat to everything. No unit in my army is safe from a Tac squad.
Do you drive your Leman Russes full throttle at the Tactical Squad to give the poor guy a fighting chance? Because my Russes generally pie plate Tactical Squads into oblivion, once I've decimated the transports all of them are in with laughable ease.
A Tactical Squad will get ripped to pieces by a 30-50 man IG platoon, or will at least face serious trouble. Against a Veteran Squad you can reduce their effectiveness to nothing in a single volley.
From my small 5man command squads to my heavy Leman Russ tanks, the tac squad can kill them all fairly effectively,
As above.
even if not purpose fit to do so, it just has to get close.
If this happens, you've made a massive mistake.
Even just a few marines surviving a hurricane of firepower can shove krak grenades into the AV10 rear of a Russ tank,
One pie plate can severely reduce the already garbage effectiveness of a Tactical Squad, and from half the board away.
wipe full strength heavy weapons units through assault,
This is kind of expected for anything, though, isn't it?
etc. Tac marines aren't a unit I ever see and think "oh I'm not worried about that".
On the contrary....
Honestly, the big problem really isn't with tac squads, it's with the limited methods through which they can employ their versatility, with assault delivery being so punitive in this edition.
I agree fully.
In 5th edition, a tac squad split assaulting into a building held by 30 guardsmen was getting its full complement of attacks and likely clearing all 30, but in 6th this is a disordered charge and thus the Tac's have trouble with generating enough wounds to force sufficently punitive break tests. Additionally, transports add an extra turn to any assault operation, whereas in 5th at least if the transport didn't move (i.e. it got into position the turn before) the squad could still hop out and assault (and the transport was much more likely to survive).
That said, these problems aren't exactly unique to the Tac Squad either, ask any Eldar player how much use they're getting out of Howling Banshees this edition.
The big problem is that the Eldar are getting great mileage out of those shooty units.
Ailaros wrote:You see that, though? You just had to compare it to three different units to make that statement. That's what versatility is about. It can't do krak grenades as cheaply as guard, but they do everything else better than guard. They don't score as cheaply as termagaunts, but they do everything else better. They don't shoot bolters as well, but do everything else better.
...yes, what you are calling a strength I am calling a weakness.
So a unit can do one thing better than another. Does that make the other unit bad? Are dire avengers bad because they're not good against vehicles? Are firewarriors bad because there is something else in the game that's better in close combat?
Of course not. That's just silly. If it's not an uber god of death that beats everything else it's not worth it? Pish tosh.
And that's really the point. Tervigons score cheaper, firewarriors bolter better, and guard krak grenade more cheaply, but until you show me a single unit that does all three of them better than marines, then the fact that some things are better at certain things than others doesn't make tac marines bad.
It all comes down to the cost of them. You conveniently left of the next sentence in your quote. "Being able to do everything AND paying the points for being able to do everything is not an advantage."
If you took a hypothetical unit that did everything ever other infantry troop model in the game could do better than they could do it but they cost 100pts each, they would suck.
Being able to do everything only counts for anything when doing so allows you to do better than a similarly costed amount of troops from other armies.
Because units pay the points for their abilities, I almost always prefer units that are specialist and cheaper thus performing the task I want with more bodies or fewer points and allowing a more significant amount of points spent on the other parts of my army, the parts that CAN actually kill a lot of troops and be more imposing.
You might have missed the part where I said I like GH... because they have a much more favourable points balance for their abilities. They only pay 1pt more to be much more effective in CC and the fact they can take 2 special weapons makes them more specialised.
Comparing them directly against other armies' troop options, Tactical Marines are better than average in their point-for-point value.
The problem lies in the context of 40k as a whole right now. In the non-troop, non-infantry spots, the most prevalent armies can bring an overwhelming amount of firepower that kills 10 Tacs almost as easily as 10 Gretchin. At that point, the optimal strategy changes to one where people want to spend most of their points on things that have the most efficient killing power while the troops are literally just place-holders for their most important function: scoring. And since a 4 point troop model scores just as effectively as a 13 point one, it is clearly superior in that role.
An illustrative theoretical, in-a-vacuum example: 220 points of Tactical Marines could stomp 220 points of Chaos Cultists. However, they in turn will get stomped by 50 points of Cultists and a Baledrake. It's having access to cheaper per-model troops that allow you to maximise your killing power in other areas.
TutorialBoss wrote: Comparing them directly against other armies' troop options, Tactical Marines are better than average in their point-for-point value.
The problem lies in the context of 40k as a whole right now. In the non-troop, non-infantry spots, the most prevalent armies can bring an overwhelming amount of firepower that kills 10 Tacs almost as easily as 10 Gretchin. At that point, the optimal strategy changes to one where people want to spend most of their points on things that have the most efficient killing power while the troops are literally just place-holders for their most important function: scoring. And since a 4 point troop model scores just as effectively as a 13 point one, it is clearly superior in that role.
An illustrative theoretical, in-a-vacuum example: 220 points of Tactical Marines could stomp 220 points of Chaos Cultists. However, they in turn will get stomped by 50 points of Cultists and a Baledrake. It's having access to cheaper per-model troops that allow you to maximise your killing power in other areas.
I can mostly agree with this. It's a different phrasing of my complaint that tac marines don't influence the game enough for their cost.
Please just use the normal quote functionality, it can't be more effort than color coding everything.
No, people expect a decent, usable unit with a plug in for a role that is feasible. Firewarriors are excellent because they effectively hold objectives and pump out fire
They don't hold objectives with any degree of amazingness, they're T3 4+sv Ld8 units. Yes they pump out fire. However they're T3 4+sv Ld8 (meaning they're relatively easy to shift off objectives) and can't do squat to most vehicles and are relatively ineffective against most Monstrous Creatures.
whilst not having to worry about melee 90% of the time because of the bull that is Supporting Fire
Well, yes, supporting fire is rather silly, but that's not a Fire Warrior or Tac Squad specific thing, that's applies to all Tau units and many other armies have to deal with that as well.
and the fact that melee units generally never reach the Tau anyway.
There's all sorts of units that won't have a problem closing the range, the bigger issue for Tac squads is that they have to spend a turn sitting there after hopping out of a transport no matter what. Drop Pods usually work rather well, as even though they have the same problem, positioning is far easier and you can't shoot a pod from across the board before it gets to where it wants to be.
As above. An IG Platoon can take 6 freaking special weapons in slots, at the barebones level at 130.
And it's not going to cost 130pts either at that point, it's going to be 160 minimum with flamers or grenade launchers, 190 with meltaguns, or 220 with plasma guns. Most of those are also concentrated on a 5 man T3 5+sv Ld8 unit. Kill/break that and they're down to 2 special weapons. The rest of the guns however are S3 nerf guns. Meanwhile the SM's kill guardsmen with their basic gun at the same rate 2 guardsmen with meltaguns kill Marines. Actually the bolters are slightly more effective than that. And each guardsmen with a Meltagun is 15pts.
Regardless, that's nothing new, they've been able to take that many guns in a barebones platoon since at least 3rd edition if not 2nd. Why is this suddenly an issue?
Tactical Squad can get maximum 1.5 specials from a squad SW and a combi-weapon.
Yes, however, as above, the SM's basic weaponry is notably more effective and each gun the SM's have is more capable.
Similar logic applies on Heavy Weapons. 1 For Tacs, 4 slots for the platoon at base.
3 slots, the command squad cannot take 2 heavy weapons, and they're all at a less capable ballistic skill.
So IG Platoons can actually get decent supporting fire to tackle a specific threat - several meltaguns/autocannons/lascannons for tank hunting/mc hunting, for example.
Yes, and that's largely the entirety of their value of those units, the guns. If you want as many guns as the IG...play IG? SM's have never been about achieving firepower parity with the shootiest army in the game. That would be absurd.
Plus, they get a transport that doesn't suck, can feasibly objective sit efficiently, and can run across the board feasibly.
SM's have an APC, it's a cheap box to get Supersoldiers from point A to point B so they can do their Supersoldier thing. Guardsmen have an IFV, to shelter and support weeny infantry. The SM transport has better side armor and has side hatch, the IG transport must put its one good armor facing away from the enemy to get the maximum disembark distance and has worse side armor. Different tools for different purposes.
An IG platoon is made to get mullered by pie plates. A Tactical Squad gets invalidated by AP3+ pie plates.
Meanwhile a flamer is going to utterly screw an IG squad while doing nothing to the SM's. Some weapons will naturally be more effective. Use the right tool for the job. AP3 pieplates are also generally the realm of heavy support battletanks (Fire Prism, Leman Russ, etc) so you're usually not facing a wall of them.
That said, there's also a huge number of ways to mitigate battlecannon fire. I stopped running normal Russ's in most games for precisly because they're so easy to mitigate. A modicum of spread and any amount of cover drastically reduces the effectiveness of a battlecannon. Unless you catch a clumped up squad in the open with a hit, a battle cannon is probably only killing 2-3 marines. They're great psychological threats, but not as capable as many fear them to be. Landing shot on a unit of moderately spread marines in 5+ cover, say it hits 5, between wounding on 2's and 5+ cover, that fearsome pieplate might kill 3 guys.
Yet for an insanely low cost can buy fearless/LD10/LD9. The IG can easily mitigate leadership issues.
They can take Commissars at 25pts per unit...on 50-60pt units. That's..not particularly cheap. They can take Lord Commissars for a minimum price nearly that of two rhinos and give a Regimental Standard to a CCS, but neither of those units are particularly hardy. A command squad can be targeted separately and destroyed on its own, while an LC's Ld radius is very limited forcing large numbers of units to cluster up, making them great targets for blasts and templates and giving you greater board control as those units basically can't move to respond to changing board situations very well. Meanwhile there isn't really too many terribly viable Ld boosters for Mechanized IG forces.
The only super cheap Ld booster, especially one that can't be relatively easily removed, is a Commissar for a conscript squad or a Combined Infantry Squad.
The only real thing that separates them in the competitive meta is toughness against small arms and against infantry. I would take 30 Guardsmen with their LD buffer in CC over a reasonably kitted out Tactical Squad anyday of the week.
That all depends on what you're throwing at them. If we're talking about a pitched heavy weapons battle, well surprise surprise, the army specializing in attritional pitched battles is going to win (until it has to start taking Ld tests or suffer a tankshock or whatnot, if we're assuming it has Ld reinforcement then the cost of the Ld reinforcement will need to be factored in and it's not going to be cheaper than the tac squad). If we're talking about an objective in the open (often happens) at close range, or one that has to be *taken*? That's a different story.
As above, many of the dedicated infantry killers most often are no better at killing Guardsmen than Marines, especially once cover comes in to play.
For some weapons in some cases this is true. But in most it isn't, and most of those are a whole lot cheaper than ones that are good at killing marines. Marines have a whole lot less cover save ignoring weaponry to fear, and there are no commonly available secondary weapons systems for tanks which do so, unlike say, Heavy Flamers that are available on each and every IG tank, or Smart Missile Systems available on anything Tau with an AV value plus their big scary robot guys (yeah we're twin linked, wound you on 2's, ignore your armor and cover, oh and we don't need line of sight).
This isn't true. A Tactical Squad is basically screwed if an MEQ killer vehicle/shooting unit they can't reach/feasibly damage gets in optimum range.
Surprise, if a unit designed to kill them gets in optimal range, they die. How's this different than anything else in the game?
At best, for AT, they have a melta/combi-melta and a multi-melta,
the option to take a missile launcher or lascannon no longer exists? They have no krak grenades anymore?
if your opponent is a complete twit and rushed within 6'' of you.
Marines don't have ways of getting themselves within 6" of enemy units?
Against MC's and heavy infantry you may as well remove the entire unit.
They can't take powerfists anymore? I've seen many an MC taken down by a powerfist. Now, the unit isn't always in great shape after that, but they're certainly not defenseless. A marine unit should on average kill something like a Carnifex in two rounds between a powerfist and their grenades. One will also note that the MC's that are best at engaging Marines are usually the ones that cost a ton of points and can't offer much besides marine killing and tank smashing, many of which also basically have to slog into CC on foot. For instance, yeah, an Eldar Avatar is *real* rough on a unit of Marines in CC, but he's also not good at really anything else but that and has to footslog his way there.
Enemy defences too strong for a direct attack? Too bad.
Again, how's that different than for any other unit in the game?
Meanwhile, an IG platoon has the bodies to absorb guns of similar killing power, they can take multiple meltaguns and AT heavy weapons, and their Codex inherently has great long ranged AT, while against MC's you can get Krak Grenades on every man, melta bombs on several Sergeants, and if they're T6 with a Priest's re-rolls to hit and wound you don't even really need any of these - if nothing else, they will tarpit the MC for a long, long time with fearless/LD9/LD10 stubborn.
And how much is this platoon costing at this point? That certainly looks nothing like anything that might be made to resemble "cheap".
Lets use the previous example of 30 dudes, so 150pts. Now kraks and meltas, that's 185. Meltaguns and Lascannons? 275. Commissar for Ld9 and pseudo-fearless? 300. Priest? 325.
Meanwhile, 10man tac squad with a fist, Lascannon, and Meltagun? 205pts.
Lets not even get into potential transport costs.
Now, the Marine unit is 47% cheaper. It's also wasting a whole lot less when in CC.
Where a Marine mechanised assault would be screwed, an IG mechanised assault can still prosper by using Leman Russes as cover
Can you not do the same by taking Predators and Land Raiders? Besides, normally the IG are going to do the opposite, the LR tanks are going to sit behind the transports (especially as they're Heavy and can only move 6", a serious slowdown for a mechanized advance) and provide fire support while the Chimeras advance, much the way most marine mechanized assaults work.
or if non-mechanised infantry, you can move on foot very fast with MMM! issued every turn.
This requires having an officer within 12", not having anything better to do with that order, and passing the order. None of which are necessarily guaranteed. You can make it very reliable with a Commissar and a Vox, but that's another 30pts to a 5ppm unit.
Except you will never fight any of these in CC unless your opponent is incompetent or has made a mistake.
Marines are completely immobile? They can't possibly ever close range? You can't engineer bad things to happen to your opponent? Objectives are always placed in hideously defensible places in cover and in the opponents deployment zone?
The only exception here is Necron Warriors.
Because they'll either tarpit you into the ground, or beat you in CC regardless. With reanimation protocols they're harder to kill than Marines, and they hit just as hard back.
They hit back only after taking casualties into account, and guys getting back up don't count towards break tests, and don't get to swing until your marines get another chance to put them back down again. Unless you're facing a huge horde of them or they've got a character in there, the marines should take them in a couple of rounds of CC.
And the fact is, its not just dedicated CC units. Its any unit with above average melee ability by this point.
What are we defining as "average"? Would it happen to be something like, oh, say, a statline of 4's?
Those armies just shoot them to death instead and never let the Marines get close unless luck rues their day.
Marines have more than enough capabilities between their numerous deployment methods and psychic abilities and other capabilities to create their own luck. At this point you're making it sound like Marine armies are mewling babes of ineptness, that simply cannot win a game on any terms unless through some stroke of extreme luck. This is not remotely true.
"Humble" here sucks. People want raw effectiveness, none of which Tacticals have. There's nothing to truly, greatly appreciate when building a competitive list.
They're supposed to be generalists. They've always been generalists. They always will beneralists. On their own, they put out more shooting hurt than most other units (in an absolute sense if not always a relative sense) and put out more CC hurt than most similar units (again, in an absolute sense if not always in a relative sense).
And I'd trade my Tempestus Scions' stats and AP3 guns for Marine guns and stats any day of the week at the drop of a hat, especially given their near-parity in points.
Do you drive your Leman Russes full throttle at the Tactical Squad to give the poor guy a fighting chance? Because my Russes generally pie plate Tactical Squads into oblivion
Do they just walk around clumped up in the open or something? Mine usually only kill 2-3 a turn if they're lucky. If I manage to land that very rare shot on the clumped up disembarked unit in the open, that's always fun as they all get scraped off the board, but I can remember the numbers of times I've gotten to do that on two hands over multiple editions of this game. Most of the time the opponent spreads them out, can get some sort of cover save, so that even if I manage to hit 5 or 6 (or more usually 2-4) I'm probably not killing more than 3, and that's assuming the scatter doesn't completely whiff.
once I've decimated the transports all of them are in with laughable ease.
The transports are pretty easy to kill, but so are Chimeras, and so is basically anything that's not a heavy tank or a "we always have a 4+ save" medium armored skimmer in 6E.
A Tactical Squad will get ripped to pieces by a 30-50 man IG platoon, or will at least face serious trouble.
For the price of such a platoon, I would hope so. A 50 man platoon, before *any* upgrades, costs more than a kitted tac squad and transport. A kitted 30man platoon? As above, easily more than 300pts.
Against a Veteran Squad you can reduce their effectiveness to nothing in a single volley.
And a half squad of marines unloading bolters at such a squad would do much the same back for roughly the same price.
If this happens, you've made a massive mistake.
Not necessarily, the squad may have podded in, taken out something with meltas on entry, lost 4 or 5 dudes the turn after, and now it can hit a tank or two with grenades in an assault on its own turn.
One pie plate can severely reduce the already garbage effectiveness of a Tactical Squad, and from half the board away.
Yes, and that's why it costs as much as that tac squad. It's also not exactly the most reliable of weapons as it scatters about and the unit spreads itself out. Meanwhile the tank can't score or contest objectives, can't move more than 6" a turn, has nothing to do in the CC phase of the game but get hit and die, and has no way to get about the board more effectively or any alternate deployment options.
This is kind of expected for anything, though, isn't it?
For some things, but not for others. I wouldn't necessarily trust a remnant group of Necron warriors to finish the job for example.
I agree fully.
CONCENSUS!!!!
The big problem is that the Eldar are getting great mileage out of those shooty units.
They've got some super busted stuff, but problems with Eldar are not unique to SM's, they apply pretty equally to most armies. Performance against Eldar heavy weapons is not a good metric by which to judge Tac marines.
Vaktathi wrote:A lot of these things seem to be basing the SMtac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.
Exactly.
Which is strange, because you should always look at it the other way around. The strength of versatility is precisely that you can always pivot on your opponent's weaknesses, not fall prey to your opponent's strengths. To anyone who can't tell the difference, of course they're going to look bad.
Sure, some strengths are a bit harder to gain leverage out of than others, but just imagine how much more difficult it is for those armies that have those things as weaknesses.
Vaktathi wrote:A lot of these things seem to be basing the SMtac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.
Exactly.
Which is strange, because you should always look at it the other way around. The strength of versatility is precisely that you can always pivot on your opponent's weaknesses, not fall prey to your opponent's strengths. To anyone who can't tell the difference, of course they're going to look bad.
Sure, some strengths are a bit harder to gain leverage out of than others, but just imagine how much more difficult it is for those armies that have those things as weaknesses.
So what you're saying is, you're better off paying for a bunch of things you'll never use, just in case it comes up as important, than only paying for things that you *know* will be used?
TutorialBoss wrote: Comparing them directly against other armies' troop options, Tactical Marines are better than average in their point-for-point value.
The problem lies in the context of 40k as a whole right now. In the non-troop, non-infantry spots, the most prevalent armies can bring an overwhelming amount of firepower that kills 10 Tacs almost as easily as 10 Gretchin. At that point, the optimal strategy changes to one where people want to spend most of their points on things that have the most efficient killing power while the troops are literally just place-holders for their most important function: scoring. And since a 4 point troop model scores just as effectively as a 13 point one, it is clearly superior in that role.
An illustrative theoretical, in-a-vacuum example: 220 points of Tactical Marines could stomp 220 points of Chaos Cultists. However, they in turn will get stomped by 50 points of Cultists and a Baledrake. It's having access to cheaper per-model troops that allow you to maximise your killing power in other areas.
I definitely think that's largely true. For the most part, you just want troops that occupy a space on the battlefield. That's largely their job.
But beyond that, I think tactical marines more than other troops aren't even worth taking in large numbers. A lot of armies (not saying all) it is an effective tactic to just spam troops and then take a couple of support units for them. Space Marines, I just feel that spamming Tactical Squads will get you no where unless you can actually use everything they are capable of doing, spamming them is just going to result in you being overwhelmed by shooting against a shooty army and overwhelmed in combat against a combat army.
I think the exception is Grey Hunters, because they genuinely can fight in CC quite well. Maybe not as well as a dedicated CC army, but well enough that their shooting can weaken a CC army enough to not be overwhelmed like Tactical marines will be and against shooty armies they are good enough in CC to genuinely have the option of drop podding in to close range and trying to get in to combat to counter the shooting (though 6th has made this less viable).
Vaktathi wrote:A lot of these things seem to be basing the SMtac squad against the strenghts of opposing armies, not taking into account any of their weaknesses.
Exactly.
Which is strange, because you should always look at it the other way around. The strength of versatility is precisely that you can always pivot on your opponent's weaknesses, not fall prey to your opponent's strengths. To anyone who can't tell the difference, of course they're going to look bad.
Sure, some strengths are a bit harder to gain leverage out of than others, but just imagine how much more difficult it is for those armies that have those things as weaknesses.
But...
Tacticals can't choose to use that versatility if they get shot to bits.
Facing Tau? No problem, just assault! Uhhhh... How do you get there?
Facing a slugga boyz horde? Unless you have tailored with something like a flamer + combiflamer (Which takes the whole versatility thing out the window) they will nom your tacticals.
Versatility is useless if you can't actually make good use of it.
And tacticals can't, since it is really easy for other races to cover whatever weakness tacticals desperately would need to exploit in order to justify their price.
So, what with assault (what assault?) being dead, and shooting getting ramped (S6/7/8), the humble TAC marine is dead? Damn, I was just getting some use out of mine.
I am getting some use of my tactical Chaos Marines as well.
But everything works in a casual environment, even mutilators. It should be obvious that a casual environment is not what is being discussed for this very reason.
If you want to take Marines, and strip out their versatility for lower point cost, you can. They're called Guard (just the dakka), or Orks (just the choppy).
Bharring wrote: If you want to take Marines, and strip out their versatility for lower point cost, you can. They're called Guard (just the dakka), or Orks (just the choppy).
The versatility is fine but overpriced. My personal take on Marines is something like:
1) Against shooty armies you can attempt to... -...pretend you're a shooty troop and shoot and get out shot and blown away. -...pretend you're an assault troop and get blown away and by the time you get there you aren't good enough in assault to actually make a dent anyway.
2) Against assault armies you can attempt to... -...pretend you're an assault troop and get minced by the opponent's ACTUAL assault troops -...pretend you're shooty and sit back but not do enough damage to stop the enemy assaulting you and then get minced because you aren't good enough in assault to beat what survived your shooting.
Now, part of that comes down to the fact I think they pay too much for the 3+ save. There's just too much AP3/2 out there and/or opponents who can lay down enough wounds that they'll be decimating your units despite the 3+ save. The way tactical marines do best is by having other things in the army that are more appealing to kill first.
I feel like if you want Tac marines to become appealing (beyond just "I need these things to score") then you probably need to either make them better at shooting with no significant points increase, better at assault with no significant points increase (hello Grey Hunters), or make their Power Armour tougher with no significant points increase.
There are usable troops in the Space Marine codex.
Bikes are more capable at being versatile at either shooting or assaulting (perhaps more so since they can get up the field fast, suffer no penalties for doing both to the same unit, and are somewhat more resilient at T5 and with jink saves).
Scouts allow you to go cheaper, and are easier to protect with camo cloaks and objective grab with outflank.
Tac Marines at this point are mostly limited to drop pods, though I've seen some lists that just spam combat squads and do hilariously well, though the main way they win against Eldar and Tau is hiding until turn 4.
Waaaghpower wrote: So what you're saying is, you're better off paying for a bunch of things you'll never use, just in case it comes up as important, than only paying for things that you *know* will be used?
The main thing you pay for with tactical marines is survivability. You are pretty much guaranteed to use that.
People are saying that T 4 and a 3+ save aren't worth much because there are weapons which ignore them. What that doesn't account for is the cost of those weapons compared to alternatives which work better against weaker targets. If you force your opponent to spend 70% more to get something which is optimised against marines rather than fire warriors, you've already made up the cost difference in those two units. A couple of Wyverns or Thunderfire Cannons will chew through fire warriors, guardsmen, kroot and any other light infantry unit much faster than a buffed riptide will take out marines, for fewer points.
Plus, marines can take two of the best transports in the game: Land Raiders and Storm Ravens. What transport can a 40-man combined infantry squad take? They can't even fit in a building, so they are going to be taking casualties right from the start of the game. With fortifications and tough transports available, there's absolutely no need for a tactical squad to worry about taking casualties before they have a chance to do anything.
For strictly sitting in a bunker, fire warriors and kroot may seem more efficient, but bunkers don't last forever and when they start taking damage, 3+ armour saves are very good to have. Marines take an average of 1.94 casualties from a collapsing building, 4+ save models take an average of 2.92. Marines take about two thirds as many casualties, and cost about 50% more than Fire Warriors. Compared to Kroot, they take 40% of the casualties for twice the cost. Only Imperial Guard veterans in carapace armour are significantly more survivable against that kind of 'wound spam' point-for-point. Same situation when getting hit by a serpent shield, or a wyvern, or a TFC. That's without the benefit of the Iron Hands chapter tactics, by the way. Add that into the equation and the marines get about 17% tougher... which brings them to within 7% of the point-per-point survivability of carapace veterans.
BS 4 on emplaced weapons is nice too. Five marines in a bastion is 145 points. Eight fire warriors in a bastion is 147 points. Assuming two sides of the building are facing the enemy and each side has one heavy bolter and two fire points which can draw LOS, the marines can fire two HB and 3 bolters, the FW can fire two HB and 4 pulse rifles. Let's say they are shooting at orks in 5+ cover 20" away. Marines kill 2.44 orks, FW kill 2.22. Kroot do no better than FW. Give the marines a Heavy Weapon and things turn even more in their favour. Again, only one common troop unit in the game seems to do this job better than marines; the guard veteran squad.
In short, the numbers do not support the idea that marines are paying significantly more points for 'unusable' abilities. Their price is consistent with most other troops units in terms of anti-infantry shooting capability and survivability. In a straight fire-fight, they should do well against any other common infantry unit from the standard troops selection except imperial guard veterans. Specialist weapons which kill them more efficiently are priced significantly higher than ones which kill cheaper troops just as effectively. In many cases it's a bit more points efficient to slaughter cheaper troops.
I believe that the problems marines really face are these:
Few people take hordes of cheap troops. They are expensive, take more time to build and paint and are less fun to play with than marines. Therefore people place less value in weapons optimised against them. Because few people play large numbers of poor-save units, they often take people by surprise and perform well because they aren't facing forces designed to kill them.
Some of the best units in the game at the moment are monstrous creatures (like the riptide), or other good-save, high-toughness models, such as eldar jetbikes, marine bikes, plague marines, battlesuits and so on. People have to take weapons which can deal with those threats. Such weapons are pretty much universally great at killing marines too. Note that many of those units are considered good despite being more expensive than marines and being just as vulnerable to getting wiped-out by anti-marine weapons. If that level of vulnerability was really such a problem, why would people take those units? They might have more firepower and maneuverability than tactical squads, but what good does that do them if they don't survive to use it?
Eldar jetbikes are T 4, 3+ save guys who cost more than marines and only have a cover save to make them any tougher... but everyone seems to think that cover saves are useless now. They are great for last-minute objective claiming, but everyone seems to be saying that such a unit will never survive until the end of the game. Marine bikes are praised for being T 5, but T 5 is just as useless as T 4 against S 7, which is apparently what does most of the damage these days.
A 10-man squad of Iron Hands takes 21 plasma hits to wipe off the board (assuming 5+ cover). A basic riptide takes just 12. The riptide can increase it's survivability with a stimulant injector, but it's still only taking 18 plasma hits to kill and it now costs much more than the marines. The Nova Reactor has a two-third chance of doubling the riptide's survivability (but a one-third chance of damaging it). Even then, it's 'only' going to take 30 plasma hits to wipe it off the board on average. For a unit which costs 215 point minimum. For that cost, you can buy fifteen marines, who take 32 plasma hits to kill. Marines are basically just as tough as riptides point-per-point against plasma. They benefit more from defensive buffs and hiding in terrain or transports too. The riptide does better against small-arms of course, but they don't do much to either unit.
But surely the riptide has more firepower? An anti-marine riptide can inflict two or three casualties a turn on a marine squad. Meanwhile 10 marines with a lascannon and plasma gun will inflict about two thirds that damage for about two thirds the cost. The riptide is better, but not much better (it's impossible to quantify exactly how good the RT is unfortunately, because there is no easy way to calculate the average hits from a large blast... but against small units which can spread out in line formation, it isn't that many). Against a unit of guard veterans with camo-gear, the riptide does significantly worse than marines. You can boost the riptide's performance by buffing it with ignores cover, but when you factor in the cost of ignoring cover (about 50 points per unit using markerlights), the riptide is approaching the cost of two whole squads of marines. Whichever way you cut it, the marines have access to firepower which is at least comparable to the riptide's once you factor in cost. The riptide kills marines and bikes better, the marines handle vehicles and light infantry better. Both do about the same against monstrous creatures. The riptide may work out a little more efficient overall, but it's close. The riptide is mostly just more impressive, because slapping down a big blast and then removing several models without a save is a more intimidating effect than plinking away with a couple of squads even though on average, they cause the same casualties.
So, when it comes to the basic jobs of killing stuff and not dying, marines don't look too bad when compared to the riptide, generally considered one of the best units in the game.
But surely the riptide has many other advantages, such as being able to jump and smash? Well, marines have other minor advantages too, but we dismissed them as useless already, because the game now comes down to shooting the other guy until he is dead. Which marines do just as well as pretty much everyone else, according to my math-hammer.
"Plus, marines can take two of the best transports in the game: Land Raiders and Storm Ravens"
That statement makes me lol. Both are overcosted, FURTHER contributing to the marines' model count woes.
Tac marines have too much gear and can't cause enough damage for their points.
" Whichever way you cut it, the marines have access to firepower which is at least comparable to the riptide's once you factor in cost."
You forgot range. And move shoot move. And the fact that the riptide's firepower doesn't degrade as it takes damage. And the fact that small arms are much, much worse and putting wounds on a Riptide. Shall I go on?
In practice, tac marines are a dumpster fire. It has been outlined many times in this thread as to why this is the case. But the single biggest thing to me is that they are 200 pts of models that no one fears and no one has to game for.
Bharring wrote: If you want to take Marines, and strip out their versatility for lower point cost, you can. They're called Guard (just the dakka), or Orks (just the choppy).
The versatility is fine but overpriced. My personal take on Marines is something like:
1) Against shooty armies you can attempt to...
-...pretend you're a shooty troop and shoot and get out shot and blown away.
-...pretend you're an assault troop and get blown away and by the time you get there you aren't good enough in assault to actually make a dent anyway.
2) Against assault armies you can attempt to...
-...pretend you're an assault troop and get minced by the opponent's ACTUAL assault troops
-...pretend you're shooty and sit back but not do enough damage to stop the enemy assaulting you and then get minced because you aren't good enough in assault to beat what survived your shooting.
Now, part of that comes down to the fact I think they pay too much for the 3+ save. There's just too much AP3/2 out there and/or opponents who can lay down enough wounds that they'll be decimating your units despite the 3+ save. The way tactical marines do best is by having other things in the army that are more appealing to kill first.
I feel like if you want Tac marines to become appealing (beyond just "I need these things to score") then you probably need to either make them better at shooting with no significant points increase, better at assault with no significant points increase (hello Grey Hunters), or make their Power Armour tougher with no significant points increase.
So basically the argument is that they can't match everyone else's single-purpose dedicated units at what they're single-purposed to do, and apparently there's no way for them to employ their versatility, so they should be just as good as these specialists while remaining versatile and tough and the same points cost, despite often being only a couple points more than many, much less capable, units.
I'm sorry, but I just have a hard time taking that seriously, Tactical marines just are not that bad.
Grey Hunters are EZ-mode autopilot units, they shoot as well as any other MEQ squad, but fight better than any equivalent even when charged. Even against a CC specialist of similar cost, like Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshees, the GH's will maul that unit to half strength before being killed themselves, and that's if the SS/HB unit gets to charge and take no casualties before getting stuck in (i.e. the most favorable circumstances they could ever hope for). There's very little they can't do as well or better than anyone else, and is a reason SW's got so much derision for so long.
Yeah, they are, because they suck precious points away from the parts of your list that can actually hurt your opponent. We've explained this to the pro-tac group over and over. The sum of the whole for tac marines is less than the sum of the parts.
The whole problem is summed up with the 30 cultists + helldrake vs tac marines problem. Marine lists are paying a premium for units that in most games, are little for efficacious than cultists. And die the same to weapons like ion accelerators.
" Even against a CC specialist of similar cost, like Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshees, the GH's will maul that unit to half strength before being killed themselves,"
Which means if you are leaving them embarked on vehicles you are paying for advantages you are not using, same if they are camping objectives. Just look at CSM people take cultists to camp objectives largely because they are cheap, so paying 50 points to hold an objective is better than paying 100 points.
It also means they are less effective at killing things per point then many other troops.
The same largely holds true for durability, there are lots of advantages to having say 3 Guardsman for every marine as far as durability is concerned.
Martel732 wrote: " Whichever way you cut it, the marines have access to firepower which is at least comparable to the riptide's once you factor in cost."
You forgot range. And move shoot move. And the fact that the riptide's firepower doesn't degrade as it takes damage. And the fact that small arms are much, much worse and putting wounds on a Riptide. Shall I go on?
Range and MSM can be relevant. So can many other factors, some of which favour infantry, some of which favour jump monstrous creatures.
Marines often don't need to engage at long range, because they can bunker up, using fortifications and land raiders to deny the enemy anything to shoot at that isn't AV 14. If the enemy stay at long range, they stay bunkered up, taking pot-shots out of firepoints, barraging with TFC and advancing in Land Raiders or waiting for the drop-pod / storm-raven strike. If the enemy close to melta / flamer the buildings, attack the guys behind LOS-blocking terrain, engage the transports, etc. then the marines can emerge and engage.
Marines keep most of their serious firepower until the last few men are removed. A bit irrelevant anyway, since apparently units tend to get annihilated in a single turn these days. Forty lascannon / plasma / autocannon / sniper / vanquisher shots from an Astra Militarum gunline with prescience don't care that you could have fired back if you were still alive. Or is that not the kind of threat we should be prepared for? Because that's the kind of firepower that it takes to remove a squad and a half of marines in one turn. You know, 'wound spam'.
Suddenly small arms are relevant when it comes to the riptide, but marines are over-costed because their resistance to small arms is irrelevant? Or are you saying that the marine's bolters are irrelevant against the riptide? 15 marines out-shoot a riptide's main gun with just their special and heavy weapons anyway. The bolters are just icing that allow them to engage lighter infantry more effectively.
In a direct fight between a riptide and a tactical squad, I'll bet on the riptide. But that's because the riptide is the scissors to the marines' paper. Marines kill everything except monstrous creatures pretty well and the riptide kills everything except marines pretty inefficiently.
I do NOT want to turn this into another GH thread. But GH are an example of what tactical marines should be more like, for sure. But they aren't. Only the SW get true tactical marines, evidently.
"Suddenly small arms are relevant when it comes to the riptide, but marines are over-costed because their resistance to small arms is irrelevant?"
Yes, because the Riptide is a true threat, and tac marines can be safely ignored. They are overcosted because tac marines firepower is abysmal, and consequently can't reduce the amount of incoming fire from their opponents.
Yeah, they are, because they suck precious points away from the parts of your list that can actually hurt your opponent. We've explained this to the pro-tac group over and over. The sum of the whole for tac marines is less than the sum of the parts.
And it's largely justified by comparing then to purpose built units that do one thing only or against things that everyone has a problem with, neither of which should be surprising nor unique to this edition.
The whole problem is summed up with the 30 cultists + helldrake vs tac marines problem. Marine lists are paying a premium for units that in most games, are little for efficacious than cultists. And die the same to weapons like ion accelerators.
Yes, specialized anti-MEQ weapons are very good at killing MEQ's. Such weapons are typically equally effective against other marine units that people don't seem to have problems with, like White Scars bikers and the like. That said, not every weapon in the game is an AP3, wounds T4 on 2's, ignores cover weapon however. They're not even a majority of weapons that Marines will face. They're just very effective when they do face them against marines. Think about how much scarier it is for units like Dire Avengers or Tempestus Scions which aren't appreciably cheaper but are just as easily killed by far more commonly available and cheaper weaponry. A 13pt CSM or 14pt Tac marine gets vaped by a 170pt Heldrake easily, but the commonly available Heavy Flamer vapes 12 and 13pt Scion and Dire Avengers just as easily. How much better and/or cheaper are you going to make the SM's in such a context?
" Even against a CC specialist of similar cost, like Striking Scorpions or Howling Banshees, the GH's will maul that unit to half strength before being killed themselves,"
Umm, they actually win a lot of the time.
I didn't say the CC unit wouldn't win, but that the GH's would cripple them before going down even under the best of circumstances for their opponents.
"I didn't say the CC unit wouldn't win, but that the GH's would cripple them before going down even under the best of circumstances for their opponents."
No, I meant the GH would win that a lot of the time. That's how boss GH are in CC. Which, again, doesn't matter against Tau/Eldar, etc.
"Think about how much scarier it is for units like Dire Avengers"
Anpu42 wrote: Also remember it also comes down to your local Meta a lot of time. In some Meta’s Marines are king, in some Meta’s Marines don’t stand a chance.
That discrepancy should not exist. That's my whole point in a nutshell. The meta should NOT be able to vary that much. That means some units are completely insane and others are for paste-eaters.
Anpu42 wrote: Also remember it also comes down to your local Meta a lot of time. In some Meta’s Marines are king, in some Meta’s Marines don’t stand a chance.
That discrepancy should not exist. That's my whole point in a nutshell. The meta should NOT be able to vary that much. That means some units are completely insane and others are for paste-eaters.
Sometimes Rules can not change that.
If your Meta is filled with 90% Marines, there is not an issue, that same if it is the reverse.
If the Meta is where 90% of the armies are Tau, Eldar or a mix of them, well then both the Meta and the Marine Player suffers.
If the Meta is a mix where TAC List must contend with everything the Marine should do well.
Martel732 wrote: "I didn't say the CC unit wouldn't win, but that the GH's would cripple them before going down even under the best of circumstances for their opponents."
No, I meant the GH would win that a lot of the time. That's how boss GH are in CC. Which, again, doesn't matter against Tau/Eldar, etc.
In which case, no, they certainly shouldn't be that good and Tac's certainly shouldn't be upgraded to that level, because they shouldn't be capable of beating similarly costed CC specialists on the CC specialists terms, and simultaneously tougher, and simultaneously way better at shooting.
"Think about how much scarier it is for units like Dire Avengers"
Always in WS. The flamers will never touch them.
Unless the WS gets popped, they have to take an objective, there's something they need to hop out and shoot, etc. Meanwhile, other units like Scions don't have that luxury.
I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
"In which case, no, they certainly shouldn't be that good and Tac's certainly shouldn't be upgraded to that level, because they shouldn't be capable of beating similarly costed CC specialists on the CC specialists terms, and simultaneously tougher, and simultaneously way better at shooting. "
SW players claim there is nothing wrong with this.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
If I trot BA out against your SW, it's not even a game, really. Part of this is because the tac marine is a dumpster fire. Among other things.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
Yes I do When I run Space Marines or my Dark Angels, I normaly run 3 Tactical Squads with Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon.
I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks, so I know what it feels like, but I don't blame my Tactical Squads.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
Yes I do When I run Space Marines or my Dark Angels, I normaly run 3 Tactical Squads with Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon.
I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks, so I know what it feels like, but I don't blame my Tactical Squads.
I blame the tactical squads for not being able to kill the stuff killing them.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
Yes I do When I run Space Marines or my Dark Angels, I normaly run 3 Tactical Squads with Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon.
I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks, so I know what it feels like, but I don't blame my Tactical Squads.
I blame the tactical squads for not being able to kill the stuff killing them.
Waaaghpower wrote: So what you're saying is, you're better off paying for a bunch of things you'll never use, just in case it comes up as important, than only paying for things that you *know* will be used?
The main thing you pay for with tactical marines is survivability. You are pretty much guaranteed to use that.
People are saying that T 4 and a 3+ save aren't worth much because there are weapons which ignore them. What that doesn't account for is the cost of those weapons compared to alternatives which work better against weaker targets. If you force your opponent to spend 70% more to get something which is optimised against marines rather than fire warriors, you've already made up the cost difference in those two units. A couple of Wyverns or Thunderfire Cannons will chew through fire warriors, guardsmen, kroot and any other light infantry unit much faster than a buffed riptide will take out marines, for fewer points.
Plus, marines can take two of the best transports in the game: Land Raiders and Storm Ravens. What transport can a 40-man combined infantry squad take? They can't even fit in a building, so they are going to be taking casualties right from the start of the game. With fortifications and tough transports available, there's absolutely no need for a tactical squad to worry about taking casualties before they have a chance to do anything.
For strictly sitting in a bunker, fire warriors and kroot may seem more efficient, but bunkers don't last forever and when they start taking damage, 3+ armour saves are very good to have. Marines take an average of 1.94 casualties from a collapsing building, 4+ save models take an average of 2.92. Marines take about two thirds as many casualties, and cost about 50% more than Fire Warriors. Compared to Kroot, they take 40% of the casualties for twice the cost. Only Imperial Guard veterans in carapace armour are significantly more survivable against that kind of 'wound spam' point-for-point. Same situation when getting hit by a serpent shield, or a wyvern, or a TFC. That's without the benefit of the Iron Hands chapter tactics, by the way. Add that into the equation and the marines get about 17% tougher... which brings them to within 7% of the point-per-point survivability of carapace veterans.
BS 4 on emplaced weapons is nice too. Five marines in a bastion is 145 points. Eight fire warriors in a bastion is 147 points. Assuming two sides of the building are facing the enemy and each side has one heavy bolter and two fire points which can draw LOS, the marines can fire two HB and 3 bolters, the FW can fire two HB and 4 pulse rifles. Let's say they are shooting at orks in 5+ cover 20" away. Marines kill 2.44 orks, FW kill 2.22. Kroot do no better than FW. Give the marines a Heavy Weapon and things turn even more in their favour. Again, only one common troop unit in the game seems to do this job better than marines; the guard veteran squad.
In short, the numbers do not support the idea that marines are paying significantly more points for 'unusable' abilities. Their price is consistent with most other troops units in terms of anti-infantry shooting capability and survivability. In a straight fire-fight, they should do well against any other common infantry unit from the standard troops selection except imperial guard veterans. Specialist weapons which kill them more efficiently are priced significantly higher than ones which kill cheaper troops just as effectively. In many cases it's a bit more points efficient to slaughter cheaper troops.
I believe that the problems marines really face are these:
Few people take hordes of cheap troops. They are expensive, take more time to build and paint and are less fun to play with than marines. Therefore people place less value in weapons optimised against them. Because few people play large numbers of poor-save units, they often take people by surprise and perform well because they aren't facing forces designed to kill them.
Some of the best units in the game at the moment are monstrous creatures (like the riptide), or other good-save, high-toughness models, such as eldar jetbikes, marine bikes, plague marines, battlesuits and so on. People have to take weapons which can deal with those threats. Such weapons are pretty much universally great at killing marines too. Note that many of those units are considered good despite being more expensive than marines and being just as vulnerable to getting wiped-out by anti-marine weapons. If that level of vulnerability was really such a problem, why would people take those units? They might have more firepower and maneuverability than tactical squads, but what good does that do them if they don't survive to use it?
Eldar jetbikes are T 4, 3+ save guys who cost more than marines and only have a cover save to make them any tougher... but everyone seems to think that cover saves are useless now. They are great for last-minute objective claiming, but everyone seems to be saying that such a unit will never survive until the end of the game. Marine bikes are praised for being T 5, but T 5 is just as useless as T 4 against S 7, which is apparently what does most of the damage these days.
A 10-man squad of Iron Hands takes 21 plasma hits to wipe off the board (assuming 5+ cover). A basic riptide takes just 12. The riptide can increase it's survivability with a stimulant injector, but it's still only taking 18 plasma hits to kill and it now costs much more than the marines. The Nova Reactor has a two-third chance of doubling the riptide's survivability (but a one-third chance of damaging it). Even then, it's 'only' going to take 30 plasma hits to wipe it off the board on average. For a unit which costs 215 point minimum. For that cost, you can buy fifteen marines, who take 32 plasma hits to kill. Marines are basically just as tough as riptides point-per-point against plasma. They benefit more from defensive buffs and hiding in terrain or transports too. The riptide does better against small-arms of course, but they don't do much to either unit.
But surely the riptide has more firepower? An anti-marine riptide can inflict two or three casualties a turn on a marine squad. Meanwhile 10 marines with a lascannon and plasma gun will inflict about two thirds that damage for about two thirds the cost. The riptide is better, but not much better (it's impossible to quantify exactly how good the RT is unfortunately, because there is no easy way to calculate the average hits from a large blast... but against small units which can spread out in line formation, it isn't that many). Against a unit of guard veterans with camo-gear, the riptide does significantly worse than marines. You can boost the riptide's performance by buffing it with ignores cover, but when you factor in the cost of ignoring cover (about 50 points per unit using markerlights), the riptide is approaching the cost of two whole squads of marines. Whichever way you cut it, the marines have access to firepower which is at least comparable to the riptide's once you factor in cost. The riptide kills marines and bikes better, the marines handle vehicles and light infantry better. Both do about the same against monstrous creatures. The riptide may work out a little more efficient overall, but it's close. The riptide is mostly just more impressive, because slapping down a big blast and then removing several models without a save is a more intimidating effect than plinking away with a couple of squads even though on average, they cause the same casualties.
So, when it comes to the basic jobs of killing stuff and not dying, marines don't look too bad when compared to the riptide, generally considered one of the best units in the game.
But surely the riptide has many other advantages, such as being able to jump and smash? Well, marines have other minor advantages too, but we dismissed them as useless already, because the game now comes down to shooting the other guy until he is dead. Which marines do just as well as pretty much everyone else, according to my math-hammer.
1. The issue is that the weapons being used to kill Marines are not specialist weapons, they are (or have become) standard because they are good at killing everything. Wave Serpents aren't just bringing Scatter Lasers because they are good at killing Marines. Same with Riptides and Ion Accelerators. This was an issue in prior editions as well with Plasma weapons, since their relatively high strength and range (compared to other specials) meant they could threaten anything bolters would shoot at as well as most targets their heavy weapon would be firing at too.
But more to this point, TFCs see use in a TAC list due to their types of shots (one of which is a nice Str 6 shot). I'm not so sure a Wyvern battery will (especially given how much of a headache figuring out wounding currently works with one, let alone multiples). Neither of these are likely to do anything to troops in ruins, as smart players will keep their vulnerable units off the top floor but both are certainly usable against Marines.
2. Both have hard counters in the current meta, and both take up a significant number of points. If you are using them to transport assault units, those units are very much unlikely to be Tactical Marines. In both cases these vehicles are likely taking up HS slots, as they are not dedicated transports for troops selections (at least, for the vanilla Marine armies). Land Raider Spam has certainly been seen as a dark horse army in some events, however certain popular builds (Screamerstar comes to mind) act as an extreme hard counter.
3. All I can say on this one is that I rarely see Tacticals sitting in bunkers, as it means they are probably further away from the battle than they can contribute. I guess if you put an objective next to the bunker that'd work.
4. Your selection of range on the emplaced weapons is biased. At 30-25" the Fire Warriors are killing 2.22 Orks to the Marines' 1.8, and at 15" - 13" the Fire Warriors are killing 3.15 to the Marines' 2.44. Certainly adding a heavy weapon (I'm guessing a heavy bolter) to the marines changes things to their benefit as the Tau can't benefit from additional troops (or marker drones) as they've run out of fire points, so that couldn't be argued unless you wanted to allow the Tau player to use their synergies with outside units.
5. The cheap troops issue is dependent on meta. Competitive CSM lists, Orks, and Tyranids generally have to rely on cheap troops. Tau certainly rely on them as well, but don't need to spam them.
6. Bingo
7. Eldar Jetbikes are actually fine. They have the same T and Sv of Marines, but while ignore cover is prevalent they can and do rely on the fact that they are exceptionally fast and have access to a psychic power that lets them reroll their armor saves (or cover saves if they get them). They can easily last turn objective grab/deny from well outside of enemy range/LOS.
8. The problem of the analysis comparing Marines to Riptides is that you are looking at them in a vacuum. Riptides will almost always have access to a buffcommander or markerlights that will help them strip cover and shoot better. Marines can only rely on additional units to add shooting or act as distractions (unless they bring in something with Divination). A 10 man Tac Squad trying to hug cover in LoS of a Riptide is likely perfectly bunched up for that template to remove them (or reduce them to the point where FW shooting can clear them out). The argument of cost is silly, because a Riptide with buffcommander is likely to more than make back its point cost over the course of the game. Certainly, it's way over the point value to kill one full squad, but how about two? Three?
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
"In which case, no, they certainly shouldn't be that good and Tac's certainly shouldn't be upgraded to that level, because they shouldn't be capable of beating similarly costed CC specialists on the CC specialists terms, and simultaneously tougher, and simultaneously way better at shooting. "
SW players claim there is nothing wrong with this.
I'm sure they do.
Some IG players probably thought the Vendetta was perfectly fine as well at 130pts for 3 TL lascannons on an AV12 transport flyer in an FoC slot with zero competition too.
There's a reason SW's were *the* bandwagon "counts-as" army of 5th edition, with the 2011 adepticon having more SW armies than any other army, and all but 3 were just re-branded Codex marines or Chaos marine armies.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
Yes I do When I run Space Marines or my Dark Angels, I normaly run 3 Tactical Squads with Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon.
I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks, so I know what it feels like, but I don't blame my Tactical Squads.
I blame the tactical squads for not being able to kill the stuff killing them.
I have never had that problem myself.
"I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks"
So how did this happen, then? Also, that's a LOT of 6's coming from the melee guys.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think GW is ever going to change how tac marines work, so I'll continue to minimize their worthless arses in my lists, and I guess other will continue to load up on them. We can determine who is right on the battlefield.
As it should be.
You don't have tac marines. So you really don't understand this problem. You have actual marines.
Yes I do When I run Space Marines or my Dark Angels, I normaly run 3 Tactical Squads with Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma-Cannon.
I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks, so I know what it feels like, but I don't blame my Tactical Squads.
I blame the tactical squads for not being able to kill the stuff killing them.
I have never had that problem myself.
"I even had 2 games where I never even get to make a Save thanks to AP2 Pie or Melee Rending Attacks"
So how did this happen, then?
Well Game one was a horror fest involving Gard, 9 Artillary peices, Melta-Vets in Ventetas and Dvevile Dog out of reserve. Everything that could go wrong for me did.
Thar Second was a Genestaler Army suported by the DoM.
Now this was back in 5th.
You can still win a game with tac marines on your side of the table. They just don't make it any easier for you. If you only take a minimum 2 squads of 5 guys, you're spending 140 for maybe 120ish points of actual table value.
Table value can change based on what you're facing, but my general personal experience of 50-60 games since 6th that actually involve tacticals leads me to believe that they're just a couple points too expensive per model.
For comparison, I'd value an ion tide on the table at around 100 points HIGHER than what it actually costs, so when you take three of them, you're adding about 900 points of value to your list for only 600 points.
If you actually go nuts with tac marines, like say 4 full squads with rhinos, you could end up paying 740 + any special/heavy weapon selections, for a total of about 580ish of actual table effectiveness. If your opponent is the aforementioned triptide player, before your other list selections, you're already down almost 500 points in actual army effectiveness.
Can you win given such a handicap? Yes! Sometimes the opponent makes shoddy decisions like actually attacking the tac marines first instead of something that can actually affect the battle. And sometimes the dice love you and even the match up for you.
A good example of this phenomenon is: When I tried out grey knights with divination, I wrote a 2k list that I considered to be actually worth about 2700 or so, so I challenged a friend to 2k vs. 2500 to test it. I ended up tabling him with my dead pile at just 4 models. One razorback and 3 marines.
Same list played against 2k triptide tau. Both estimated table values (according to me) were in the 2500-2700 range. Game result? I won off one objective, but both forces were heavily damaged. And I had intentionally offed his two minimum fire warrior squads as soon as I could. Swingy dice, as well as my opponent realizing that his troops needed to stay alive, could have sent it the other way.
The moral here is that there ARE units that aren't priced correctly, such as previous edition SM bikes or riptides. The more you can identify and load up on units that are undercosted, the bigger of an advantage you have. (That's not the only factor of course, synergy of units can increase table value immensely, see Baron in a jetseer council for example.)
This all sums up to: tac marines cost too much, but it's not crippling, just "kinda bad."
Hardly noticeable as long as you don't take a ton of them.
Martel732 wrote: "Hardly noticeable as long as you don't take a ton of them"
It's still offensive from a fluff point of view for sure.
I agree. I consider 12 point haywire wyches to be about on par with theoretical 12 point tac marines. They die to shooting, but are much better at melee, vehicle destruction, have fleet, and are better at dealing with MC's.
The problem with them is: shooty edition is shooty.
Well part of it is once more the Meta. When we list build we use the following guideline:
HQ: 1-2
Troops: 2-6
Elites: 1-3
Fast Attack: 1-3
Heavy Support: 1-3
We also try to have one scoring unit per 500 points and as we normally play 2,000-2,250 that is 4 Scoring Units.
I normally take:
HQ: Pedro Kantor
Troops: 3x Tactical Squads [Lighting Claw, Combi-Plasma, Plasma-Gun and Plasma Cannon each]
Elite: Sternguard [Lighting Claw, 8x Combi-Plasma, 2x Plasma Guns]
Fast Attack: 3x Land Speeder Typhoons
Heavy Support: Storm Talon
This is my Core; I usually take a Dreadnaught, and a Librarian, but not always.
I place Kantor and the Sternguard in the Storm Raven along with the Librarian and the Dread for taking Objectives. My Land Speeders act as Mobil Fire support.
This leaves my Tactical Squads to hold or take mid-field Objectives. This they do well generally speaking, nothing more nothing less. With the Plasma they threaten most things on the board, with the exception of AV14 and if I am expecting AV14 I take my Melta Armed Sternguard in a second Strom Raven, because that is what Sternguard do.
This is how I see Tactical Squads; they are a core to build your list around. Now I do believe that it is my local Meta is what make them work more than anything.
Now that is not to say they are the greatest, but they “Are Not That bad”.
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Tighter rules and codices would fix that tremendously.
Vaktathi wrote: Please just use the normal quote functionality, it can't be more effort than color coding everything.
Okey dokey.
Edit: Can we agree to make the arguments more concise, this post took pretty long to respond to.
They don't hold objectives with any degree of amazingness, they're T3 4+sv Ld8 units. Yes they pump out fire. However they're T3 4+sv Ld8 (meaning they're relatively easy to shift off objectives) and can't do squat to most vehicles and are relatively ineffective against most Monstrous Creatures.
Most infantry is ineffective against monstrous creatures in shooting (except, well, Grey Hunters/IG Vets with specials) and their defensive stats don't seem amazing, but considering that A) As a unit, they're cheap B) Ethereals are very commonly take to mitigate leadership issues and C) Most of the time the things that would wreck them at close range never get in the sweet spot because, well, Tau, and because they're relatively long ranged, I don't really agree they're easy to shift off objectives.
The key thing is that they're actually doing something useful in terms of firepower that isn't completely meh at a fairly long range.
Well, yes, supporting fire is rather silly, but that's not a Fire Warrior or Tac Squad specific thing, that's applies to all Tau units and many other armies have to deal with that as well.
True, but it mitigates the single weakness against other infantry they have.
There's all sorts of units that won't have a problem closing the range, the bigger issue for Tac squads is that they have to spend a turn sitting there after hopping out of a transport no matter what. Drop Pods usually work rather well, as even though they have the same problem, positioning is far easier and you can't shoot a pod from across the board before it gets to where it wants to be.
This is an issue that yes, is pretty bad for Tac squads foremost, and yes, some units like Bikers will find the job of closing with the Tau easier - but those Bikers are potential Troops, and they get a massive number of bonuses over Tacs anyway, so why not take them over Tacs? The big problem with Drop Pods is that we're also talking about an army where everything under the sun can buy a 5 pt Interceptor upgrade, and marshal retaliation fire that could easily wipe a Drop Pod assault turn after turn, even with some casualties sustained.
Regardless, that's nothing new, they've been able to take that many guns in a barebones platoon since at least 3rd edition if not 2nd. Why is this suddenly an issue?
It's not. Its the Tac Squad's allowances being pretty stupid that is an issue. They should at the very least be able to get 2 specials.
Yes, however, as above, the SM's basic weaponry is notably more effective and each gun the SM's have is more capable.
You don't buy a Tactical Squad for the basic weaponry- same as how you don't buy Veterans for the 6 Lasguns in the squad. The IG have plenty of support assets that can mop the floor with infantry, the flashlights aren't meant to let a Vet Squad decimate something outside of the specials, they're just extra fire that might conceivably do something. SM on the other hand get vary handi-capped support assets - Thunderfires are barrage, BS4, have multiple blasts, but they're not AP3, and they're not going to do much at all to heavy infantry that the Tacs can't handle. Vindicators vanish when their side armour is ranged, and have a short threat range and life expectancy. Just to name 2 examples. This doesn't mean either unit is particularly bad - it just demonstrates that when the balls-out firepower option of either conserving points in troops by getting Scouts, or by going for firepower by getting Bikes in place of Tacs, those downsides that the specialist heavy firepower have aren't such a big deal anymore, as Grav Bikers wreck MC's, heavy infantry and light infantry with equal measure, at high speed.
The only thing the SMTac Squad gets that IG/GH don't is the Grav Gun for one, and that tends to be naff on non-relentless units and not taken even by those devoted to Tacs, and the Multi-Melta second, which you only get one of in a 200~ pt squad. Not exactly stellar. BS4 is nice, but not worth the sum of the other issues with Tacs.
3 slots, the command squad cannot take 2 heavy weapons, and they're all at a less capable ballistic skill.
My bad. Yes, its at a worse ballistic skill, but can the point really be made when comparing 3 BS3 weapons to 1 BS4 weapon? There is a clear winner there.
Yes, and that's largely the entirety of their value of those units, the guns. If you want as many guns as the IG...play IG? SM's have never been about achieving firepower parity with the shootiest army in the game. That would be absurd.
It is the entire value of those units, the role, the reason for taking, the thing that actually adds something competent to your list. Tacticals don't add anything except an expensive slab of meat that doesn't even particularly hold up against fire when it comes down to it, can't put out enough fire to be justifiable, and don't give any role that makes them worthwhile, while being inferior to Bikes in many, many ways. They do not have enough special/heavy firepower to create a squad with a solid role. They don't have any abilities or things that you really need in an SM list trying to be competitive.
Bikes are taken because they can rip half the wounds off an MC quick, efficiently and for much the same cost with Grav Weapons, decimate all forms of infantry, score and reposition quickly. Scouts are cheap and cheerful.
SM's have an APC, it's a cheap box to get Supersoldiers from point A to point B so they can do their Supersoldier thing. Guardsmen have an IFV, to shelter and support weeny infantry. The SM transport has better side armor and has side hatch, the IG transport must put its one good armor facing away from the enemy to get the maximum disembark distance and has worse side armor. Different tools for different purposes.
Except the Rhino just doesn't work. It may have very small advantages like its cheaper cost and better side armour, but the fact is, it evaporates considerably faster with AV11 front and there is nothing in the SM book worth taking that can do the LR+Chimera LOS block gimmick well.
A Tac squad with Rhino costs virtually the same as 5 Bikes - unless you take naff bolter marines to flesh out the Tac Squad, the price doesn't vary much at all between the two. Having a 12'' movement, 12'' turboboost, T5, jink save, relentless and maybe something else definitely wins out over the Rhino.
Meanwhile a flamer is going to utterly screw an IG squad while doing nothing to the SM's.
On how many occasions have you seen dedicated flamer units, much less any that get close to your infantry? In the competitive meta, they're extremely rare. Usually, template weapons like so are AP3 or better, or S6+.
Besides, a single flamer template, providing you didn't bunch up extremely close, is going to hit, at most, what, 6-8? That's about 4-5 dead Guardsmen. If they have bolters, add another 4 or 5 dead, presuming cover. You've then got about 20+ infantry left that with FRFSRF and supporting assets will wipe the floor with those Tacs.
Indeed, the far more common prospect here is the lower AP, considerable range pie plates.
Some weapons will naturally be more effective. Use the right tool for the job. AP3 pieplates are also generally the realm of heavy support battletanks (Fire Prism, Leman Russ, etc) so you're usually not facing a wall of them.
In competitive lists things like Riptides, Prisms, Russes, etc are going to be common and you can take 4-5 (exception of Eldar) at 1750~.
That said, there's also a huge number of ways to mitigate battlecannon fire. I stopped running normal Russ's in most games for precisly because they're so easy to mitigate. A modicum of spread and any amount of cover drastically reduces the effectiveness of a battlecannon.
Unless you catch a clumped up squad in the open with a hit, a battle cannon is probably only killing 2-3 marines. They're great psychological threats, but not as capable as many fear them to be. Landing shot on a unit of moderately spread marines in 5+ cover, say it hits 5, between wounding on 2's and 5+ cover, that fearsome pieplate might kill 3 guys.
The standard LRBT isn't that great, if we're being fair. The Executioner (with the mandatory anti-gets hot measures) is going to be the primary example for IG here. The Tacticals can spread, but then they're closer to your other elements, if its even practical for them to try, (e.g, trying to avoid being ranged by something) they may spend longer trying to get through cover, and with every casualty, they're taking longer to reach your lines, because of the space between each loose rank of infantry.
3 dead Marines, which is a pretty conservative estimate, also given the above, is still roughly a third of the squad, meaning your already naff anti-infantry is now even more trashy. And this is from just one 150 point tank, that is pretty underpowered and overcosted as it is.
They can take Commissars at 25pts per unit...on 50-60pt units. That's..not particularly cheap.
Marines at best get LD9 by paying 10 points on top of an already expensive redundant unit. You're not going to be shoving the HQIC's in the Rhinos, and if you're silly enough to try, you're only putting a block of gold in a bag of rotten eggs. Except the bag is also rotting. And has holes in it. And you have other rotten bags to carry on top of the heavy weight of the priceless metal.
Priests are 25 for flat out fearless, a Commissar lets you auto-pass leadership so long as he lives, and while there is a small chance you may lose one special in a platoon blob, you still have several more. He also gives stubborn, so you don't get rolled easily in CC unless the enemy has a boatload of attacks.
They can take Lord Commissars for a minimum price nearly that of two rhinos and give a Regimental Standard to a CCS, but neither of those units are particularly hardy.
They're not the only options here, and definitely not the best. And the LC is far from easy to snipe out.
The only super cheap Ld booster, especially one that can't be relatively easily removed, is a Commissar for a conscript squad or a Combined Infantry Squad.
You're completely forgetting about Priests. 25 points for fearless, before you even consider the CC buffs. And the Priest has a 4+ invuln and the ability to smash.
That all depends on what you're throwing at them. If we're talking about a pitched heavy weapons battle, well surprise surprise, the army specializing in attritional pitched battles is going to win (until it has to start taking Ld tests or suffer a tankshock or whatnot, if we're assuming it has Ld reinforcement then the cost of the Ld reinforcement will need to be factored in and it's not going to be cheaper than the tac squad). If we're talking about an objective in the open (often happens) at close range, or one that has to be *taken*? That's a different story.
If there's an objective in the open, the SM player's Tacs will get wiped off it in as a cloth doth wipe down a table. Tacticals are atrociously bad at assaulting a defensive position with a sizeable platoon, with LD buffers sitting on it. At best they do about 10~ casualties, and then get double-tapped into oblivion, or even ripped apart in CC if a Priest is present. With re-rolls to hit and wound, there will be a sore pain in their posteriors. This isn't even considering the fact that Tacticals struggle to reach the enemy full stop, and the supporting assets of the IG.
It doesn't matter if its the same price, because in 40k we don't match units of equal cost on the field. What we can match in theoryhammer is likely unit loudouts - a blob in a competitive game is going to have an LD/morale buffer, period.
For some weapons in some cases this is true. But in most it isn't, and most of those are a whole lot cheaper than ones that are good at killing marines. Marines have a whole lot less cover save ignoring weaponry to fear, and there are no commonly available secondary weapons systems for tanks which do so, unlike say, Heavy Flamers that are available on each and every IG tank, or Smart Missile Systems available on anything Tau with an AV value plus their big scary robot guys (yeah we're twin linked, wound you on 2's, ignore your armor and cover, oh and we don't need line of sight).
Heavy Flamers on IG tanks are only really going to be threatening on Chimeras, and they're not particularly reliable enough to reach the perfect killing point against a competent opponent. The Riptide is one of the big examples of the worthlessness of Tac Marine defense, so I'm surprised you used that.
True, there are some weapons designed to muller Guardsmen that in some cases are more common, e.g the Thunderfire. However with the number of models you have you can take extreme defensive measures with massive spread (if their role is to be defensive in the first place, which it probably will be as the SM player will almost always be playing aggressive) and other precautions as you hinted at above far more efficiently than with 14 point dudes.
Surprise, if a unit designed to kill them gets in optimal range, they die. How's this different than anything else in the game?
You were claiming here that they were capable of taking on different targets in different situations, which isn't a particularly strong point here.
the option to take a missile launcher or lascannon no longer exists? They have no krak grenades anymore?
Missile Launchers/Lascannons aren't feasible or being fired at BS4 in a Tac Squad unless they're home camping, which is just mediocrity at its purest. Vehicle assaults just aren't reliable or feasibly going to happen against a competent opponent often unless his luck sucks or he makes a mistake.
Marines don't have ways of getting themselves within 6" of enemy units?
Rhinos/Razorbacks are horrible at getting within Tacs within 6'', half will be dead by turn 2 and by that point you won't have anything resembling a decent offensive. Storm Ravens are expensive and you're prone to losing the bird before you deploy often. Land Raiders are too expensive and take up HS slots. Drop pods only work well if your opponent doesn't know how drop pods work.
They can't take powerfists anymore? I've seen many an MC taken down by a powerfist. Now, the unit isn't always in great shape after that, but they're certainly not defenseless. A marine unit should on average kill something like a Carnifex in two rounds between a powerfist and their grenades.
Except you're bloating an already overpriced and naff unit with an upgrade that only really adds questionable defence against a hostile up to a certain point. A DP, the most fierce Nid MC's, the Avatar, a Wraithknight and various others will not be frightened of a Power Fist or will wipe the floor with the squad first.
Bikes ignore the issue of being screwed by MC's the moment you give them Grav Guns, or if playing White/Khan Scars, they can hit and run. The ability to hose your average MC with AP2 fire and evade it if necessary, for considerably cheaper, with upgrades that do a fair bit more too, makes the power fist point here a bit moot.
One will also note that the MC's that are best at engaging Marines are usually the ones that cost a ton of points and can't offer much besides marine killing and tank smashing, many of which also basically have to slog into CC on foot. For instance, yeah, an Eldar Avatar is *real* rough on a unit of Marines in CC, but he's also not good at really anything else but that and has to footslog his way there.
The problem is that they do show up, and if you're not playing aggressively with Tacs you're wasting points.
The Tac Marine squad here is roughly about 200 points, which is about 2/3 of even the most expensive MC's cost paid back immediately. And you mean "infantry decimating, MC tackling, Tank smashing." That is very all encompassing.
Again, how's that different than for any other unit in the game?
Wave Serpent Dire Avengers don't get that issue, period, because the Serpents are nigh-unkillable. IG Platoons have the numbers to absorb fire or the HW's to feasibly hold their ground instead. Tau don't have to move forward at all really because you're peppering them from 30''.
And how much is this platoon costing at this point? That certainly looks nothing like anything that might be made to resemble "cheap".
Maybe not entirely legitimate to claim those upgrades, but the IG have the supporting assets that mitigate the issues of MC's approaching greatly. E.g Straken+ Counter assault, Tanks, Vendettas,
Can you not do the same by taking Predators and Land Raiders? Besides, normally the IG are going to do the opposite, the LR tanks are going to sit behind the transports (especially as they're Heavy and can only move 6", a serious slowdown for a mechanized advance) and provide fire support while the Chimeras advance, much the way most marine mechanized assaults work.
Predators are complete garbage, and have side armour 11, where LR's have 13. Land Raiders are also pretty garbage in terms of firepower and cost efficiency, no competitive list will ever field them as LOS blockers like LR's. And though perhaps an entirely different debate, I place more value on my limited supply of Mech scoring and SW counter attack units because I don't run full mechanised generally. I always try to grab the 5+ 25% obscurement on the LR's or exploit Strike and Shroud.
or if non-mechanised infantry, you can move on foot very fast with MMM! issued every turn.
This requires having an officer within 12", not having anything better to do with that order, and passing the order. None of which are necessarily guaranteed. You can make it very reliable with a Commissar and a Vox, but that's another 30pts to a 5ppm unit.
The PCS is only really decent at blob buffing, so you will be using the orders on the blob. Getting an officer in 12'' is not difficult, and passing LD9/10 re-rollable (latter if you took an Inquisitor) is exceedingly reliable.
They hit back only after taking casualties into account, and guys getting back up don't count towards break tests, and don't get to swing until your marines get another chance to put them back down again. Unless you're facing a huge horde of them or they've got a character in there, the marines should take them in a couple of rounds of CC.
You will be killing at most 2-3 Warriors a turn, before reanimation, and there will likely be a Lord/IC with high leadership present. A Tactical Squad locked in a near unending combat is a worthless Tactical Squad - the CC ability you're trying to demonstrate here isn't working against Warriors. You probably won't even win the combat - the Warriors get S4 too.
What are we defining as "average"? Would it happen to be something like, oh, say, a statline of 4's?
Above average compared to Marines, yes. Harlequins, Beast Masters, Striking Scorpions, Ork Boys, CC buffed Guardsmen, Cult CSM infantry, the list goes on.
Marines have more than enough capabilities between their numerous deployment methods
All of which are pretty terrible...
and psychic abilities and other capabilities to create their own luck.
Yet no divination outside of Tiggy, who is not going to be in a Tac Squad...
At this point you're making it sound like Marine armies are mewling babes of ineptness, that simply cannot win a game on any terms unless through some stroke of extreme luck. This is not remotely true.
With Tacticals forming the core of your list, against competitive armies/lists, it is. I wasted months of my time trying to make them work, only for C:SM to be released, and invalidate them by making Bikes moronically superior.
They're supposed to be generalists. They've always been generalists. They always will beneralists. On their own, they put out more shooting hurt than most other units (in an absolute sense if not always a relative sense) and put out more CC hurt than most similar units (again, in an absolute sense if not always in a relative sense).
Noone wants a generalist that isn't particularly good at anything. Tac Marines are above average at most things, but pay out the ass for it, and have no role or effective contribution by the time you're done. You're stating what they're meant to be, instead of what they are.
And I feel that pain, as someone that has dozens of the buggers.
Maybe if the rules were written decently generalist Tacticals would work. Right now they don't.
And I'd trade my Tempestus Scions' stats and AP3 guns for Marine guns and stats any day of the week at the drop of a hat, especially given their near-parity in points.
Except you can't, though.
Tempestus Scions have double specials, and deepstrike. Therefore, they have a purpose/role/reason to include. They can do something you can't otherwise get. They have no better alternative, considering the deep strike, outside of Vets, which have more trouble reaching the enemy because they don't have DS.
Do they just walk around clumped up in the open or something? Mine usually only kill 2-3 a turn if they're lucky. If I manage to land that very rare shot on the clumped up disembarked unit in the open, that's always fun as they all get scraped off the board, but I can remember the numbers of times I've gotten to do that on two hands over multiple editions of this game. Most of the time the opponent spreads them out, can get some sort of cover save, so that even if I manage to hit 5 or 6 (or more usually 2-4) I'm probably not killing more than 3, and that's assuming the scatter doesn't completely whiff.
I'm looking more at 3-5 at worst, and with multiple tanks and other supporting assets. I can't really evaluate my opponents as a whole but 95% of the time I'm not playing Steve the newbie with DV.
Scatter whiffing is far less of an issue now we have plentiful access to divination with IG.
The transports are pretty easy to kill, but so are Chimeras, and so is basically anything that's not a heavy tank or a "we always have a 4+ save" medium armored skimmer in 6E.
Chimeras from the front are in the sweet spot for armour, have feasible LOS blocking LR's in partnership, and are either more plentiful than with Marines, and not the core part of the strategy most of the time- you have supporting assets that are better suited to killing their hunters.
For the price of such a platoon, I would hope so. A 50 man platoon, before *any* upgrades, costs more than a kitted tac squad and transport. A kitted 30man platoon? As above, easily more than 300pts.
Not easily more than 300 points. 3 Infantry Squads, with 3 meltaguns, a Vox and a Priest is 210, about the same cost as the Tactical Squad. Again, on likelihood of finding over cost comparison, you will be seeing 50 man squads your Tacticals can't handle.
And a half squad of marines unloading bolters at such a squad would do much the same back for roughly the same price.
5 Bolters at BS4, double tapping, is about 3 Guardsmen in 5+/4+ cover dead.
Not necessarily, the squad may have podded in, taken out something with meltas on entry, lost 4 or 5 dudes the turn after, and now it can hit a tank or two with grenades in an assault on its own turn.
1) This makes the assumption that you presented the unit freely to be killed, when you could have put it in reserve or given it bubble wrap, or done something similar.
2) Tacticals with 2 full BS melta shots are not that reliable at tank popping.
3) You move the tanks after the attack away, you pepper the Tacticals, and even if they survive (somehow) you present obstacles like bubblewrap Guardsmen or counter assault/attack units.
Yes, and that's why it costs as much as that tac squad. It's also not exactly the most reliable of weapons as it scatters about and the unit spreads itself out. Meanwhile the tank can't score or contest objectives, can't move more than 6" a turn, has nothing to do in the CC phase of the game but get hit and die, and has no way to get about the board more effectively or any alternate deployment options.
But it will be seen, making it seem a less attractive option doesn't really succeed in proving anything. And yes, it costs as much the squad possibly, but you're wiping many of the points off that Tac squad when you fire.
And, again, divination in IG.
CONCENSUS!!!!
I don't believe there's an point in debating if you can't concede on something.
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Tighter rules and codices would fix that tremendously.
I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Tighter rules and codices would fix that tremendously.
I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?
Interceptor giving both interception and normal-BS-if-you-have-Skyfire, for one. Why they bundled those two together I'll never understand.
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Tighter rules and codices would fix that tremendously.
I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?
Interceptor giving both interception and normal-BS-if-you-have-Skyfire, for one. Why they bundled those two together I'll never understand.
That is fixing a rule, Tighting is clarifying, at least thats understand it.
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Tighter rules and codices would fix that tremendously.
I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?
Go over to YMDC. But more importantly than that, not having things like C:BA and C:Eldar in the same game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Okay. Mr. Omega is way more thorough than even I cared to be. His summary basically translated all my anecdotal experience and all my logical complaints into a post.
In practice, I ignore tacticals and for the stuff that hurts. Because it works. Because I CAN ignore them. I can't ignore 60 sniper kroot, from the rends alone.
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Tighter rules and codices would fix that tremendously.
I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?
Go over to YMDC. But more importantly than that, not having things like C:BA and C:Eldar in the same game.
I was looking something more specific.
As far as C:BA vs C:Eldar, that is the choice of the players.
"As far as C:BA vs C:Eldar, that is the choice of the players."
Not really. I shouldn't have to chase flavor of the edition lists.
Specific example: do vehicles get cover against grav hits? There's a ton of ambiguous rules in this game. But as I said, the 6th ed gulf between have and have-nots is pretty huge.
As far as C:BA vs C:Eldar, that is the choice of the players.
But it shouldn't have to be. If a given player just really loves Blood Angels, s/he should be allowed to bring his/her Blood Angels to any game against any other army and have a chance to win.
As far as C:BA vs C:Eldar, that is the choice of the players.
But it shouldn't have to be. If a given player just really loves Blood Angels, s/he should be allowed to bring his/her Blood Angels to any game against any other army and have a chance to win.
Yes, but without going to house rules all we can do is B*tch and Whine or come up with something else.
That is what our group did, we Decided to play more Fluffy List. We did not create house rules to do it. That FOC list I gave earlyer was an Oprion Rule we ASKED avery one to go by and mostly. Since then no one army has Dominated the game other than MEQs, but that is the majority of our armies.
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Tighter rules and codices would fix that tremendously.
I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?
Go over to YMDC. But more importantly than that, not having things like C:BA and C:Eldar in the same game.
I was looking something more specific.
As far as C:BA vs C:Eldar, that is the choice of the players.
Can models with blast weapons and the preferred enemy rule reroll scatter dice even though they may never roll a "1"?
Can Unit X after witholding from overwatch and being succesfully charged by Unit Y then overwatch Unit Z when it charges in the same assualt phase?
Commisar Yarrick outranks himself thus he can never be your warlord.
When Pyrovores die to an instant death results, every unit on the table is hit for each model within d6" of the slain pyrovore.
The exalted flamer chariot may never fire it's flamer if it intends to move.
Codex Legion of the Damned autoloses if taken as the only detachment type(s).
Anrakyr can draw LOS of to an enemy tank but he cannot use his power that requires LOS.
RAW, you hit units both above and below of a skyshield at the same time with blast weapons.
If you go second, you fire the Deathstrike Missile on your first turn.
Do troops in formations score?
Does the "Take Aim" order really make all IG shots placed shots or do they still require to roll a 6 first?
How does target locks and assault work in terms of choosing targets?
Can a character with infiltrate grant it to the unit he joins?
Can I assault a vehicle I cannot hurt? No, by the BRB, but Yes by the FAQs.
Can models that don't require LOS intercept a model that's has arrived from reserves and not within LOS?
Do multiple maledictions of the same type stack?
Per the rules, a vehicle draws line of site parallel to the plane of the weapon being fire with allowance for +/- 45 degrees. How does the SoB Exorcist target an enemy besides those directly above it?
If I am in area terrain and I am obscured by a ruin, if I go to ground, do I now have a 3+ or 2+ cover save?
Does a scarab grant entropic strike to a guad gun?
You can't run with the relic, but you can still turboboost with jetbikes.
What happens if a unit of Possesed is embarked in a transport and turns into beasts?
Flying MCs in swooping mode gain area terrain cover saves while "flying".
I can find more, but it's not worth my time. It's relatively easy to find massive discrepencies within the rules if you're actually looking.
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Tighter rules and codices would fix that tremendously.
I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?
Go over to YMDC. But more importantly than that, not having things like C:BA and C:Eldar in the same game.
I was looking something more specific.
As far as C:BA vs C:Eldar, that is the choice of the players.
Can models with blast weapons and the preferred enemy rule reroll scatter dice even though they may never roll a "1"?
Can Unit X after witholding from overwatch and being succesfully charged by Unit Y then overwatch Unit Z when it charges in the same assualt phase?
Commisar Yarrick outranks himself thus he can never be your warlord.
When Pyrovores die to an instant death results, every unit on the table is hit for each model within d6" of the slain pyrovore.
The exalted flamer chariot may never fire it's flamer if it intends to move.
Codex Legion of the Damned autoloses if taken as the only detachment type(s).
Anrakyr can draw LOS of to an enemy tank but he cannot use his power that requires LOS.
RAW, you hit units both above and below of a skyshield at the same time with blast weapons.
If you go second, you fire the Deathstrike Missile on your first turn.
Do troops in formations score?
Does the "Take Aim" order really make all IG shots placed shots or do they still require to roll a 6 first?
How does target locks and assault work in terms of choosing targets?
Can a character with infiltrate grant it to the unit he joins?
Can I assault a vehicle I cannot hurt? No, by the BRB, but Yes by the FAQs.
Can models that don't require LOS intercept a model that's has arrived from reserves and not within LOS?
Do multiple maledictions of the same type stack?
Per the rules, a vehicle draws line of site parallel to the plane of the weapon being fire with allowance for +/- 45 degrees. How does the SoB Exorcist target an enemy besides those directly above it?
If I am in area terrain and I am obscured by a ruin, if I go to ground, do I now have a 3+ or 2+ cover save?
Does a scarab grant entropic strike to a guad gun?
You can't run with the relic, but you can still turboboost with jetbikes.
What happens if a unit of Possesed is embarked in a transport and turns into beasts?
Flying MCs in swooping mode gain area terrain cover saves while "flying".
I can find more, but it's not worth my time. It's relatively easy to find massive discrepencies within the rules if you're actually looking.
And these have to do with a Tactical Marine Being Bad How?
I am try to stay on topic
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Tighter rules and codices would fix that tremendously.
I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?
Go over to YMDC. But more importantly than that, not having things like C:BA and C:Eldar in the same game.
I was looking something more specific.
As far as C:BA vs C:Eldar, that is the choice of the players.
Can models with blast weapons and the preferred enemy rule reroll scatter dice even though they may never roll a "1"?
Can Unit X after witholding from overwatch and being succesfully charged by Unit Y then overwatch Unit Z when it charges in the same assualt phase?
Commisar Yarrick outranks himself thus he can never be your warlord.
When Pyrovores die to an instant death results, every unit on the table is hit for each model within d6" of the slain pyrovore.
The exalted flamer chariot may never fire it's flamer if it intends to move.
Codex Legion of the Damned autoloses if taken as the only detachment type(s).
Anrakyr can draw LOS of to an enemy tank but he cannot use his power that requires LOS.
RAW, you hit units both above and below of a skyshield at the same time with blast weapons.
If you go second, you fire the Deathstrike Missile on your first turn.
Do troops in formations score?
Does the "Take Aim" order really make all IG shots placed shots or do they still require to roll a 6 first?
How does target locks and assault work in terms of choosing targets?
Can a character with infiltrate grant it to the unit he joins?
Can I assault a vehicle I cannot hurt? No, by the BRB, but Yes by the FAQs.
Can models that don't require LOS intercept a model that's has arrived from reserves and not within LOS?
Do multiple maledictions of the same type stack?
Per the rules, a vehicle draws line of site parallel to the plane of the weapon being fire with allowance for +/- 45 degrees. How does the SoB Exorcist target an enemy besides those directly above it?
If I am in area terrain and I am obscured by a ruin, if I go to ground, do I now have a 3+ or 2+ cover save?
Does a scarab grant entropic strike to a guad gun?
You can't run with the relic, but you can still turboboost with jetbikes.
What happens if a unit of Possesed is embarked in a transport and turns into beasts?
Flying MCs in swooping mode gain area terrain cover saves while "flying".
I can find more, but it's not worth my time. It's relatively easy to find massive discrepencies within the rules if you're actually looking.
And these have to do with a Tactical Marine Being Bad How?
I am try to stay on topic
"I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?"-Anpu42
You asked earlier on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: Well part of it is once more the Meta. When we list build we use the following guideline:
HQ: 1-2
Troops: 2-6
Elites: 1-3
Fast Attack: 1-3
Heavy Support: 1-3
We also try to have one scoring unit per 500 points and as we normally play 2,000-2,250 that is 4 Scoring Units.
I normally take:
HQ: Pedro Kantor
Troops: 3x Tactical Squads [Lighting Claw, Combi-Plasma, Plasma-Gun and Plasma Cannon each]
Elite: Sternguard [Lighting Claw, 8x Combi-Plasma, 2x Plasma Guns]
Fast Attack: 3x Land Speeder Typhoons
Heavy Support: Storm Talon
This is my Core; I usually take a Dreadnaught, and a Librarian, but not always.
I place Kantor and the Sternguard in the Storm Raven along with the Librarian and the Dread for taking Objectives. My Land Speeders act as Mobil Fire support.
This leaves my Tactical Squads to hold or take mid-field Objectives. This they do well generally speaking, nothing more nothing less. With the Plasma they threaten most things on the board, with the exception of AV14 and if I am expecting AV14 I take my Melta Armed Sternguard in a second Strom Raven, because that is what Sternguard do.
This is how I see Tactical Squads; they are a core to build your list around. Now I do believe that it is my local Meta is what make them work more than anything.
Now that is not to say they are the greatest, but they “Are Not That bad”.
So I'm looking at your restrictions and I ask..... how does this really restrict waveserpent spam? Also, the only real drawback to this for a FMC spam is the elite slot which is.... eeeeeeeh for chaos. Fast? Grab some khorne doggies, havy, DP, HQ, you know it, Troops either plagues or Pink Horrors, and.... bloodthirsters? This is the only real place I'm struggling to think of a proper unit. It'd just make the things slightly less spammy. And it still really doesn't do that much to Waveserpentspam lists.
Oh, and for what it's worth, Tacs are bad because the game either loves elite units smothered in special rules or cheap hordes of bullet catchers; give this is a shooting edition that has settled upon high volume, medium strength weapons that readily wound Space Marines, the value of a 3+ armor save is gone.
Add in stupid crap like Riptides, Heldrakes, and all the new toys the IG got and you'll find that 10 dudes with a 3+ an easy kill.
150 points get you 10 tactical marines or so, correct?
Or 175 can you get you 50 Fearless Conscripts. That's why Tacs suck.
Martel732 wrote: So why can't we make them so they work in EVERY meta?
Because every Meta is different.
If you brought them up to your local Meta Standards they would be come more powerful in others. It would be simple if everyone played the same way, but we don’t, thus to me that is the big problem.
Tighter rules and codices would fix that tremendously.
I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?
Go over to YMDC. But more importantly than that, not having things like C:BA and C:Eldar in the same game.
I was looking something more specific.
As far as C:BA vs C:Eldar, that is the choice of the players.
Can models with blast weapons and the preferred enemy rule reroll scatter dice even though they may never roll a "1"?
Can Unit X after witholding from overwatch and being succesfully charged by Unit Y then overwatch Unit Z when it charges in the same assualt phase?
Commisar Yarrick outranks himself thus he can never be your warlord.
When Pyrovores die to an instant death results, every unit on the table is hit for each model within d6" of the slain pyrovore.
The exalted flamer chariot may never fire it's flamer if it intends to move.
Codex Legion of the Damned autoloses if taken as the only detachment type(s).
Anrakyr can draw LOS of to an enemy tank but he cannot use his power that requires LOS.
RAW, you hit units both above and below of a skyshield at the same time with blast weapons.
If you go second, you fire the Deathstrike Missile on your first turn.
Do troops in formations score?
Does the "Take Aim" order really make all IG shots placed shots or do they still require to roll a 6 first?
How does target locks and assault work in terms of choosing targets?
Can a character with infiltrate grant it to the unit he joins?
Can I assault a vehicle I cannot hurt? No, by the BRB, but Yes by the FAQs.
Can models that don't require LOS intercept a model that's has arrived from reserves and not within LOS?
Do multiple maledictions of the same type stack?
Per the rules, a vehicle draws line of site parallel to the plane of the weapon being fire with allowance for +/- 45 degrees. How does the SoB Exorcist target an enemy besides those directly above it?
If I am in area terrain and I am obscured by a ruin, if I go to ground, do I now have a 3+ or 2+ cover save?
Does a scarab grant entropic strike to a guad gun?
You can't run with the relic, but you can still turboboost with jetbikes.
What happens if a unit of Possesed is embarked in a transport and turns into beasts?
Flying MCs in swooping mode gain area terrain cover saves while "flying".
I can find more, but it's not worth my time. It's relatively easy to find massive discrepencies within the rules if you're actually looking.
And these have to do with a Tactical Marine Being Bad How?
I am try to stay on topic
"I understand fixing the Codexes, but what Rules need "Tightning"?"-Anpu42
You asked earlier on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: Well part of it is once more the Meta. When we list build we use the following guideline:
HQ: 1-2
Troops: 2-6
Elites: 1-3
Fast Attack: 1-3
Heavy Support: 1-3
We also try to have one scoring unit per 500 points and as we normally play 2,000-2,250 that is 4 Scoring Units.
I normally take:
HQ: Pedro Kantor
Troops: 3x Tactical Squads [Lighting Claw, Combi-Plasma, Plasma-Gun and Plasma Cannon each]
Elite: Sternguard [Lighting Claw, 8x Combi-Plasma, 2x Plasma Guns]
Fast Attack: 3x Land Speeder Typhoons
Heavy Support: Storm Talon
This is my Core; I usually take a Dreadnaught, and a Librarian, but not always.
I place Kantor and the Sternguard in the Storm Raven along with the Librarian and the Dread for taking Objectives. My Land Speeders act as Mobil Fire support.
This leaves my Tactical Squads to hold or take mid-field Objectives. This they do well generally speaking, nothing more nothing less. With the Plasma they threaten most things on the board, with the exception of AV14 and if I am expecting AV14 I take my Melta Armed Sternguard in a second Strom Raven, because that is what Sternguard do.
This is how I see Tactical Squads; they are a core to build your list around. Now I do believe that it is my local Meta is what make them work more than anything.
Now that is not to say they are the greatest, but they “Are Not That bad”.
[/spoiler]
So I'm looking at your restrictions and I ask..... how does this really restrict waveserpent spam? Also, the only real drawback to this for a FMC spam is the elite slot which is.... eeeeeeeh for chaos. Fast? Grab some khorne doggies, havy, DP, HQ, you know it, Troops either plagues or Pink Horrors, and.... bloodthirsters? This is the only real place I'm struggling to think of a proper unit. It'd just make the things slightly less spammy. And it still really doesn't do that much to Waveserpentspam lists.
Well to be honest, we don't deal with it becouse we don't get it.
The Last true Eldar Player left before the new Codex after my Blood Claws kept taking out his Harliquins with just Flamers and Bolt Pistol Fire. He did not the way we played for some reason, we were just playing by the rules.
As for SPAMing, other than Tactical Squads and Ork mobs we never saw much SPAM. The closest I ever got to a SPAM list was 6 Grey Hunter Pack and that was becouse I want to feald all three for once.
TheKbob wrote: Oh, and for what it's worth, Tacs are bad because the game either loves elite units smothered in special rules or cheap hordes of bullet catchers; give this is a shooting edition that has settled upon high volume, medium strength weapons that readily wound Space Marines, the value of a 3+ armor save is gone.
Add in stupid crap like Riptides, Heldrakes, and all the new toys the IG got and you'll find that 10 dudes with a 3+ an easy kill.
150 points get you 10 tactical marines or so, correct?
Or 175 can you get you 50 Fearless Conscripts. That's why Tacs suck.
50 Fearless SCORING Wounds for 175 points. I stand corrected.
(Conscirpts are 3 pts per model, 50 man strong in a blob, 25 points for a Priest that gives them Zealot. Even better, give them orders like FRF,SRF... You're at ork level shooting, now. Who cares if you're BS garbage? I got 150 shots!)
TheKbob wrote: Oh, and for what it's worth, Tacs are bad because the game either loves elite units smothered in special rules or cheap hordes of bullet catchers; give this is a shooting edition that has settled upon high volume, medium strength weapons that readily wound Space Marines, the value of a 3+ armor save is gone.
Add in stupid crap like Riptides, Heldrakes, and all the new toys the IG got and you'll find that 10 dudes with a 3+ an easy kill.
150 points get you 10 tactical marines or so, correct?
Or 175 can you get you 50 Fearless Conscripts. That's why Tacs suck.
What? 50 fearless wounds for 175 pts? WTF?
If it makes you feel any better you need a minimum of 85 infantry models before you can even think about trying to field a conscript blob like that. And your troops section would otherwise suck. So you'd need even more infantry.
@Anpu? Just going to check is:
The Last true Eldar Player left before the new Codex after my Blood Claws kept taking out his Harliquins with just Flamers and Bolt Pistol Fire. He did not the way we played for some reason, we were just playing by the rules.
As for SPAMing, other than Tactical Squads and Ork mobs we never saw much SPAM. The closest I ever got to a SPAM list was 6 Grey Hunter Pack and that was becouse I want to feald all three for once.
all that you typed? Just making sure because your response glitched up and it's kinda messy.
Anyways, I was looking more at this as showing that even these restrictions don't really help SM. Simply put, SM aren't that good. Then again, most troops really aren't that good in the grand scheme of things. The best troop is one that's a cheap throw away units that can flag objectives at the end of the game. Perks are anything extra. In general troops aren't that great though and that's really it.
StarTrotter wrote: @Anpu? Just going to check is:
The Last true Eldar Player left before the new Codex after my Blood Claws kept taking out his Harlequins with just Flamers and Bolt Pistol Fire. He did not the way we played for some reason; we were just playing by the rules.
As for SPAMing, other than Tactical Squads and Ork mobs we never saw much SPAM. The closest I ever got to a SPAM list was 6 Grey Hunter Pack and that was because I want to field all three for once.
all that you typed? Just making sure because your response glitched up and it's kinda messy.
Yes I do glitch from Time to Time when I write on the fly without using Word, so let me restart this.
The last true Eldar Player [One that that was his only army] spent most of his time complaining about how my Blood Claws would always take down his Harlequins with my Blood Claws with just shooting [mostly with Flamers and Bolt Pistols]. I should be taking down his Harlequin with such a “Sucky Unit”.
He stopped showing up and later I was told that he quit because he did not like playing with us because we played by the rules.
Anyways, I was looking more at this as showing that even these restrictions don't really help SM. Simply put, SM aren't that good. Then again, most troops really aren't that good in the grand scheme of things. The best troop is one that's a cheap throw away units that can flag objectives at the end of the game. Perks are anything extra. In general troops aren't that great though and that's really it.
Well they kind of do a little. It does when people use more Troops so there is a lot more “Troop on Troop action”. Also once you fill in a 2,000 point with the required units there is a lot less points for SPAMing the “Over Powered Units”.
It is also an attitude my group has:
>Super Competitive Builds: Triple/Quad Riptide Units are Winners, we know that so there is no need to pull them out to show how they can win.
>Sub-Par Units: We like to pull them out to see if we can win with them.
>Winning: While we like to win, loosing does not ruin our day. In fact a lot of “Competitive Players” have stopped playing us because loosing does not upset us and all it really does is make us try to come up with some way to beat them.
>Loosing: We have the attitude of we lost we lost, the worse thing that would happen with a loss was the winner did not have to pitch in for Pizza.
What actually upset me about the last “Competitive Player” who left because he was bulldozing me with Ork Battle-Wagon-Death-Roller SPAM and I was still not coming up with a way to beat him.
As for my Marines, the only thing that really gives me issues is AP2 Pie [there is a not of it running around here] and 30 model Genestealer Broods when they get into close combat [which happens a lot in some games]. Though I have not dealt with the new Eldar or Nid Codex yet.
Other than reducing their price or giving them a Combat Knife to go along with their Bolt Pistol there is not much more you can do for them. Here are some of the suggestions I have seen.
Firepower:
>AP4 Boltguns: This just invalidates the Armor of half the other Codex’s Armor Saves.
>Volley 2/4 [or 4/2 however it is listed]: Poof, every Marine Army becomes a Gun-Line Army.
>Limited-Rending: I think it would cause more issues than it solves, not that I would turn it down.
Defense:
>6+ Invulnerable Saves: Only helps a little.
>5+ Invulnerable Saves: Why take Terminators.
>Fell no Pain: 6+ FNP, just what we need more Rolls, and half the time would be denied anyways
GW has painted them selves into a corner, and has no clue they have done it. The play Testers Play “Friendly/Fluffy Games only to test the new models, they would not know a Death-Star if bit them in the rear. The other option is that “Competitive Players” are playing the game wrong. Either way nothing is going to change without house rules. If you are like my group we keep them to a minimum and most of them are fluffy thing like allowing Salamander Tactical/Scout Squads to take Heavy Flamers.
In conclusion and trying to make this short [To Late]: I think Tactical Squads, just ok, not Good, not Bad, just sort of ok. Do I think they could be better, yes, but they could be a lot worse off to.
this thread is stupid long, so here's the deal, as I see it: yes, there are many troop units that can be made better than tactical marines. Now having said that, look at the armies that are being touted as having better troops: Eldar, with their paper thin armor, and plethora of so-so elite choices (I'm looking at you, Banshees, wraithguard and Scorpions), need really cheap, decently killy troop slots in order to be competitive. Now lets look at Tau: They rely on being able to shoot holes in everything before they get killed in CQC by literally every other unit in the game. Tactical Marines exist for one reason, not to blow holes in things, not to be super killy, not to make up for gak elite slots, but to be a body on an objective that won't turn and run when someone decides to maul them with a 3-500pt chunk of their army. tacs hold objectives, at ~ 170pts a squad, so that other units in the army (sternguard, termies, assault, HS etc.) can go do business. thats it. If you want stupidly good-at-everything troops that do all the work in your army in one squad or less, understand that youll be sacrificing in some other department in your codex.
In summary, space marines are good troop choices, because they do what needs to be done in their codex, camp objectives, hide behind metal boxes, and not get chased off the board while the big boys go to work.
P.S. if you have a problem with the probability of killing things with bolters, take Imp Fist chapter tactics, and exploit bolter drill all day every day.
OlGreye wrote: this thread is stupid long, so here's the deal, as I see it: yes, there are many troop units that can be made better than tactical marines. Now having said that, look at the armies that are being touted as having better troops: Eldar, with their paper thin armor, and plethora of so-so elite choices (I'm looking at you, Banshees, wraithguard and Scorpions), need really cheap, decently killy troop slots in order to be competitive. Now lets look at Tau: They rely on being able to shoot holes in everything before they get killed in CQC by literally every other unit in the game. Tactical Marines exist for one reason, not to blow holes in things, not to be super killy, not to make up for gak elite slots, but to be a body on an objective that won't turn and run when someone decides to maul them with a 3-500pt chunk of their army. tacs hold objectives, at ~ 170pts a squad, so that other units in the army (sternguard, termies, assault, HS etc.) can go do business. thats it. If you want stupidly good-at-everything troops that do all the work in your army in one squad or less, understand that youll be sacrificing in some other department in your codex.
In summary, space marines are good troop choices, because they do what needs to be done in their codex, camp objectives, hide behind metal boxes, and not get chased off the board while the big boys go to work.
P.S. if you have a problem with the probability of killing things with bolters, take Imp Fist chapter tactics, and exploit bolter drill all day every day.
gak elite slots. I wouldn't quite say they are that. Banshees are really bad whilst wraithguard and scorpions are more decent. Also, they don't really NEED cheap and decently killy troops. The thing that makes Eldar good are seerstar and waveserpents as well as their psychic potential really. They don't balance it that way, it's just by chance really.
I personally hold the humble Necron warrior as the gold standard of troop units due to being very survivable and benefitting tremendously from certain buffs while having shooting that's at least passable against anything besides monstrous creatures, the leadership to largely ignore the morale game, and is okay in CC against anything less good than a marine (which admittedly means they get smashed by a lot of things, including Kriegers.)
It's hard to beat a twenty warrior brick with a ghost orb and resorb (and MSS lords) in terms of survivability, especially per point, and this unit is as much of a threat to vehicles as it is to infantry.
What marines have over warriors is a 3+ save (which thanks to RP doesn't matter too much) and weapon options, though they can't put all that many fancy guns on their squads. Marine transports though, are substantially less good.
OlGreye wrote: this thread is stupid long, so here's the deal, as I see it: yes, there are many troop units that can be made better than tactical marines.
The way in which you say this makes it seem as though external out of unit buffs and circumstances come into play in order to do so.
No. There are many Troops choices that flat out are better than Tactical Marines, either because of cheapness, because they have a reasonable number of SW slots, or because they have good firepower otherwise. Tacticals can't be made to give you any role that is particularly useful.
Now having said that, look at the armies that are being touted as having better troops: Eldar, with their paper thin armor,
Armour has become practically irrelevant in terms of need given the amount of AP2/3 finding its way into the game anyway. You're far less likely to get your point's worth with the defensive bonuses Marines get, better just to have more models, with enough firepower to kill before being killed.
and plethora of so-so elite choices (I'm looking at you, Banshees, wraithguard and Scorpions),
Completely irrelevant.
need really cheap, decently killy troop slots in order to be competitive.
The LVO winner a while back fielded 2 Guardian blobs of 20 with 2 Brightlance Platforms. And as if this even means anything, anyway? Style has no relevance when effectiveness is the key point.
Now lets look at Tau: They rely on being able to shoot holes in everything before they get killed in CQC by literally every other unit in the game.
And they usually do, and very rarely end up in melee - and that melee weakness is less so because of the supporting fire rule every Firewarrior gets. You also have more of them, they're more expendable, and they're not forming a contribution to your AT/Anti-MC, so they're more redundant when your list takes casualties.
Tactical Marines exist for one reason, not to blow holes in things, not to be super killy, not to make up for gak elite slots, but to be a body on an objective that won't turn and run when someone decides to maul them with a 3-500pt chunk of their army.
I sighed out loud.
They don't survive against volleys of fire in competitive lists in the current meta. Not by a long shot. They're easier to kill than blobs of Guardsmen if both are in cover. Bikes can do exactly the same attempted stunt by sitting on objectives too, yet usually don't, because that is a terrible idea. And they're superior in almost every way for roughly the same cost once transports are factored.
And the proposition that a Tactical Squad will survive a 300-500 point dedication of power is a complete load of toss. That's approximately 90~ fearless Conscripts, 30~ Firewarriors, a pair of Leman Russ Executioners... just to name some examples on the lower end of the scale... and all would wipe the squad in a single turn, or come exceedingly close to.
Those aren't even particularly great examples.
tacs hold objectives, at ~ 170pts a squad,
Which is a rip off
so that other units in the army (sternguard, termies, assault, HS etc.) can go do business.
Sternguard are only slightly above meh if you take the ideal loadout. Termies are naff. Assault? What do you mean, Assault Squads (pfft haha) or Terminator Assault squads? (you're one edition late) Maybe you meant assault elements... well buddy, Vanguards are basically unusable competitively and not even Honour Guard in their absurdly cheap form are good in a TAC list.
And "so they can go do business" is for granted, because elite units don't score. D'oh.
thats it. If you want stupidly good-at-everything troops that do all the work in your army in one squad or less, understand that youll be sacrificing in some other department in your codex.
Except we don't! We want a unit with one decent role or purpose that we can use - which would instantly be solved if they could take two specials or two heavy weapons. They don't have one good rule or purpose. They're completely invalidated by the hilariously superior Bikes even were you can make weak suggestions on roles.
And Tau and Eldar don't sacrifice elsewhere. The main, underlining feature of the Marines is their armour - their defensive qualities - except Tau get nigh invincible Riptides, and only marginally worse armour saves, while Eldar get nigh indestructible Wave Serpents, effectively making their Troops untouchable if they want it that way.
Tau have excellent elites with Riptides, very useful Pathfinders in Fast Attack, and Skyrays/Hammerheads which are pretty great in heavy support too- they're not lacking other FOC sections.
In summary, space marines are good troop choices, because they do what needs to be done in their codex, camp objectives, hide behind metal boxes, and not get chased off the board while the big boys go to work.
Before I even pick apart just how lacking in credit this statement is, shall I start by pointing out that here you're literally saying "lol doesn't matter the big boys will do it"... and now, on to the critical part. The big boys can't single handedly win you a game all the time, and you want excellency across your list.
Space Marines don't need a unit to camp objectives like Tacticals. That is generally a terrible way to play them, because you're paying absurd amounts of points in comparison to other Codexes for campers. If SM need a home objective camper, they take Scouts. If they need an an offensive objective taker, they take Bikes. Tacticals are just the expensive naffness in between that try to hard to be like Bikes but don't come close because their transport options are terrible.
Hide behind AV11. Great plan.
IG can give any infantry unit fearless + melee buffs for 25 points, or LD9 auto-pass leadership stubborn for the same cost. Eldar get battle focus to avoid getting caught, and have multiple units you have to deal with, plus blistering overwatch and counter attack units. Tau have Ethereals that single handedly solve leadership issues.
Spehss Mahreens get LD9 and a rule that means they can attempt in a futile gesture to come back with the 2-3 sods that didn't get obliterated. For the former only if you pay 10 more points on your already overpriced and redundant squad.
P.S. if you have a problem with the probability of killing things with bolters, take Imp Fist chapter tactics, and exploit bolter drill all day every day.
Or just harvest the collective thinking power your braincells provide and realize that Bikes are outrageously superior to Tacticals and make bolter drill redundant. Imperial Fists aren't even played by most people.
To build off Mr. Omega, let's ask ourselves, why do Tacticals blow?
Simple, they aren't points efficient for today's 6E Warhammer 40k. It's a shooting edition that relies on lots of Ap2 weaponry or a ton of high volume S6/S7 shots.
Let's have a showcase showdown between two troop choices on who's "BETTER" at holding objectives? This will be rough math, so please feel free to correct:
Spoiler:
In this corner, we have Space Marines!
10x Tacs + Rhino: 175 Pts
In the other corner, we have IMPERIAL GUARD!
50x Conscirpts + Prist: 175 Pts
Looks like a "fair" battle, right folks? Now, are dakka of choice this round will be the infamous WAVE SERPENT! Decked to the nine with a TLSL, SC, and Serpent Shield!
Average total shots: 12.5
Average hits, to include Laser Lock: 11!
So the Wave Serpent Scores 11 hits on average that wound both a Space Marine and Conscripts on a 2+. Let's setup the scenario. We are camping our backfield objectives like a boss. We can safely assume that both units, the grand scheme of things, is probably grabbing some sort of 5+ cover save since the game dispenses them like candy (area terrain, firing through other units, etc. etc.). Let's start with the:
SPESS MEHRINES
Spoiler:
FIRST WAVE SERPENT
7x S6 Hits, 4x S7 hits (ignore cover, this only matters for the Rhino) and ignoring penetration results; 2 glances from S7, and 1 unsaved glance from the S6 volley... OOO, RHINO DOWN! Marines dump out. (*Note: This just gave a literal victory point to your opponent for first blood. One WS has enough fire power to level a Rhino just by looking at it*)
1st Volley: Marines at 140pts
SECOND WAVE SERPENT
11 hits, 9 wounds, 3 dead marines on a 3+ Save!
2nd Volley: 98 Pts.
THIRD SERPENT, 3 Dead; FOURTH SERPENT, 3 Dead; FIFTH SEREPNT, Last Man Down.
The Space Marine Squad has gone down in five volleys, statistically, from Wave Serpent.
That was pretty pathetic. Can our T3 friends do any better?!
IMPERIAL GUARD
Spoiler:
FIRST WAVE SERPENT
11 hits, 9 wounds, 6 dead on a 5+ Ar/Cv save
1st Volley: IG at 157
... 8 Serpents later, Just 2 Men are left! NINTH SERPENT: Last Man down!
TL;DR: Pound for pound, from RAW fire power, the Space Marines suck. Introduce anything that's Ap2/3 and ignores cover, and they lose faster. High volume S5 shots may be the tipping point... ?67.5 S5 shots to kill a 10 man Tac squad at BS4. 135 S5 shots to kill a 50 man Conscript Squad at BS4. Nope, still goes to bodies. So as an objective camper, they suck. This is without even gauging their offensive capability. 50 Lasguns, even at BS2, with First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire and Prescience will rip through 10 marines. 10 Marines with Prescience and Rapid Fire cannot kill the IG blob.
Mathematically, with equal weighting a scenario, the marines lose.
TheKbob wrote: To build off Mr. Omega, let's ask ourselves, why do Tacticals blow?
Simple, they aren't points efficient for today's 6E Warhammer 40k. It's a shooting edition that relies on lots of Ap2 weaponry or a ton of high volume S6/S7 shots.
Let's have a showcase showdown between two troop choices on who's "BETTER" at holding objectives? This will be rough math, so please feel free to correct:
Spoiler:
In this corner, we have Space Marines!
10x Tacs + Rhino: 175 Pts
In the other corner, we have IMPERIAL GUARD!
50x Conscirpts + Prist: 175 Pts
Looks like a "fair" battle, right folks? Now, are dakka of choice this round will be the infamous WAVE SERPENT! Decked to the nine with a TLSL, SC, and Serpent Shield!
Average total shots: 12.5
Average hits, to include Laser Lock: 11!
So the Wave Serpent Scores 11 hits on average that wound both a Space Marine and Conscripts on a 2+. Let's setup the scenario. We are camping our backfield objectives like a boss. We can safely assume that both units, the grand scheme of things, is probably grabbing some sort of 5+ cover save since the game dispenses them like candy (area terrain, firing through other units, etc. etc.). Let's start with the:
SPESS MEHRINES
Spoiler:
FIRST WAVE SERPENT
7x S6 Hits, 4x S7 hits (ignore cover, this only matters for the Rhino) and ignoring penetration results; 2 glances from S7, and 1 unsaved glance from the S6 volley... OOO, RHINO DOWN! Marines dump out. (*Note: This just gave a literal victory point to your opponent for first blood. One WS has enough fire power to level a Rhino just by looking at it*)
1st Volley: Marines at 140pts
SECOND WAVE SERPENT
11 hits, 9 wounds, 3 dead marines on a 3+ Save!
2nd Volley: 98 Pts.
THIRD SERPENT, 3 Dead; FOURTH SERPENT, 3 Dead; FIFTH SEREPNT, Last Man Down.
The Space Marine Squad has gone down in five volleys, statistically, from Wave Serpent.
That was pretty pathetic. Can our T3 friends do any better?!
IMPERIAL GUARD
Spoiler:
FIRST WAVE SERPENT
11 hits, 9 wounds, 6 dead on a 5+ Ar/Cv save
1st Volley: IG at 157
... 8 Serpents later, Just 2 Men are left! NINTH SERPENT: Last Man down!
TL;DR: Pound for pound, from RAW fire power, the Space Marines suck. Introduce anything that's Ap2/3 and ignores cover, and they lose faster. High volume S5 shots may be the tipping point... ?67.5 S5 shots to kill a 10 man Tac squad at BS4. 135 S5 shots to kill a 50 man Conscript Squad at BS4. Nope, still goes to bodies. So as an objective camper, they suck. This is without even gauging their offensive capability. 50 Lasguns, even at BS2, with First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire and Prescience will rip through 10 marines. 10 Marines with Prescience and Rapid Fire cannot kill the IG blob.
Mathematically, with equal weighting a scenario, the marines lose.
Could you compare these marines to a Necron warrior blob with a ghost ark and resorb/MSS lord?
That's not an equivalent points cost, so that would require a lot more math.
And I don't have Excel on my home PC right now (clean wipe), so doing that sorta crap by hand sucks.
It's certainly way tougher. To what extent, I dunno. You'd have to factor in that warriors, even with a lord, can be swept where as the marines and the conscripts w/ priest cannot.
True, you could snipe out the priest with barrage fire, but "Look Out, Sir" and parking his ass on a board edge makes that a risk proposition for the barrager... scatter off the board and you lost all your shots.
TheKbob wrote: We are camping our backfield objectives like a boss. We can safely assume that both units, the grand scheme of things, is probably grabbing some sort of 5+ cover save since the game dispenses them like candy (area terrain, firing through other units, etc. etc.).
Have you ever actually deployed a fifty-one model unit?
Do you really think it's possible to have a line of guys one hundred and fifty three inches long without a significant number of them being open to focus fire? Put them in a 21" x 21" grid and they get a lot more vulnerable to blasts and still don't fit behind most cover. Cluster them any tighter and they get even more vulnerable to blasts.
In actual gameplay, I find that horde units rarely manage to get more than an inch between models and have to deploy in blocks rather than lines. This means they take hits from blasts at about three or four times the rate smaller units do. With Wyverns and Thunderfire cannons, that translates to something like eight times as many casualties as marines.
One hundred and fifty lasgun shots does sound intimidating, but you are rarely going to be in a position to actually shoot them all at a target. Your unit is more than 12" across, so when the front rank are in rapid fire range, the guys at the back can't shoot at all. Also, you can only do FRFSRF while your officer is alive and those command squads are not free. Likewise, in close combat you're not going to get more than a 3:1 effective advantage because the miniatures don't physically fit.
I've played guard hordes, I've played ork hordes, I've played kroot hordes. I'm a huge advocate of quantity over quality, but there are situations where you need concentration of force and extra bodies are just a liability.
TheKbob wrote: We are camping our backfield objectives like a boss. We can safely assume that both units, the grand scheme of things, is probably grabbing some sort of 5+ cover save since the game dispenses them like candy (area terrain, firing through other units, etc. etc.).
Have you ever actually deployed a fifty-one model unit?
Do you really think it's possible to have a line of guys one hundred and fifty three inches long without a significant number of them being open to focus fire? Put them in a 21" x 21" grid and they get a lot more vulnerable to blasts and still don't fit behind most cover. Cluster them any tighter and they get even more vulnerable to blasts.
In actual gameplay, I find that horde units rarely manage to get more than an inch between models and have to deploy in blocks rather than lines. This means they take hits from blasts at about three or four times the rate smaller units do. With Wyverns and Thunderfire cannons, that translates to something like eight times as many casualties as marines.
One hundred and fifty lasgun shots does sound intimidating, but you are rarely going to be in a position to actually shoot them all at a target. Your unit is more than 12" across, so when the front rank are in rapid fire range, the guys at the back can't shoot at all. Also, you can only do FRFSRF while your officer is alive and those command squads are not free. Likewise, in close combat you're not going to get more than a 3:1 effective advantage because the miniatures don't physically fit.
I've played guard hordes, I've played ork hordes, I've played kroot hordes. I'm a huge advocate of quantity over quality, but there are situations where you need concentration of force and extra bodies are just a liability.
The point of the post is not a tactical discussion. It's point to prove that 10 tac marines suck in comparison to equal troops from other armies. Any volume of shots necessary to level 50 conscripts will decimate 10 tacticals before hand. For every point you give (keep in mind Wyverns don't break 5+ armor and TFCs either break armor or cover, not both for conscripts) that puts the Horde at a detriment, there are plenty more that put the Space Marines at a worse one.
The prevalence of ignores cover and Ap3 or better weaponry dictates that wounds are better than armor saves. That's the point of the math; pure resilience calculation. 50 Conscripts + a Priest are more resilient than 10 Space Marines.
(Edit: Also, for turns spent firing at command squads, it increases their resilience. And it doesn't matter if I kill all the Space Marines in CQC. I'm Fearless. Locking them and eventually winning due to attrition is also good.)
I play Horde Sisters. I know what I'm talking about too. Nothing it more satisfying than playing against an opponent with no blast weaponry, balling up, and rolling through like an unstoppable mess.
There are lists that don't run templates. Unless I bring my knight pally, I usually have 0 templates other than frag grenades in my BA.
I've run giant blob units before. You can still spread them out as long as your whole army isn't the same, or after the rest of your army leaves your deployment zone. If they're shooting at an objective camping unit in the first two turns, they're either bad at the game, or rolled so unbelievably well that you're almost tabled already.
The math above just shows me what I already figured out from play experience. For troops, bodies over armor. Especially when they have a morale-fixer, like cultist zombies or synapse.
There's just no point in paying 3x the points for a tactical marine over most other troop choices in the game. If marine codices could substitute non-marine troop choices for their troops, you'd literally never see them except in "fun lists."
Against most of the things that would bother shooting at the tac squad or other hypothetical squad on a rear objective:
-the shots will be high enough str to wound on 2's, invalidating the marines higher toughness.
-or the shots will be good AP, invalidating the marine's armor.
- If not both.
-the only time the marines really get an advantage over a morale-immune blob on objective camping is when the shot ignores cover, is str 2-5, and is AP 4-5. And I'm not even sure that they would still have a point for point advantage. After all, 20 shots CANNOT kill 30 synapsed gants. It CAN kill 10 marines.
I can't think of a lot of guns that fit that description.
. Although I will say that the 
Would it happen to be something like, oh, say, a statline of 4's?
