I love the *idea* of combat squads, but in-game it's just such a lackluster, pointless ability. Tactical Marines are a low-tier troops choice to begin with, and ten-man Tactical squads are one of the worst options you can bring. I'd like to find a way to make it beneficial to bring them, but just... Eh...

As it currently stands, the first 5 Tacticals gets you a free Sergeant who can bring a Combi-weapon and/or a melee weapon, as well as access to a single Special or Heavy weapon.
The second 5 gets you... A single weapon of whatever you didn't pick before.

The second half isn't cheaper, it offers no benefits that a second five-marine squad wouldn't offer, and it's just generally inadvisable.

One possibility that comes to mind is to simply only grant a Sergeant if you take a full ten-man squad. This'd add an internally balanced reward for taking them, but makes the already-weak Tactical Marines even weaker, to the point of being one of the worst units in the game, period.

Another possibility that comes to mind is making the second five Marines cheaper - 13ppm for the first five, 12ppm for the second five. (Or, if you prefer, you spend 5 points for the mandatory Sergeant.) This is actually my favorite solution, but it runs contrary to the GW-preferred 8th edition style of 'Everything costs the same, regardless of context or how effective it actually is in a given situation.'

Possibly, there could be some kind of tactical benefit/special rule that you only get if you take a full-sized squad. The first thing that comes to mind is +1 Leadership if the squad starts at full size, which carries over even if you Combat Squad into two smaller squads. (Meaning that, instead of LD8 for the squad with the Sergeant and LD7 otherwise, you get LD9 and LD8.) This'd help with the fact that large squads are generally more vulnerable to Leadership-based attacks, but isn't really enough to justify the larger squad on its own, especially since Marines are already leadership-resistant. Most other buffs I could think of (Re-roll 1s to hit, give a single weapon from one Combat Squad 'Ignores Cover' if the other Combat Squad can see the target,) are already provided by either a Buff character or Chapter Tactics, making them redundant.

The last idea, which is one that probably won't really work out, is some kind of detachment bonus, a-la Decurion Detachments of yesteredition, that gives you a noteworthy bonus... But only if you take a 10-man Assault squad, Devestator squad, three 10-man Tactical squads, and a Captain or Chaplain. (It'd have to be a pretty potent bonus, but not something like 'Free upgrades/weapons', more in the lines of giving the Captain or Chaplain's buff to everyone in the detachment regardless of how far away they are.) GW has thus-far shied away from 'Formation' style detachments, but I really think that it could work here as a way to make full squads... If not 'Powerful', then at least 'Viable'.

So... Anyone have any ideas?

I think tacticals have two difficulties this edition: their stock gun doesn't allow their small numbers to effectively deal with hordes, and they have too few heavy weapons to effectively deal with vehicles/monsters. If they wish to do one or the other, they general need assistant from another specialized unit in the army. Generally, you end up being better off just bringing more of those specialized units.

Their position isn't helped by the existence of Devastator squads (which, in my opinion, shouldn't exist), but that Epic genie can't be put back in the bottle.

I think there should be two ways to build the squad - as a 5-man unit they should be objective hunters or equipped to deal to with vehicles. In the smaller configuration, you could load them up with more specialized gear - special weapons, heavy weapons, etc. They would be strong, but glass cannons (they only have 5 wounds).

In the larger group, they should somehow have a better defense and/or be better equipped to deal with hordes. Perhaps at 6-10 models they lose the option to take greater amounts of heavy weapons, but get access to the likes of breacher shields for better defense and/or storm bolters to up their firepower against horde units.

The thing about tacticals is that you don't take them for their damage output. But for the scoring and extra command points. So, their stat disadvantages are offset with other advantages. It's an interesting thing actually, but our local sm player had a similar mindset of "why should i ever bring tacticals when i can have devastators". Than he brought an army of devastators, killed 90% of the opponent's army but lost 5-15 due to maelstorm. As for scouts vs marines, +1 to armor is pretty nice - especially with new cover rules. 2+ armored 14 ppm tacticals are super frustrating to face.

I also remember a very potent army of tactical marines in 7-th - even before free vehicles. It featured 6*10 tacticals in droppods, some combi-melta sternguards in pods and Calgar. Back than he allowed marines to pass or fail ld whenever they wanted, so they became untarpittable. And re-rollable bolter shooting was actually decent vs troops. Marine statline is nice for surviving and scoring, so they dropped, killed troops, scored and remained untarpittable. Won a lot of games with this tactics.

So, all in all, tacticals still have a place even now. They're definitely not the allmighty super-killers or unkillable super-scorers but they give you a bunch of CP. They could use a killiness buff, probably. I'd suggest giving them an ability to shoot twice for 1 CP. This can encourage a use of 10-man squads. With captain re-rolls, they'll be putting out some really good shooting on the drop.

It would be extra cool if they could Combat squad afterwards. So, they drop, they do DAKKADAKKA and than split. Quite tactical.

@koooaei, you're rather missing the point. It's not that Tacticals are garbage. (They are, but that's not what I'm here to fix.) It's that taking ten-marine squads is garbage when you can just take two five-marine squads. In fact, as you helpfully pointed out, you take Tacticals to get Command Points.
Why spend the points for three Ten-man squads, when you could get SIX five-marine squads for the same cost.
(Your 7th edition example isn't really relevant, because in 7th you couldn't cram two squads into one Drop Pod.)

Even your strategem only works as a buff to Tactical Marines in general. It doesn't make me think 'Ooh, a reason to take large squads!', it makes me think 'Ooh, I can fire my Plasma and Combi-Plasma twice!'

Actually the stratagem does make larger squads more attractive, as you can only use it on one unit per turn, so a larger unit gains more benefit.

Tactical squads really need what they always have needed: The ability to take 2 special/heavy weapons. The mixed special and heavy (though better now than ever before) has always been sub-optimal. I don't think it is enough to offset the bonuses of smaller squads on its own though.

I think having more stratagems that benefit larger squads would be good, for instance a stratagem that made a squad have Bolters shoot at Rapid Fire 3, or something would make larger squads attractive. Also perhaps making "combat squads" function in a way where each 10 man squad counts as 2 troop choices for detachment purposes, and allow them to split at deployment.

I think if you did those 3 things
1.) Allow 2 specials/heavies
2.) Introduce more stratagems that benefit larger units.
3.) Allow 10 man squads to count as 2 choices for purposes of detachments.

IT would make larger marine squads more attractive.

Breng77 wrote:
Actually the stratagem does make larger squads more attractive, as you can only use it on one unit per turn, so a larger unit gains more benefit.

Well, yes and no. It gives more firepower, but that firepower is going to be 4-5 Boltguns and 0-1 Heavy Weapons with a to-hit penalty from moving. It's better, but not enough to motivate me to spend the extra points.

Tactical squads really need what they always have needed: The ability to take 2 special/heavy weapons. The mixed special and heavy (though better now than ever before) has always been sub-optimal. I don't think it is enough to offset the bonuses of smaller squads on its own though.

I think having more stratagems that benefit larger squads would be good, for instance a stratagem that made a squad have Bolters shoot at Rapid Fire 3, or something would make larger squads attractive. Also perhaps making "combat squads" function in a way where each 10 man squad counts as 2 troop choices for detachment purposes, and allow them to split at deployment.

I think if you did those 3 things
1.) Allow 2 specials/heavies
2.) Introduce more stratagems that benefit larger units.
3.) Allow 10 man squads to count as 2 choices for purposes of detachments.

IT would make larger marine squads more attractive.

Those altogether could work.

The way GW writes rules the only way to make Combat Squads even remotely relevant would be to pull understrength squads entirely and make Combat Squads the way you get 5-man squads. Personally I'd rather either take the approach from Forge World's 30k rules and make a 10-man squad notably cheaper than two 5-man squads (in 30k the first ten Tactical Marines are 125pts but the next ten are 100pts, so you're paying 25pts for the privilege of having a second squad if you go that way), or take a look at how some historical wargames handle it where you've got to have some percentage of full-strength units, you can't just go all under-strength.

That said I do like Breng's first two suggestions (2 specials/heavies and stratagems that benefit larger units), and on the second point I've got a suggestion for a stratagem (again, shamelessly lifted from 30k, but it'd fit the bill):

Fury of the Chapter: 1CP. Choose a Tactical Squad to fire twice during the Shooting phase.

(Addendum: Combat Squads is feeling increasingly like an irrelevant artifact of older editions of the game kept around for flavour rather than gameplay effect (sort of like how Chimeras had Amphibious all the way through 5th-7th long after water terrain was relevant for any other reason).)

I'd agree that 'Combat Squads' was just meant to be a legacy addition...
If GW didn't give us a Strategem just for splitting up squads post-deployment, implying that they're still trying to make them somehow relevant.

Combat Squad is really just a garbage and overall useless rule. In the entirety of its existence I found exactly ONE use for it (using 6th edition Carcharodon rules) and that was it.

For making Tactical Marines more worth it:
1. Someone already mentioned two Specials at minimum, but I'm thinking a Crusader route where you get a Special and Heavy at 5 man squads, and then an extra of either at 10 men. This keeps them mildly unique.
2. Give them the same LD as Veterans. They are Veterans compared to Scouts, Devastators, Assault Marines, Centurions, Bikers...etc

Now once you've done that, you got an actual tough choice between Scouts, Devastators, and Tacticals
1. Scouts get deployment shenanigans, Sniper options, and melee options
2. Devastators do Heavy Weapon saturation and get bonuses for it (Signum and Cherub)
3. Tactical Marines are sorta in the middle after this as a nice balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
The thing about tacticals is that you don't take them for their damage output. But for the scoring and extra command points. So, their stat disadvantages are offset with other advantages. It's an interesting thing actually, but our local sm player had a similar mindset of "why should i ever bring tacticals when i can have devastators". Than he brought an army of devastators, killed 90% of the opponent's army but lost 5-15 due to maelstorm. As for scouts vs marines, +1 to armor is pretty nice - especially with new cover rules. 2+ armored 14 ppm tacticals are super frustrating to face.

I also remember a very potent army of tactical marines in 7-th - even before free vehicles. It featured 6*10 tacticals in droppods, some combi-melta sternguards in pods and Calgar. Back than he allowed marines to pass or fail ld whenever they wanted, so they became untarpittable. And re-rollable bolter shooting was actually decent vs troops. Marine statline is nice for surviving and scoring, so they dropped, killed troops, scored and remained untarpittable. Won a lot of games with this tactics.

So, all in all, tacticals still have a place even now. They're definitely not the allmighty super-killers or unkillable super-scorers but they give you a bunch of CP. They could use a killiness buff, probably. I'd suggest giving them an ability to shoot twice for 1 CP. This can encourage a use of 10-man squads. With captain re-rolls, they'll be putting out some really good shooting on the drop.

It would be extra cool if they could Combat squad afterwards. So, they drop, they do DAKKADAKKA and than split. Quite tactical.

Remember that there was also a list where someone brought a bunch of Rubrics and placed, only for it to never happen again. That's why when you look at tournament statistics you check for outliers like the Ultramarines list and that one I mentioned, instead of trying to do a bad justification of "It happened once!"

ONCE is the keyword here.

Yeah I agree, Tactics should get the Scion ability to take up to 4 special weapons (admitably one of the scion weapons is a heavy type, but it really probably shouldn't be).

I think then people would be using them just fine. Or Bolters need to get their AP-1 back.

 argonak wrote:
Yeah I agree, Tactics should get the Scion ability to take up to 4 special weapons (admitably one of the scion weapons is a heavy type, but it really probably shouldn't be).

I think then people would be using them just fine. Or Bolters need to get their AP-1 back.

If you do this though, the only thing differing for Intercessors is the extra range. It becomes a slippery slope and I'd like something special for Bolt weapons, but I haven't a clue what. Maybe rolls of 6 to wound force the opponent to reroll a successful save?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
Yeah I agree, Tactics should get the Scion ability to take up to 4 special weapons (admitably one of the scion weapons is a heavy type, but it really probably shouldn't be).

I think then people would be using them just fine. Or Bolters need to get their AP-1 back.

If you do this though, the only thing differing for Intercessors is the extra range. It becomes a slippery slope and I'd like something special for Bolt weapons, but I haven't a clue what. Maybe rolls of 6 to wound force the opponent to reroll a successful save?

Then give intercessors ap-2 like rubrics.

I wonder if giving Tacticals 're-roll 1s to hit if they all target the same unit' would work, the same as Long Fangs get from the SW book.
It's make Captains a little less useful around them, but that isn't something I exactly see as a problem.

Or, instead: If one Combat Squad fires all of its weapons at a target, and then the second half of that Combat Squad also fires all of its weapons at the same target, the second Combat Squad may re-roll all failed to-hit rolls. (This way, it provides a powerful, tangible benefit for Tacticals who actually combat squad, though it still makes full ten-man squads less than stellar.)

Waaaghpower wrote:
I wonder if giving Tacticals 're-roll 1s to hit if they all target the same unit' would work, the same as Long Fangs get from the SW book.
It's make Captains a little less useful around them, but that isn't something I exactly see as a problem.

Or, instead: If one Combat Squad fires all of its weapons at a target, and then the second half of that Combat Squad also fires all of its weapons at the same target, the second Combat Squad may re-roll all failed to-hit rolls. (This way, it provides a powerful, tangible benefit for Tacticals who actually combat squad, though it still makes full ten-man squads less than stellar.)

I'd rather focus on a buff that doesn't make our auras redundant. I know that one of main buffs proposed in the past for Bolt weapons was a mild rerolling of 1 to wound, but we got Lieutenants now for that.

So my main focus is two fold for Tactical Marines:
1. Can we fill a niche that isn't being filled yet
2. What are other troops doing better, or other units for that matter

That's why I mainly propose my idea. Promoting 10 man squads is hard for most of the units of the game though. Not letting multiple units in the same transport like how it used to be would be a start though barring characters.

Tactical Flexibility:
(Replaces combat squad rule of the tactical squad)

If this unit consists of 10 models after determining the starting player but before the first battle round begins you may remove exactly 5 models of this unit without breaking unit coherency. Then set those 5 models up as a separate unit anywhere in your deployment zone and more than 9" away from any enemy models.

If both players have units with this rule take turns redeploying your units starting with the player who has the first turn.

I ran a 10man tac (8bolter, 1 flameer, +sgt) today in a couple of friendly games I played. I was pretty underwhelmed. I was also running a 10man scout (5 snipe, 1 missile, 4 shotgun) which felt far more effective, but that bolter fire started to add up for a couple turns with the rapid fire. 16 shots isn't too bad.

They DO feel like they need a slight tweak somehow. Perhaps one additional heavy/special? For the most part SM do have a ton of tac with bolters when you look at the lore, so I feel it's appropriate from that standpoint... but from a balance standpoint? I dunno.

I think if you run into a situation where you just need bodies it doesn't hurt to throw a lot of SM tac units out there, and your power rating will be 1 less with the 10 man as opposed to 2 units of 5.... but that won't add up to much unless you are running high point armies.

 combatcotton wrote:
Tactical Flexibility:
(Replaces combat squad rule of the tactical squad)

If this unit consists of 10 models after determining the starting player but before the first battle round begins you may remove exactly 5 models of this unit without breaking unit coherency. Then set those 5 models up as a separate unit anywhere in your deployment zone and more than 9" away from any enemy models.

If both players have units with this rule take turns redeploying your units starting with the player who has the first turn.

I like this, I think it's a good amount of power. You could have a bonus for combat squads and a bonus for full size, like this one from the OP.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Possibly, there could be some kind of tactical benefit/special rule that you only get if you take a full-sized squad. The first thing that comes to mind is +1 Leadership if the squad starts at full size, which carries over even if you Combat Squad into two smaller squads. (Meaning that, instead of LD8 for the squad with the Sergeant and LD7 otherwise, you get LD9 and LD8.) This'd help with the fact that large squads are generally more vulnerable to Leadership-based attacks, but isn't really enough to justify the larger squad on its own, especially since Marines are already leadership-resistant.

But really I think that the game should be designed around having infantry squads like this be able to function well, especially in a game with riptides, flyers, etc. There should be a rule for all small fire team units like combat squads where all the members protect and enhance the squads' primary gun, and a volley fire rule for units that have lots of rifles, like the 8 bolsters in a tactical squad or the massed fire from fire warriors, dire avengers, shoota boyz and guardians.

Guys this is how the great war started in the first place horrus wanted mega space marines the emperor did not.so deal with it or just be come CSM and get al the upgrades your want for your squads.
But seriously you don't see the point in combat squads? really? There is nothing wrong with tactical marines they are great. hard to kill have good range fire power and you can upgrade there weapons according to the task at hand.
Every army has the same deal standard troops and file . wish my csm or nids could go to an objective leave a few guys behind and move on. and if they die your opponent does not get points because the other halve are still alive . Or become a screen 1 squad in front of the second squad if they get charged they guys behind are unharmed and can return fire next turn or charge in.
sure you could take 2 squads of 5 tactical marines but that just means you have 5 small size units . in smaller games those could be victory points your giving away.

Redinc wrote:
Guys this is how the great war started in the first place horrus wanted mega space marines the emperor did not.so deal with it or just be come CSM and get al the upgrades your want for your squads.
But seriously you don't see the point in combat squads? really? There is nothing wrong with tactical marines they are great. hard to kill have good range fire power and you can upgrade there weapons according to the task at hand.
Every army has the same deal standard troops and file . wish my csm or nids could go to an objective leave a few guys behind and move on. and if they die your opponent does not get points because the other halve are still alive . Or become a screen 1 squad in front of the second squad if they get charged they guys behind are unharmed and can return fire next turn or charge in.
sure you could take 2 squads of 5 tactical marines but that just means you have 5 small size units . in smaller games those could be victory points your giving away.

Combat squads is useless because I can meet the minimum troop requirement and get more Combi-Weapons just by getting the 5 man squad. Also Chaos Marines are more able to upgrade to a task, and they are garbage as is. Better to just risk a KP game than have a useless rule and less weapons.

SM have always bin to cheap in my mind , great statlines great armor save , good ranged weapons. you should try playing troops from other armyś for a change then you would see SM are
under priced .
CSM can have marks and icons great magic buffs and if you go specialised army you get specialised units as troops . so go play CSM that is what you really want in your heart .

Redinc wrote:
SM have always bin to cheap in my mind , great statlines great armor save , good ranged weapons. you should try playing troops from other armyś for a change then you would see SM are
under priced .
CSM can have marks and icons great magic buffs and if you go specialised army you get specialised units as troops . so go play CSM that is what you really want in your heart .

No. Just... No.

Space Marines are around average at best.

Waaaghpower wrote:
I love the *idea* of combat squads, but in-game it's just such a lackluster, pointless ability. Tactical Marines are a low-tier troops choice to begin with, and ten-man Tactical squads are one of the worst options you can bring. I'd like to find a way to make it beneficial to bring them, but just... Eh...

As it currently stands, the first 5 Tacticals gets you a free Sergeant who can bring a Combi-weapon and/or a melee weapon, as well as access to a single Special or Heavy weapon.
The second 5 gets you... A single weapon of whatever you didn't pick before.

The second half isn't cheaper, it offers no benefits that a second five-marine squad wouldn't offer, and it's just generally inadvisable.

One possibility that comes to mind is to simply only grant a Sergeant if you take a full ten-man squad. This'd add an internally balanced reward for taking them, but makes the already-weak Tactical Marines even weaker, to the point of being one of the worst units in the game, period.

Another possibility that comes to mind is making the second five Marines cheaper - 13ppm for the first five, 12ppm for the second five. (Or, if you prefer, you spend 5 points for the mandatory Sergeant.) This is actually my favorite solution, but it runs contrary to the GW-preferred 8th edition style of 'Everything costs the same, regardless of context or how effective it actually is in a given situation.'

Possibly, there could be some kind of tactical benefit/special rule that you only get if you take a full-sized squad. The first thing that comes to mind is +1 Leadership if the squad starts at full size, which carries over even if you Combat Squad into two smaller squads. (Meaning that, instead of LD8 for the squad with the Sergeant and LD7 otherwise, you get LD9 and LD8.) This'd help with the fact that large squads are generally more vulnerable to Leadership-based attacks, but isn't really enough to justify the larger squad on its own, especially since Marines are already leadership-resistant. Most other buffs I could think of (Re-roll 1s to hit, give a single weapon from one Combat Squad 'Ignores Cover' if the other Combat Squad can see the target,) are already provided by either a Buff character or Chapter Tactics, making them redundant.

The last idea, which is one that probably won't really work out, is some kind of detachment bonus, a-la Decurion Detachments of yesteredition, that gives you a noteworthy bonus... But only if you take a 10-man Assault squad, Devestator squad, three 10-man Tactical squads, and a Captain or Chaplain. (It'd have to be a pretty potent bonus, but not something like 'Free upgrades/weapons', more in the lines of giving the Captain or Chaplain's buff to everyone in the detachment regardless of how far away they are.) GW has thus-far shied away from 'Formation' style detachments, but I really think that it could work here as a way to make full squads... If not 'Powerful', then at least 'Viable'.

So... Anyone have any ideas?

Yes we have had the same problem at our local store...Tactical Squads are over prices when compared to other choices such as sternguard (3pts for 1 extra hand to hand, better bolter, and access to stratagem).

To me "Tactical Squads" make up the "backbone" of most "codex" marine armies. Yet they do not represent much on the table top. We have been testing some ways to bring BALANCE to a forgotten troop choice that is not cheese.

Choice 1: If you select a ten man squad all special weapons choices, and heavy weapon choices are 1/2 the points.
Rational: They are the most common type of squad in a SM army...
Balance: If you field all tactical squads it provide about enough points to generate one additional squad (2000pts).

Choice 2: Each FULL tactical squad provides +1 additional command point.
Rational: They are the "most flexible" (fluff) unit in a SM army...
Balance: Hard to break dumping 350+ points into a anemic squad that gets you +3 command points

Choice 3: <chapter> Tactical squads spread commander, chaplain, and lieutenant buffs to other <chapter> tactical squads within 4".
Rational: They are the "most flexible" (fluff) unit in SM army...if from the same chapter
Balance: Gives cool buffs, helps anemic ability to points, best results in mass, easy to counter.

Personally I like choice 3 the best. Makes army HQ diversity relevant, rewards having multiple tactical squads, and promotes a very "balanced" army.

 koooaei wrote:

So, all in all, tacticals still have a place even now. They're definitely not the allmighty super-killers or unkillable super-scorers but they give you a bunch of CP. They could use a killiness buff, probably. I'd suggest giving them an ability to shoot twice for 1 CP. This can encourage a use of 10-man squads. With captain re-rolls, they'll be putting out some really good shooting on the drop.

Ooo what I'm thinking is that for a stratagem 1 point. Say you have 1 half at point A then the other half at point B they both get to fire simultaneously even though they are on the opposite sides of the board. Boom a reason to combat squad and take 10 guys. Then give them -1 ap and I'll be happy

Well, there's 2 issues with marine infantry squads right now:

1. They're very frontloaded. You start off with a free upgrade to veteran sergeant, and thanks to combi-weapons being useful again, 2 weapon slots. You could go some way to mitigate that by restricting the veteran sergeant (either a cheap upgrade in points or maybe coming free if you take a full 10 man squad) and making additional marines cheaper to incentivize taking a full squad over starting a new one. I don't think that'll work as marines aren't really so good for their points, but it's a step in the right direction.

2. The elephant in the room - marines can take 1/2 size squads as default. Back when the combat squad rule came out, the minimum size was 10 marines which made the rule more relevant. Given that marines are basically expensive wound counters for the weapon slots, no-one in their right mind is going to go for the full 10 as they get 2/3 slots to start with. Taking another squad gives them an additional 2 potential slots instead of 1 for maxing out on size.

Imagine if IG infantry squads could take 5 men with free veteran sergeant and a weapon slot? They'd be doing the exact same thing

 Torga_DW wrote:


2. The elephant in the room - marines can take 1/2 size squads as default. Back when the combat squad rule came out, the minimum size was 10 marines which made the rule more relevant. Given that marines are basically expensive wound counters for the weapon slots, no-one in their right mind is going to go for the full 10 as they get 2/3 slots to start with. Taking another squad gives them an additional 2 potential slots instead of 1 for maxing out on size.

Imagine if IG infantry squads could take 5 men with free veteran sergeant and a weapon slot? They'd be doing the exact same thing

Actually, this is a decent point. Why should Marines be able to take 5-man squads in the first place? Pretty much solves the issue.

Why does the Combat Squad rule even exist in the first place? It's clunky, and takes up unnecessary space on the datasheet. No one else has it, and the ability to take two 5-man squads can basically represent the same thing lorewise.

Wanting to Combat Squad sounds like a nostalgia thing.

 Cream Tea wrote:
Why does the Combat Squad rule even exist in the first place? It's clunky, and takes up unnecessary space on the datasheet. No one else has it, and the ability to take two 5-man squads can basically represent the same thing lorewise.

Wanting to Combat Squad sounds like a nostalgia thing.

This is exactly it; it's a legacy thing from 1st (and I think 2nd) edition when Marines always came in squads of ten. Since they started letting you take squads of 5+, there's no good reason, crunch-wise, to not take 2 separate five-man squads, but it doesn't fit with the fluff to have one sergeant every five guys. Not really sure why they changed it from 10 guys to 5-10 guys, tbh.

Yes it was like that in 2nd as well.

And I think that's the answer really, treat combat squads like transports and artillery. One purchase, one drop, but can be placed on separate locations of you choose.

That alone should be a sitting incentive under the current rules. Maybe less important once chapter approved comes out.

Zustiur wrote:
Yes it was like that in 2nd as well.

And I think that's the answer really, treat combat squads like transports and artillery. One purchase, one drop, but can be placed on separate locations of you choose.

That alone should be a sitting incentive under the current rules. Maybe less important once chapter approved comes out.

People have enough trouble making use of tacticals as it is, I don't think making you buy them in groups of ten to meet the troops requirement will make them any better.

If it was up to me I'd say Tacticals, Devestators, and Assault Marines should all be merged into one unit type. The new Tactical Squad would come in units of ten, and allow up to 4 marines to take either special, heavy, or power weapons, with the sarge still getting his sarge list. Any marine would be allowed to trade his boltgun for a chainsword. They'd also get the option to upgrade to jump packs, or have a drop pod, or rhino. I really wish this is what intercessors were.

No, there isn't, because you need to take them in 5 man teams with a single lascannon and then cower in cover. Every other use them is likely to end poorly.

Martel732 wrote:
No, there isn't, because you need to take them in 5 man teams with a single lascannon and then cower in cover. Every other use them is likely to end poorly.

The thread is about what could be changed in the rules to make them useful. Didn't you read the OP?

Simple. 10 man squads fire twice until reduced to five.

Well, again, i'm going to point out the obvious elephant in the room. Marine squads are defined solely on their weapon slots. The other marines are overly expensive ablative wound counters. If you want to encourage 10-man squads, you need to make the basic marine worth more than simply an expensive ablative wound counter. You want to make them something that a player would be 'happy' to take, even naked. Either that or go back to forcing players to take a 10-man squad.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Well, again, i'm going to point out the obvious elephant in the room. Marine squads are defined solely on their weapon slots. The other marines are overly expensive ablative wound counters. If you want to encourage 10-man squads, you need to make the basic marine worth more than simply an expensive ablative wound counter. You want to make them something that a player would be 'happy' to take, even naked. Either that or go back to forcing players to take a 10-man squad.

I always thought it kind of goofy that an Imperial Guard can fire his lasgun twice as fast as a marine with a bolter, just cos someone's shouting at them. Maybe give Marines some kind of boost/shot bonus when using Bolt weaponry? One extra shot, maybe? (So 2 at ≤24", 3 at ≤ 12") This would provide a neat little bump to the bolter lads in tac/dev squads, and the pistol lads in Assault squads. Brap brap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just did some maths, and this certainly wouldn't make marines crazily overpowered by any stretch. Looking at the numbers, I think there's a pretty strong case that a guardsman's undercosted at 4pts, and this doesn't even take orders into account.

[Edited because my maths was a total shitshow]



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, a bolter Marine's damage output, per point, against infantry, only becomes marginally better than an un-ordered lasgun guardsman if you double their bolter shots…

 argonak wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 argonak wrote:
Yeah I agree, Tactics should get the Scion ability to take up to 4 special weapons (admitably one of the scion weapons is a heavy type, but it really probably shouldn't be).

I think then people would be using them just fine. Or Bolters need to get their AP-1 back.

If you do this though, the only thing differing for Intercessors is the extra range. It becomes a slippery slope and I'd like something special for Bolt weapons, but I haven't a clue what. Maybe rolls of 6 to wound force the opponent to reroll a successful save?

So you want to take one of the defining features of rubrics and give it to some randoms...

Then give intercessors ap-2 like rubrics.

 Nazrak wrote:

I always thought it kind of goofy that an Imperial Guard can fire his lasgun twice as fast as a marine with a bolter, just cos someone's shouting at them. Maybe give Marines some kind of boost/shot bonus when using Bolt weaponry? One extra shot, maybe? (So 2 at ≤24", 3 at ≤ 12") This would provide a neat little bump to the bolter lads in tac/dev squads, and the pistol lads in Assault squads. Brap brap.

Yeah and a marine's accuracy improves from 66% to 90% when he stands next to his Captain. When he stands next to an LT his gun suddenly goes from wounding guardsmen 66% of the time to 90% of the time. So?

You can't measure a unit's value purely based on its ability to shoot things. Marines have so many other increases over a normal guardsmen.
+1 WS, +1 BS, +1 S, +1 T, +1 LD, +2 armor SV, ATSKNF, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Krak Grenades. . . .I mean that's some good stuff right there. Would it be fair just to give it away?

Its true that 40k doesn't reward jack of all trades particularly well in its current edition, but unfortunately that's what marines are. As far as I can tell, the complaint isn't just that marines cost too much, its that without additional heavy and special weapons no one wants them. GW tried to make better tacticals with Intercessors, which are just as hated by the people who hate tacticals. I don't think giving them more bolter shots is going to help, those people hate bolters and think they're pointless.

It doesn't help when GW creates a unit like Scions that can take 4 special weapons in a ten man squad, grav chute, and are troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Champion of Slaanesh wrote:

So you want to take one of the defining features of rubrics and give it to some randoms...

Indeed. That's the problem with making any change to marines. Marines are the standard which GW bases every other army around. Change marines and you have to change everyone else to accommodate.

The present is a situation I'd need to consider. How I would have run them previously in 5th would have been to take 10 strong (which you wanted to do for weapons anyway back then), and then put the LC in a 5 man squad that sat in cover firing, while putting the special (generally melta) and sarge with combi (plasma or melta) in a razorback.

The other tac squad / lascannon thread convinced me that you need 4 marines to soak wounds for whatever your special is. As such, I'm not honestly sure you want both a special weapon and a combi weapon in your squads now.

I'm actually considering 6 man strong squads, with a combi weapon and a special weapon to maintain the paradigm. It would probably need to be replicated multiple times though. Important to saturate target priority, which is one of the reasons why spam lists are so effective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh. This is proposed rules. I dunno then. You could always give them a free weapon if they're 10 man strong. That sounds like something that would go over well.

 argonak wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

I always thought it kind of goofy that an Imperial Guard can fire his lasgun twice as fast as a marine with a bolter, just cos someone's shouting at them. Maybe give Marines some kind of boost/shot bonus when using Bolt weaponry? One extra shot, maybe? (So 2 at ≤24", 3 at ≤ 12") This would provide a neat little bump to the bolter lads in tac/dev squads, and the pistol lads in Assault squads. Brap brap.

Yeah and a marine's accuracy improves from 66% to 90% when he stands next to his Captain. When he stands next to an LT his gun suddenly goes from wounding guardsmen 66% of the time to 90% of the time. So?

You can't measure a unit's value purely based on its ability to shoot things. Marines have so many other increases over a normal guardsmen.
+1 WS, +1 BS, +1 S, +1 T, +1 LD, +2 armor SV, ATSKNF, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Krak Grenades. . . .I mean that's some good stuff right there. Would it be fair just to give it away?

Its true that 40k doesn't reward jack of all trades particularly well in its current edition, but unfortunately that's what marines are. As far as I can tell, the complaint isn't just that marines cost too much, its that without additional heavy and special weapons no one wants them. GW tried to make better tacticals with Intercessors, which are just as hated by the people who hate tacticals. I don't think giving them more bolter shots is going to help, those people hate bolters and think they're pointless.

It doesn't help when GW creates a unit like Scions that can take 4 special weapons in a ten man squad, grav chute, and are troops.

The game has been based around shooting primarily for a few editions now, i think you can measure a unit's value purely based on it's ability to shoot things. What's of note is that weapon skill means less now - aside from to hit, it also used to make you harder to hit if you had a higher ws. Now, everything hits on it's flat rate. Conscripts hit marines just as easily as they hit grotz and greater demons. Also, 40k hasn't rewarded jack of all trades units pretty much ever, let alone this edition. GW didn't try to make tacticals better by introducing a completely new and separate unit - what they did was wash their hands and try again while selling you new models. Just like gw didn't fix terminators when they introduced centurions. People hate tacticals and intercessors for the same reason - they're overpriced garbage.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:

I always thought it kind of goofy that an Imperial Guard can fire his lasgun twice as fast as a marine with a bolter, just cos someone's shouting at them. Maybe give Marines some kind of boost/shot bonus when using Bolt weaponry? One extra shot, maybe? (So 2 at ≤24", 3 at ≤ 12") This would provide a neat little bump to the bolter lads in tac/dev squads, and the pistol lads in Assault squads. Brap brap.

Yeah and a marine's accuracy improves from 66% to 90% when he stands next to his Captain. When he stands next to an LT his gun suddenly goes from wounding guardsmen 66% of the time to 90% of the time. So?

You can't measure a unit's value purely based on its ability to shoot things. Marines have so many other increases over a normal guardsmen.
+1 WS, +1 BS, +1 S, +1 T, +1 LD, +2 armor SV, ATSKNF, Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Krak Grenades. . . .I mean that's some good stuff right there. Would it be fair just to give it away?

Its true that 40k doesn't reward jack of all trades particularly well in its current edition, but unfortunately that's what marines are. As far as I can tell, the complaint isn't just that marines cost too much, its that without additional heavy and special weapons no one wants them. GW tried to make better tacticals with Intercessors, which are just as hated by the people who hate tacticals. I don't think giving them more bolter shots is going to help, those people hate bolters and think they're pointless.

It doesn't help when GW creates a unit like Scions that can take 4 special weapons in a ten man squad, grav chute, and are troops.

The game has been based around shooting primarily for a few editions now, i think you can measure a unit's value purely based on it's ability to shoot things. What's of note is that weapon skill means less now - aside from to hit, it also used to make you harder to hit if you had a higher ws. Now, everything hits on it's flat rate. Conscripts hit marines just as easily as they hit grotz and greater demons. Also, 40k hasn't rewarded jack of all trades units pretty much ever, let alone this edition. GW didn't try to make tacticals better by introducing a completely new and separate unit - what they did was wash their hands and try again while selling you new models. Just like gw didn't fix terminators when they introduced centurions. People hate tacticals and intercessors for the same reason - they're overpriced garbage.

So how much do you think a tactical and an intercessor should cost?

It's a simple enough question, but i can't give you a simple answer. Bobby G is a thing, asscan razors are a thing. Marines are supposed to be an elite army, dropping the points of their basic infantry goes against that, even if it's currently justified. I would rather see their infantry get enough of a buff to be 'worth' their points. I made a post about it here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/741301.page

But to try and answer your question relative to the OP. If a 10-man marine squad costs 100 points, people might be able to swallow that *and* you would see combat squadding happen, almost guaranteed. It's not my preferred fix, however. Also note that i'm not necessarily suggesting 10 point marines as base - unless 10-man squad minimums came back, i would look at putting the points decreases into the "up to 5 additional marines" to encourage taking them over starting a new squad.

Maybe keep the marines the same and make the upgrades much cheaper for tac squads, since they can't spam by definition. The marine has always been in the difficult situation of having stats they can't use effectively in conjunction with their other stats. This game rewards specialization. It's always better to have a 6 pt assault dude and a 7 pt shooter dude than a 13 pt dude that does both at an average rate. That's the tactical marine.

 Torga_DW wrote:
It's a simple enough question, but i can't give you a simple answer. Bobby G is a thing, asscan razors are a thing. Marines are supposed to be an elite army, dropping the points of their basic infantry goes against that, even if it's currently justified. I would rather see their infantry get enough of a buff to be 'worth' their points. I made a post about it here: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/741301.page

But to try and answer your question relative to the OP. If a 10-man marine squad costs 100 points, people might be able to swallow that *and* you would see combat squadding happen, almost guaranteed. It's not my preferred fix, however. Also note that i'm not necessarily suggesting 10 point marines as base - unless 10-man squad minimums came back, i would look at putting the points decreases into the "up to 5 additional marines" to encourage taking them over starting a new squad.

Definitely buff the marines rather than drop the points. If you drop points units slightly below points just starts to feel too expensive driving points down on bottom scale as well causing cascade and at the bottom end of scale there's very little room to manouver as it is...

Sells less models though.

Does combat squadding increase the drop from 1 to 2 since you need to declare it before it is deployed?

If it does, combat squad is beyond saving within the current ruleset.

 skchsan wrote:
Does combat squadding increase the drop from 1 to 2?

If it does, combat squad is beyond saving within the current ruleset.

Yes, I think it does.

yeah it increases your drop

Dumpster fire achievement unlocked, then.

It's just another worthless rule that is given to marines that has 0 value. Funny. A roman legion is essentially what a chapter is designed around. 1000 men. Each capable of breaking down to the squad level and acting independently. This is what combat squad is supposed to emulate.

The way combat squads should work is the unit should be able to split in half at any point of the game. Or join up with other units too. Instead we have to pay command points for that...I would never pay a command point to split a squad in half which has the ability to do it at the start of the game....what stupidity these rules writers have.

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's just another worthless rule that is given to marines that has 0 value. Funny. A roman legion is essentially what a chapter is designed around. 1000 men. Each capable of breaking down to the squad level and acting independently. This is what combat squad is supposed to emulate.

The way combat squads should work is the unit should be able to split in half at any point of the game. Or join up with other units too. Instead we have to pay command points for that...I would never pay a command point to split a squad in half which has the ability to do it at the start of the game....what stupidity these rules writers have.

Well it was a novel idea when dedicated transports could not be shared by different units. With the transport rule revised, yeah, it is absolutely worthless.

I'm praying for something in Chapter Approved to make this relevant or even just removed lol
Or ya know, give me a reason to take a 10 man squad

I thought something up the other day. Since I did not have the time to play 8th yet (I know, I know, shame on me) I am not 100% sure if that would break something, but I think not really.

Well my idea is not to (solely) reduce points or give them more special weapons but to make their stock weapons a bit better. But changing the Boltgun would also benefit quite a few other armies and would just be a lot of work.
So the thing that came to my mind was a special rule I thought of after reading a old IG codex that maybe could look a bit like this:

Boltgun Drill/Barrage or something like that
As long as the Sergeant is still alive, all Marines armed with Boltguns in the squad can take one more shot than they could normally.

I think that this would the Tacs greatly. Granted, also a small squad would gain this bonus, but on the other hand, a full 10 man squad could wreak some serious havoc on most stuff. Now add in special/heavy weapons or a combi weapon on the sergeant and you could really be meaningful on the battlefield.

I am aware that this pretty much simulates the auto bolt rifle if my memory serves me right. It is still just an idea. But still, Tacs need something.
Edit: Oh, and also just remove the combat squads. Now that everyone can split their fire and heavy weapons can still fire relatively accurately after moving. I do not really see the point in 8th for that rule.

Well, it seems like we all agree combat squadding is archaic notion.

As for making 10-m squad more viable, perhaps changing the special weapon per model count limits from 'every 5 models' to 'every 3 space marines (excluding sergeant)'.

Our typical composition for tac squads (if taken at all) is usually:
1. 1x 6-man squad [sarge + heavy/special weapon + 4 ablative wound] w/ razorback.
2. 2x 5-man squad [sarge + heavy/special weapon + 3 ablative wounds] w/ rhino.
or the ever popular
3. 1x 10-man squad [sarge + heavy weapon + special weapon + 7 ablative wounds] w/ rhino.

The above proposal opens up alternative composition as well as battle field roles (not slots):

1. 1x 6-man squad [sarge + heavy/special weapon + 4 ablative wound] w/ razorback - same as before
2. 2x 5-man squad [sarge + heavy/special weapon + 3 ablative wounds] w/ rhino - same as before
3. 1x 7-man squad [sarge + heavy weapon + special weapon + 4 ablative wounds] w/ rhino - this is where it begins to offer changes to the existing ruleset. In this particular case, two added space marines will act as a tax for being able to take two weapons from the ranged weapons. This loadout will stand as a pseudo-command squad, with less special weapons available and lacking the bodyguard rule.
4. 1x 10-man squad [sarge + special weapon + special weapon + heavy weapon + 6 ablative wounds] w/ rhino - again, now has 5 marines as tax for taking 3 special weapons. This loadout is still packs less punch than a command squad fully kitted out in a droppod (as to maintain the hierarchy of elites to troops), and still not quite a dev squad, but now sits somewhere between chosens/command squad and devs w/ significant increase in threat to enemy.

So while its not game breaking, it give you a reason to break out of the 5-man tac squad mold. Furthermore, many armies utilize this "every 3" rule so why not for tactical squads?

To sum up, change the 'Wargear Options' to read as follows:
-The Space Marine Sergeant may replace his bolt pistol and bolt gun with items from the Sergeant Equipment list.
-For every 3 Space Marines in the unit, one Space Marine may replace his boltgun with an item from the Special Weapons or Heavy Weapons list. Item from Heavy Weapons list can be taken only once per unit.

One for every three dudes? Huh. That's some thinking outside the box there. I just kept focusing on numbers divisible by 5. I like the cut of your jib.

 skchsan wrote:
To sum up, change the 'Wargear Options' to read as follows:
-The Space Marine Sergeant may replace his bolt pistol and bolt gun with items from the Sergeant Equipment list.
-For every 3 Space Marines in the unit, one Space Marine may replace his boltgun with an item from the Special Weapons or Heavy Weapons list. Item from Heavy Weapons list can be taken only once per unit.

My thoughts? I'd rather see a 'fix' where the 'basic' tactical marine is worth taking on their own merits, not as an expensive ablative wound for the special slots. And more, people still won't take 10 man squads because of the morale system. People using the combi/special loadout might move to 6 man squads though, but that's still 4 guys short of what we're aiming for.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
To sum up, change the 'Wargear Options' to read as follows:
-The Space Marine Sergeant may replace his bolt pistol and bolt gun with items from the Sergeant Equipment list.
-For every 3 Space Marines in the unit, one Space Marine may replace his boltgun with an item from the Special Weapons or Heavy Weapons list. Item from Heavy Weapons list can be taken only once per unit.

My thoughts? I'd rather see a 'fix' where the 'basic' tactical marine is worth taking on their own merits, not as an expensive ablative wound for the special slots. And more, people still won't take 10 man squads because of the morale system. People using the combi/special loadout might move to 6 man squads though, but that's still 4 guys short of what we're aiming for.

The only way to do that is make a Bolter worth taking in the first place. I laid out my thoughts on that in a different thread here.

I was thinking more about combat squading. I think I have a use for it.

Consider 1x10 Tac squad. Stick that in a rhino, and no one cares too much. You have the following in each rhino you do it to:
Combi/melee weapon
Special weapon
heavy weapon
It's probably 170-200 points per squad (not counting the rhino), depending on options.

However with combat squading:

2x10 Tac squads turn into 4x5. That's not particularly impressive, until you stick parts of them back in a rhino. When you do you have:
2 combi-melee weapons
2 special weapons

and, in addition, you have two heavy weapons hanging back, each with 4 ablative wounds. That's not a terrible setup.

Now, you could just argue that you can do that with a bunch of 5 man squads, but this gives you much more flexibility in situations when you have limited detachment sizes or limited numbers of detachments to work with.

MSU still also forces opponents to pre-commit to splitting firepower between squads or risk overkilling a squad. We had a long talk about 2x5 vs 1x10 scions in the IG tactics thread, and the conclusion that most came to was that 2x5 was overall the best way to go, as you suffer less from morale, you get more sergeants where you want them, and the above pre-commit to avoid overkill.

 daedalus wrote:
I was thinking more about combat squading. I think I have a use for it.

Consider 1x10 Tac squad. Stick that in a rhino, and no one cares too much. You have the following in each rhino you do it to:
Combi/melee weapon
Special weapon
heavy weapon
It's probably 170-200 points per squad (not counting the rhino), depending on options.

However with combat squading:

2x10 Tac squads turn into 4x5. That's not particularly impressive, until you stick parts of them back in a rhino. When you do you have:
2 combi-melee weapons
2 special weapons

and, in addition, you have two heavy weapons hanging back, each with 4 ablative wounds. That's not a terrible setup.

Now, you could just argue that you can do that with a bunch of 5 man squads, but this gives you much more flexibility in situations when you have limited detachment sizes or limited numbers of detachments to work with.

MSU still also forces opponents to pre-commit to splitting firepower between squads or risk overkilling a squad. We had a long talk about 2x5 vs 1x10 scions in the IG tactics thread, and the conclusion that most came to was that 2x5 was overall the best way to go, as you suffer less from morale, you get more sergeants where you want them, and the above pre-commit to avoid overkill.

It's better to just take 4 tacticals in 2 rhinos. 4 troops for 2 drops. With 2 plasma and 2 combi plasma. Mainly because the only reason you ever take tacticals is to get command points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

It's better to just take 4 tacticals in 2 rhinos. 4 troops for 2 drops. With 2 plasma and 2 combi plasma. Mainly because the only reason you ever take tacticals is to get command points.

This is only true because how lackluster tac squads are currently. The discussion is about how to actually make a competitive list focusing around troops in a SM list.

Taking a 10 man squad is utterly useless point sink currently.

The thread is about how to make 10-man squads/combat squads viable, and i don't see how you can do that without making the basic mooks more than just a highly-priced ablative wound counter for the specials.

I dont think improving individual marines is necessarily in order. I like to think of tac squad as like a hangnail - it doesnt cause you life threatening issues, but they are annoying until you cut them off.

I'll assume we've reached a consensus that there are absolutely 0 pro's of 10 man squad and combat squading. Wih this in mind, the list of cons of 1x 10man vs 2x 5 man are as follows:

-less special/heavy weapons
-susceptible higher potential loss due to failed morale test
-combat squading increases drops

With above in mind, the following is proposed:

change the 'abilities - combat squad' to read as follows:

Combat Squad
When a unit with this ability is deployed at the start of the game, a Tactical Squad containing 10 models may be split up into three units, into two groups of 3 and one group of 4 containing Space Marine Sergeant. The units set up in his manner must maintain coherency of 12" from each other unit.

This will address the above points wihout drastically changing the game.

-each squad is effectively immune to the effects of morale
-the number of drops is not affected
-smaller unit size = better use of LoS - while it doesnt increase its dps it increases staying power.

You will be able to create bare minimum, understrengthed units. The coherency rule may be replaced with a rule that allows overwatching for fellow units within 12" kind of like what tau has. The three units, while separated, still synergizes with each other.

I feel like this way, tactical squads may actually feel "tactical"

I have a suggestion. You may not like it, but here goes nothing.

Combat doctrines. Real Combat Doctrines. In the movement phase, when you select a tactical squad to move, roll 2D6. If the score is equal to or smaller than the number of models in the unit, they can immediately perform one of the following Combat Doctrines:

Tactical Doctrine: The unit immediately moves as if it was the Movement phase.

Devastator Doctrine: The unit immediately shoots as if in the shooting phase.

Assault Doctrine: The unit immediately fights as if in the fighting phase.

This is just a rough outline, and it's potentially game breaking at the moment. But maybe with a bit of work it could be viable? And as you can see, having a larger unit makes it more likely to work. 5 man combat squad, not likely. 10 man tactical squad, almost a sure thing. Thoughts?

That's a really interesting idea, my first impression is i like it. Need to think on it more, but reminds me of the old sisters acts of faith. The magic number for it to be reliably used would be 7 men, but in that case i'd probably pony up the extra 3 as ablative wounds to keep the squad performing. Would have to decide if devastator doctrine would apply to all weapons or just boltguns.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I have a suggestion. You may not like it, but here goes nothing.

Combat doctrines. Real Combat Doctrines. In the movement phase, when you select a tactical squad to move, roll 2D6. If the score is equal to or smaller than the number of models in the unit, they can immediately perform one of the following Combat Doctrines:

Tactical Doctrine: The unit immediately moves as if it was the Movement phase.

Devastator Doctrine: The unit immediately shoots as if in the shooting phase.

Assault Doctrine: The unit immediately fights as if in the fighting phase.

This is just a rough outline, and it's potentially game breaking at the moment. But maybe with a bit of work it could be viable? And as you can see, having a larger unit makes it more likely to work. 5 man combat squad, not likely. 10 man tactical squad, almost a sure thing. Thoughts?

I can get my Heavy Weapon to shoot twice in a Devastator squad for just 5 points. And that'll be at BS2+ before the squad inevitably dies.
Plus I don't understand why Tactical Marines benefit compared to actual Veterans, Sternguard, Vanguard, and heck Terminators.

A fix like this for tactical marines could be a fix for other marine infantry units as well.

 Torga_DW wrote:
A fix like this for tactical marines could be a fix for other marine infantry units as well.

Exactly. Thanks for hearing me out!

 skchsan wrote:

-each squad is effectively immune to the effects of morale
-the number of drops is not affected
-smaller unit size = better use of LoS - while it doesnt increase its dps it increases staying power.

You will be able to create bare minimum, understrengthed units. The coherency rule may be replaced with a rule that allows overwatching for fellow units within 12" kind of like what tau has. The three units, while separated, still synergizes with each other.

I feel like this way, tactical squads may actually feel "tactical"

This is great! This plus I was thinking Stratagems and rerolls affect both halves of the unit as long as the sergeant is alive

It would also be nice if they limited split fire onto two units max. Currently, the option to split fire onto as many units are causing delays in games where penny pinching opponents try to resolve one bolter at a time to minimize wound wasteage. But yeah, thats how the game is designed.

I'd say improve the Boltguns to AP-1 or keep AP- but on a wound roll of 6, change the AP to -2...

Much like Stormtroopers (who I find are ludicrously overpowered with S3 AP-2) that receive orders; surely a Space Marine Tactical Squad with 6 or more members could have a mini-orders tree, like:

Stand and Deliver: Boltgun becomes Rapid Fire 2 if the unit has not moved in the preceding movement phase and has 6 or more models...

For the Honor of the Chapter: Increase Ld to 10 if more than 6 models are still in the squad when resolving Morale tests...

In His Name: Change Boltguns to Assault 1 if the Squad has just advanced and has 6 or more models...

 skchsan wrote:
It would also be nice if they limited split fire onto two units max. Currently, the option to split fire onto as many units are causing delays in games where penny pinching opponents try to resolve one bolter at a time to minimize wound wasteage. But yeah, thats how the game is designed.

Isn't split fire designed so that you have to declare all shots before shooting Any?

 fraser1191 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
It would also be nice if they limited split fire onto two units max. Currently, the option to split fire onto as many units are causing delays in games where penny pinching opponents try to resolve one bolter at a time to minimize wound wasteage. But yeah, thats how the game is designed.

Isn't split fire designed so that you have to declare all shots before shooting Any?

Yes it is, it would appear his opponents are playing that wrong. You have to declare all targets before you fire with an individual unit, and you can't change them based on casualties.

 argonak wrote:
Yes it is, it would appear his opponents are playing that wrong. You have to declare all targets before you fire with an individual unit, and you can't change them based on casualties.

Then all the merrier! Combat squads should be a rule that allows you to make units smaller than the minimum size, i.e. allow tac marines to combat squad smaller than 5 units, bikers smaller than 3 units, etc. as to create more decision making to be done by the opponent trying to minimize overkills.

Currently, combat squad is redundant that you can opt to increase a 5 man squad into 10 man, then revert that 10 man squad back into two 5 man squads.

 skchsan wrote:

 argonak wrote:
Yes it is, it would appear his opponents are playing that wrong. You have to declare all targets before you fire with an individual unit, and you can't change them based on casualties.

Then all the merrier! Combat squads should be a rule that allows you to make units smaller than the minimum size, i.e. allow tac marines to combat squad smaller than 5 units, bikers smaller than 3 units, etc. as to create more decision making to be done by the opponent trying to minimize overkills.

Currently, combat squad is redundant that you can opt to increase a 5 man squad into 10 man, then revert that 10 man squad back into two 5 man squads.

Combat squad is just a leftover relic of a rule that only made sense several editions ago. It should be deleted. Marines don't appear to be pointed in a way that it costs them anything. And not using it instead gets you an extra Sarge. I just don't see the point. Tacticals issue is unrelated to that rule, and is more a problem of being just average at multiple things in a game that rewards specialists.

The benefit of combat squads is still the ability to pack more small units into a single formation slot; the problem with it is that most people don't max out Troops, it's the specialists you want more of in just about every situation, if tactical marines were a choice that you actually wanted to take more of then it'd be different, or even Troops in general.

It's really a major problem with the meta; there's just not much reason to bulk up an army with (usually) cheaper Troops, as numbers alone don't matter for most armies, the weapons you equip are. It was a problem in 7th edition fantasy until 8th edition made big blocks of infantry powerful again, but I'm not at all sure what could do the same in 40k.

So either the meta of the game needs to change to emphasise Troops, or reward flexibility versus specialisation, or they need to make the tactical squad better with some kind of rule.

There's a whole thread on possible changes to bolter weapons, which could certainly have an impact on a massed bolters unit like 10-man tactical marine squads; in that I suggested bolter weapons inflicting two hits on 6's to hit, which would make a 10-man tactical squad a bit better at anti-horde work with a flamer + heavy bolter.

One alternative is to double down on the objective grabbing idea; for codex armies at least it's the devastators that are less experienced than tactical marines, so it seems weird that tactical marines are basically the same but worse. They should really have something to account for them not being quite as raw, for example, maybe they automatically pass Morale checks within range of an objective marker?

An even more radical alternative would be to redesign the stats of marines, such that scouts and devastators only have one attack each, but all other units have two, with veterans receiving some other bonus to compensate (e.g- better BS and WS instead). This could also allow front-line marines to go back to a more elite price point rather than creeping ever downwards in cost.

What's plain is that right now equipment is all that really distinguishes marine squads, and tactical marines have the worst selection, but I don't think loading them up with more options would really help, as if anything it'd make the distinction between units worse than ever.

Do you think bringing back limits would be an option? Like, Devastator Squads being a 0-1 choice, or something?

M.

 Infantryman wrote:
Do you think bringing back limits would be an option? Like, Devastator Squads being a 0-1 choice, or something?

M.

That doesn't make Tactical Marines better.

I still think the best way to do this is to give them a bonus for having more than 5 models in the unit. Off the top of my head, +1 to their to hit, advance and charge rolls if the squad is 6-10 models? Too much or too little?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I still think the best way to do this is to give them a bonus for having more than 5 models in the unit. Off the top of my head, +1 to their to hit, advance and charge rolls if the squad is 6-10 models? Too much or too little?

I agree, with morale being what it is, and the front-loading of squads, having a 'full' squad needs to be incentivized. I liked your previous idea, because it related to 'numbers' within the squad. Too few, and it wouldn't work, but going full size would give you a decent buffer against casualties while still providing the bonus. +1 to advance and charge rolls isn't so bad, but +1 to to hit rolls is pretty powerful for a 'shooty' unit just because it has '6' models in it. We're aiming to encourage the full 10 men, my solution would involve that in some way. The problem here is that once you encourage 10 men, you still want combat squadding (5 men splits) to be viable too.

I mean just say "a squad that starts the game with ten models." I would call it "covering fire" and just keep the advance and charge bonuses.

But marines have chapter tactics, atsknf, combat squads, and some people would like special rules in their bolters. This is not something to add to, and I would really rather get rid of chapter tactics, and only replace it with something other than something so specific.

haravikk is right. Either the meta needs to change or they need a special rule, and they don't need a special rule.

The tools are all there, marines have superior stats but ld7 t4 etc do not mean anything. This is preposterous. A marine with a bolter isn't worth its points in guardsmen or night scythes, and neither is a tactical squad, yet their to hit, s, t, ld, and save are all better. The meta and game rules are the problems.

Compare a 7th ed veteran guardsman and a 7th ed marine. Their bs is the same and the marine's i, Ld, and sv are all better, with more access to a2 veterans, yet none of these things make the marine's shooting attack more powerful. These specific stats should let marines blitz the guard veterans to death before they can get a shot off. Speed, training, protection, determination, all of these things should directly boost the shooting attack, not just help them survive and not pass through special rules, they are already there in the profile statline.

A tactical squad prefers to attack infantry. That's what it's weapons can hurt. Buff infantry generally, and you get an exponential bonus. Tactical squads benefit directly because they are infantry, and they also get more useful because their preferred targets get more common and more valuable.

So I'd buff the heck out of infantry and make part of the buffs depend on good Ld, good sv, and good a.

Except Combat Squads is a non-rule, especially since you can take multiple units on the same transport. If that's part of the reasoning behind their cost, it needs to be removed.

Also Bolters have been garbage for a stupidly long time. There's no defense you can give because "power creep is the issue" doesn't work on a weapon that's not good to begin with.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I agree, with morale being what it is, and the front-loading of squads, having a 'full' squad needs to be incentivized. I liked your previous idea, because it related to 'numbers' within the squad. Too few, and it wouldn't work, but going full size would give you a decent buffer against casualties while still providing the bonus. +1 to advance and charge rolls isn't so bad, but +1 to to hit rolls is pretty powerful for a 'shooty' unit just because it has '6' models in it. We're aiming to encourage the full 10 men, my solution would involve that in some way. The problem here is that once you encourage 10 men, you still want combat squadding (5 men splits) to be viable too.

Very good points. What about a hybrid of the two ideas? In the movement phase, roll 2D6 and if the result is equal to or less than the size of the squad, they add +1 to their advance, charge (and to hit rolls?).
I know I said try letting them shoot/charge/double move in the movement phase but it's probably too time consuming. Or maybe not?

I don't understand why you would test instead of saying "if the unit starts the game with ten models."

Also why would you give the squad bs2+ and ws2+ just for paying for a single extra marine?

How about a bonus Command Point per full squad.

What about if you have a 10 man squad split up, if one squad shoots at a unit, the other half gets a +1 to hit or rerolls against the same unit

It'd never happen, but I think the ideal way would either be:
-Tac Space Marine: 13ppm, min: 5 guys
-May add up to 5 additional Tac Marines at 12ppm

Or:
-If the squad selects a Special weapon, any selected Heavy weapon costs 10 points less (minimum 0)

Neither are going to happen. Runs counter to how the game is developing. But I think they'd be interesting rules.

Bharring wrote:
It'd never happen, but I think the ideal way would either be:
-Tac Space Marine: 13ppm, min: 5 guys
-May add up to 5 additional Tac Marines at 12ppm

Or:
-If the squad selects a Special weapon, any selected Heavy weapon costs 10 points less (minimum 0)

Neither are going to happen. Runs counter to how the game is developing. But I think they'd be interesting rules.

It's how it's done in Horus Heresy. But, of course, with the new (stupid) points system, that'd be a beach to do. It'd've been easy in the old points system.

You could just bump the cost of a tac Sarge 5 points, which would do basically the same thing. But that would certainly raise hell.

(Assuming the PPM of Tac Marines drops to 12ppm to bump Sarge by 5pts - not looking to nerf Tacs.)

Bharring wrote:
You could just bump the cost of a tac Sarge 5 points, which would do basically the same thing. But that would certainly raise hell.

(Assuming the PPM of Tac Marines drops to 12ppm to bump Sarge by 5pts - not looking to nerf Tacs.)

It's nice, I really like front loaded point costs. Except, the alternative is using MSU for an extra five points per unit, which makes the price of extra CP five points per unit. If you charge twenty points for an extra CP it's probably still worth it.

If it were pointed perfectly, sometimes you'd want 10mans, sometimes you'd take 5mans.

The ideal balance should make both have a point, for different reasons.

I still think all the rules needs is a little change. Allow it to be used AFTER deployment. Then it's not that bad and actually worth something.

Bharring wrote:
If it were pointed perfectly, sometimes you'd want 10mans, sometimes you'd take 5mans.

The ideal balance should make both have a point, for different reasons.

Idk sounds liberal to me.

The masses are exhorted to use ten-marine squads and uphold Marneus Calgar Thought.

A materialist analysis demands that squads that have fewer than ten marines have some way of attributing these to previously incurred casualties, instead of list design or optimization.

There should also be a chance that a random member of each squad has bs2+ and precision shot, and a lower chance that a random member have a trophy power knife, and a chance that the squad has a veteran a2 ld8 combat squad leader in addition to its sergeant. The fact that it doesn't is a revision of the correct line of Ansellist-Gullimanism.


Which obviously is hyperbole. Everything having an fanciful, perfectly balanced set of illusory choices is just as preposterous. The preferred use is ten marines, and if there are niches uses for five or six marines despite the rules ideally favoring ten, then they will fill those niches.

Combat squads allows for alternative loadout options when the battle begins. One big squad for maximum casualty padding, two reasonably armed independent teams, or one high-density armed team and one bolter-man team.

Two independently bought five-man Tactical teams can't pack heavy/specials into a transport the way two sub-10 combat squads can. Full load is 2 combi, 2 special, and 2 heavy for Tacticals.

Then you have bolter squads left over for screens, objectives, or being obnoxious by assaulting stuff.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Combat squads allows for alternative loadout options when the battle begins. One big squad for maximum casualty padding, two reasonably armed independent teams, or one high-density armed team and one bolter-man team.

Two independently bought five-man Tactical teams can't pack heavy/specials into a transport the way two sub-10 combat squads can. Full load is 2 combi, 2 special, and 2 heavy for Tacticals.

Then you have bolter squads left over for screens, objectives, or being obnoxious by assaulting stuff.

I implore you to re-read your post. Neither 2x 5-man or 1x 10-man can equip 2 combi, 2 special, and 2 heavy. only two 10-man tacticals combined can.

 skchsan wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Combat squads allows for alternative loadout options when the battle begins. One big squad for maximum casualty padding, two reasonably armed independent teams, or one high-density armed team and one bolter-man team.

Two independently bought five-man Tactical teams can't pack heavy/specials into a transport the way two sub-10 combat squads can. Full load is 2 combi, 2 special, and 2 heavy for Tacticals.

Then you have bolter squads left over for screens, objectives, or being obnoxious by assaulting stuff.

I implore you to re-read your post. Neither 2x 5-man or 1x 10-man can equip 2 combi, 2 special, and 2 heavy. only two 10-man tacticals combined can.

That's what I'm saying. Two sub-10 combat squads from different 10-man squads, thus the two 5-man bolter teams left over. Two ten man squads each have 1 heavy, 1 combi, and 1 special. Each 10 man team can make 2 five man teams. One with 1 heavy, 1 combi, 1 special, and one with just bolter guys.

2 "weapon dense" teams can go in a transport, for a total of 2 specials, 2 combis, and 2 heavies.

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's what I'm saying. Two sub-10 combat squads from different 10-man squads, thus the two 5-man bolter teams left over. Two ten man squads each have 1 heavy, 1 combi, and 1 special. Each 10 man team can make 2 five man teams. One with 1 heavy, 1 combi, 1 special, and one with just bolter guys.

2 "weapon dense" teams can go in a transport, for a total of 2 specials, 2 combis, and 2 heavies.

That's a pretty hefty tax to pay for when you can simply take two 5-man dev squads.

 skchsan wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
That's what I'm saying. Two sub-10 combat squads from different 10-man squads, thus the two 5-man bolter teams left over. Two ten man squads each have 1 heavy, 1 combi, and 1 special. Each 10 man team can make 2 five man teams. One with 1 heavy, 1 combi, 1 special, and one with just bolter guys.

2 "weapon dense" teams can go in a transport, for a total of 2 specials, 2 combis, and 2 heavies.

That's a pretty hefty tax to pay for when you can simply take two 5-man dev squads.

:shrug:

Just pointing out a potential use for Combat Squads. It's how I've been running mine. As a long time marine player I like my Tacticals and I bring four ten man units to every game these days. In doing so, I get some use out of the Combat Squad rule with the method above. It leaves me with some high-density offensive power and some units to run interference or grab stuff.

Insert standard debate over value of Obsec and CPs here.

And Objective Secured has very little value.

Plus if I need Command Points I can either just have spent the points on Scouts or ally in Scions cheaply.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And Objective Secured has very little value.

Plus if I need Command Points I can either just have spent the points on Scouts or ally in Scions cheaply.

Ob-sec may have less value to you because of your meta, but my meta may be different. Regardless, I find it useful.

We've done the Scouts/Tacticals debate to death, and your preference for Scouts is noted. My current marine list uses both, btw. But the thread is specifically in regards to Tacticals.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except Combat Squads is a non-rule, especially since you can take multiple units on the same transport. If that's part of the reasoning behind their cost, it needs to be removed.

When this thread writes a rule that makes ten model squads and combat squaring good, then combat squads becomes a good rule. And there is no reference to point costs. You can't make a basic every day unit have forty eight special rules, that's obvious. It's the same for twelve rules, or ten, or even four. Atsknf, chapter tactics, special bolter rules, and large-squad rules, are at least one rule too many, and that's not counting combat squads.

Also Bolters have been garbage for a stupidly long time. There's no defense you can give because "power creep is the issue" doesn't work on a weapon that's not good to begin with.

Nobody said bolters were good or bad. Space Marines have higher values on their profile than other armies, that is flat out literal. Stack a marine veteran against a guard veteran, they have the same shooting skill. Ignore their guns assume they are both grot blasters, assume they are both magma cannons. They shoot the same. A marine veteran has higher leadership, twice as many attacks, and used to have better initiative. I assume that means that the marine veteran can shoot the guardsman before the guardsman gets a shot off. I assume that means the veteran knows when the guardsman is reloading or breaking cover. I assume that means when they are being raked by splinter cannons, the guardsman flinches and the marine doesn't. I assume that when they are outnumbered the marine can pin down more enemies than the guard vet who shoots one target at a time. They have different armor, I assume that means when the marine is running and firing from the hip that he is less affected than when the guard veteran does.

It no they have the same ability to hit the target. Neither of them can do extra damage with the same weapon for having a better ability to make criticals. Models with higher Ld and more A should get benefits from them that make them hit harder.

The rules-bloat is where I would think any change here would be best in the listbuilding rules.

If Sarges now cost +5 pts, and Tac Marines are 12ppm, that only needs to be considered by the listbuilder while he his building his list. Once the list is built, the rule basically doesn't exist.

And I think that's best.

I'm iffy on making the good sergeants cost points again. That was a change I was personally a fan of.

I didn't mean the good sergents. I meant all Tac Sergents.

Base squad wouldn't change in price for 5. But 10mans would be 5 pts cheaper total.

Yeah five points doesn't do it. If you said basic sergeants were 21 points and marines were 11 points, then a full squad would be gen points cheaper than two minimum squads, and that would barely mean anything.

Now if It were chaos, basic champions should be like 32 points, but they would have a2 ws2+ and ld9. Loyalist sergeants don't have that.

Bharring wrote:
I didn't mean the good sergents. I meant all Tac Sergents.

Base squad wouldn't change in price for 5. But 10mans would be 5 pts cheaper total.

But that doesn't add up by a lot. That's why I'm just a fan of trying to make the basic Bolter weapon better. The Tactical Marine and Chaos Marine theoretically have the stats for a 13-14 point model, but not the wargear that shows it, nor the weapon loadouts. Hence why:
1. I made my Bolter thread for my proposed fix, and a ton of ideas followed from different posters.
2. Someone here proposed that the idea that adding two more Marines gets you an additional Special/Heavy, and then the max size gets you another. I like the idea simply because it's out of the box by not following the 5/10 rule.

Some of us are bothered by not following the 5/10 options rules.

Like, I started trying out DOW3. But then I upgraded my Tac marines and... all 5 have Plasmas? I had a hard time accepting that. It unsettled me.

I'm not sure what the optimal price point would be. Too low, and people still won't take a 10man over 2 5mans. Too high, and people would never take 2 5mans over 1 10man. Just right would make the 10man the default, but there'd be times 5-mans would be better.

Another potential change would make Combat Squad allowing a 10man to take up 2 unit slots on the FOC. It's starting to get a little complicated if you go that route.

The bump in points on Sarge isn't because he's worth more (or has better stats). It's to front-load the pricing to encourage 10mans.

If something THAT minor bothers you, it's going to be impossible to propose fixes.

If you think a Tac squad all having Plasma guns is minor, I think we have very different frames of references.

There are lots of suggestions here that don't break that construct.

Bharring wrote:
If you think a Tac squad all having Plasma guns is minor, I think we have very different frames of references.

There are lots of suggestions here that don't break that construct.

I'm not suggesting to break the construct that far. What I'm saying is that there's a disconnect between how inefficient the unit works on the table vs in the game when they aren't terrible.

I mean, in the first DoW, I can equip Scouts with Flamers and Plasma Guns. Nobody complains about that.

Oh, I definitely agree in the concept that Tac Marines shouldn't be terrible (although you and I disagree on their current state).

I think I've said that I could see a change that increased their capacity. I think the limited specials/heavies is a hallmark of Marines, though. 3 of 5 having something (special, combi, heavy) wouldn't feel too much like heresy, but 5/5 would.

You could also (in DoW I) give Tac squads more specials/heavies than they could on the tabletop. But the feeling of the mechanic - you can give them a weapon, but not the entire squad - was retained in I and II. Sniper Rifles and Shotguns not being Specials/Heavies, of course.

(Sidenote, it'd be cool if Scouts could have more options than just HB/ML. Probably not all the options, but I could definitely get behind them getting Flamers. But that's not this topic).

At any rate, it seems to me frontloading the points costs would be a much lighter touch change than increasing the number of specials/heavies.

In an ideal world, we'd mostly see 10mans, sometimes see 5mans, and rarely see anything in between (IMO). I know that's "just fluff", but fluff is what makes the game more interesting than Chess With Dice to me. I wouldn't be opposed to that suggestion above, I just don't particularly like it.

I originally suggested part of how Crusader squads do it (which is the Special and Heavy at 5, and then an extra of either at 10), but then nobody would run 10 man squads. That's why I like the idea behind at 7 total you get one of each, and then at 10 an extra one. It makes Rhinos more attractive too in a second-hand way.

But then you have the issue of why to use Bolter dudes in the first place, as you're limiting how many you take in the first place outside Hurricane Bolters. Mostly everything goes hand-in-hand.

Bharring wrote:
Oh, I definitely agree in the concept that Tac Marines shouldn't be terrible (although you and I disagree on their current state).

I think I've said that I could see a change that increased their capacity. I think the limited specials/heavies is a hallmark of Marines, though. 3 of 5 having something (special, combi, heavy) wouldn't feel too much like heresy, but 5/5 would.

You could also (in DoW I) give Tac squads more specials/heavies than they could on the tabletop. But the feeling of the mechanic - you can give them a weapon, but not the entire squad - was retained in I and II. Sniper Rifles and Shotguns not being Specials/Heavies, of course.

(Sidenote, it'd be cool if Scouts could have more options than just HB/ML. Probably not all the options, but I could definitely get behind them getting Flamers. But that's not this topic).

At any rate, it seems to me frontloading the points costs would be a much lighter touch change than increasing the number of specials/heavies.

In an ideal world, we'd mostly see 10mans, sometimes see 5mans, and rarely see anything in between (IMO). I know that's "just fluff", but fluff is what makes the game more interesting than Chess With Dice to me. I wouldn't be opposed to that suggestion above, I just don't particularly like it.

Giving them more things to pay for isn't the solution anyway.

I'm honestly not sure what needs to happen with Tactical Marines.

I think, possibly that Marines are suffering from having too many options. With 85+ options to get the job done, most of which are specialists, then perhaps having a generalist that can do a bit of everything is irrelevant.

Why do you need a random model with 3+ weapon skill when you have Vanguard Veterans and Assault Terminators?

Why do you need a regular guy with 3+ Ballistic Skill when you have Sternguard and devastators?

I think the problem is that the game rewards Specialists (and rightly so - a Generalist should never be as good at a job as a specialist in that job is) and since the Marines have specialists for everything, Tactical Marines just disappear.

They have better shooting specialists, better assault specialists, better scoring specialists, better screening specialists... the Tac Marine has no role that cannot easily be filled somewhere else.

I recently played a Black Templars list with 6 Vanguard Veteran squads and 1 Assault Terminator squad with Imperial Fists detachment Devastators in the back, and a few comparatively irrelevant scouts.

They had their Assault covered, their Anti-Tank covered, their Screens covered... and there was no tactical marine to be found.

I was thinking of why I make the choices I make when I build armies and generally, I'm picking something to fill a role. Imperial Guard Infantry Squads make great utility units, because they can screen and make use of orders better than any other unit in the codex now. There's no such use for Tactical Marines.

If they don't fulfill a meaningful role, cut the cost. That's the primary fix we are looking at.

It is when the options are good. The issue is Tactical Marines have basically all the options.

I was hoping they'd continue with the direction of the Indexes, where they made the stuff that drastically outperformed troops cost drastically more points. Sure, they didn't get all of them in the one pass they did, but I thought the game would be more interesting if all the non-troops costed comparitively more. So you took Troops for the brunt of the fighting, and specialists to handle specific cases and tasks.

Hard to balance that way, but easier to balance than this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Martel - the solution I was suggesting - frontloading the squad cost - isnt about adding options that Tacs need to pay for. In fact, as offered, it decreased the PPM price of Tacs. Half a point by a body in it's most conservative form, but still, that isn't 'additional options they have to pay for'.

Martel732 wrote:
If they don't fulfill a meaningful role, cut the cost. That's the primary fix we are looking at.

Their role SHOULD be offense.
Scouts got disruption covered thanks to deployment options and weapons that are aided with those weapon options. Intercessors are basically the ultimate defenders as they're now 9 points a wound. So that leaves offense for troops. On top of lacking the ability to carry a lot of special/heavy weapons, Bolters aren't good. So what we do is fix the Bolter and the amount of special/heavy weapons they can carry, but obviously we can't go overboard with it.

Martel732 wrote:
If they don't fulfill a meaningful role, cut the cost. That's the primary fix we are looking at.

The problem with cutting the cost is you still want them to be less efficient, point-for-point, than the specialists.

So you will never solve the problem cutting costs, because they will always be suboptimal compared to the specialists (unless you make them outright better than the specialists at doing what the specialists do. That's the only time people don't take a specialist is when there's a better alternative).

Cutting the cost is the tool gw is most likely to employ, though. To me, tac marines play like 11 ppm models. They are basically sisters on offense, with a few extra perks that have low effectiveness.

Martel732 wrote:
Cutting the cost is the tool gw is most likely to employ, though.

Yes, but do you really want to have another thread in ~5 years going "why are sternguard so bad when I can take tactical marines?"

The problem is that there's always going to be differences between units (sorry, it's true). Those differences mean that certain units are better at certain roles than other units.

When you have 85+ options to cover your bases, there's inevitably going to be a specialist who fills a certain role better than any generalist ever will.

This means that there is no role for generalists, because every role is covered by a specialist.

As soon as you make the generalist better than the specialist at a role, then the specialist disappears, because the generalist is more efficient.

If you take away one tool from the list (e.g., Scouts) then the Tactical Marines become viable again, because there is a crippling weakness in the army list and at least there's a generalist to prop it up a little, instead of having nothing at all. In fact, this is kind of why scouts are good now: they're not the best screens, and a lack of screens is a crippling weakness for Marines. But scouts are generalists (who are better at screening than Tacts) and so they get taken as screens to prop up that weakness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Cutting the cost is the tool gw is most likely to employ, though. To me, tac marines play like 11 ppm models. They are basically sisters on offense, with a few extra perks that have low effectiveness.

Except in assault, where Marines cream Sisters.

Sorry, your 11ppm tactical marine means sisters should be ~8 or 7ppm, because Marines cream them so badly. It's a huge difference.

10 tacts vs 10 Battle Sisters (excluding sergeants for simplicity): 1.5 SOB dead

10 SOB vs 10 tacts, same thing: 0.56 tacts dead.

SM will inflict thrice the casualties on the SOB in assault.

But what about generalists like the Wave Serpent? Outtank the shooty, but not outtank it. Outshoot the tanky, but not outtank it. Less cost effective than it's competitors in any single role, but can perform all of them.

The Wave Serpent is a generalist that is worth it. Generalists can do work.

One of the problems is it's being looked at in terms of "Can it outshoot X", "Can it out-chop X", *or* in terms of "Can it outsurvive X" (per point, not model). To balance a generalist, it needs to win at some categories against any X. If it wins all categories against a unit, it's OP. If it loses all categories against a unit, it's trash. The problem is, there are obvious examples of both.

Too often we here "Tacs are trash, because Orkz can out-survive them per point". When shooting gets brought up, it's made clear that that doesn't matter, because Tacs need ot be able to survive to shoot.

Too often we here "Tacs are trash, because Guardians outshoot them!" When survivability is brought up, the response is survivability doesn't matter, because all that matters in this game is how much damage the unit can do.

To do generalists right, they should be a little worse at one thing, but better at other things. The Serpent is less durable, per point, than a Rhino (Obviously not for things like overcharged plas rapidfiring outside 12" into them, but for most cases). But it's got much better firepower and movement. It's got worse firepower than a Razorback, but better survivability per point and movement.

If you buff Tacs so they're more survivable per point than an Ork Boy, or anywhere close to as good at shooting as a space elf GEQ at MEQ prices, you're just invalidating those units. You need to tread carefully to do it right.

Once again...nodody is complaining about Guardians shooting Tactical Marines. Pretty sure everyone agrees Guardians need a buff.

The Wave Serpent also works as a generalist simply because of the Fly rule. If you removed that I'd argue it's overcosted.

Replace 'Guardians' with 'Dire Avengers', if you want. Point still stands. That's the more common discussion, but it's been done to death. Didn't want to derail this thread with it too.

"Except in assault, where Marines cream Sisters. "

Assault basically doesn't matter in 8th. That's the problem. Everything dies to shooting or hits a screen before said mythical combat occurs. BA are gonna super deadly in CC. Is that relevant? Probably not because I'm gonna get shot to death long before I can assault.

Generalists should be charged very little for CQC ability. Very little.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once again...nodody is complaining about Guardians shooting Tactical Marines. Pretty sure everyone agrees Guardians need a buff.

The Wave Serpent also works as a generalist simply because of the Fly rule. If you removed that I'd argue it's overcosted.

Gardians got a buff - 1 CP command points deep strike. With the ability to go to 3++ save for 1 additional command point and a spell cast. If Tac marines got that - I would totally use them.

Not directly related to the 10 man squad issue, but anyone else think it's kinda weird that an Imperial Guard Platoon Commander gets 3 wounds while a Space Marine gets only 1?

M.

Bharring wrote:
Replace 'Guardians' with 'Dire Avengers', if you want. Point still stands. That's the more common discussion, but it's been done to death. Didn't want to derail this thread with it too.

As long as other Codices are in discussion they're gonna be brought up, like it or not.

Besides I never said Dire Avengers were perfect. Merely they have a specific role, and they do it well. Hell I'd give them a super Objective Secured rule if I could.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Infantryman wrote:
Not directly related to the 10 man squad issue, but anyone else think it's kinda weird that an Imperial Guard Platoon Commander gets 3 wounds while a Space Marine gets only 1?

M.

All hero dudes are like that. Doesn't bother me at all.

Martel732 wrote:"Except in assault, where Marines cream Sisters. "

Assault basically doesn't matter in 8th. That's the problem. Everything dies to shooting or hits a screen before said mythical combat occurs. BA are gonna super deadly in CC. Is that relevant? Probably not because I'm gonna get shot to death long before I can assault.

If it did matter, would you take Tactical Marines? Because then all that needs to happen is a fix to the core rules.

Infantryman wrote:Not directly related to the 10 man squad issue, but anyone else think it's kinda weird that an Imperial Guard Platoon Commander gets 3 wounds while a Space Marine gets only 1?

M.

Yes. I always have found it weird that wounds varied between dudes and their squads. Like is it really the case that if I strapped a regular Space Marine Veteran to the wall and shot him in the eye with a laspistol, he would die, but if I did the same thing to a Space Marine Captain, he'd be alright for six times?

The "wound" stat I essentially had to translate into a purely mechanical sphere, because from a fluff perspective, they make 0 sense.

 Infantryman wrote:
Not directly related to the 10 man squad issue, but anyone else think it's kinda weird that an Imperial Guard Platoon Commander gets 3 wounds while a Space Marine gets only 1?

M.

Everyone thinks that is weird. It usually devolves into a discussion about marine players wanting movie marines and what not. Marines want to automatically win blah blah blah. Personally I think most heros have to many wounds. It's because they were afraid of the sniper rule with these new character rules.

"If it did matter, would you take Tactical Marines? Because then all that needs to happen is a fix to the core rules. "

If it did matter, marines would play more like 13 ppm as opposed to 11 ppm. But CQC for generalists has been dead since 5th. In 7th, it required outrageous death stars to even survive the trip to the Eldar/Tau battle lines.

Martel732 wrote:
"Except in assault, where Marines cream Sisters. "

Assault basically doesn't matter in 8th. That's the problem. Everything dies to shooting or hits a screen before said mythical combat occurs. BA are gonna super deadly in CC. Is that relevant? Probably not because I'm gonna get shot to death long before I can assault.

Generalists should be charged very little for CQC ability. Very little.

This is part of the issue of paying for stats you don't use (my Assault Marines don't actually need the BS3+ and it wouldn't be missed). Either that, or you have stats that don't compliment each other (that S4 and WS3+ doesn't matter with only 1 attack, as often as people try to bring that up. An equal amount of Tactical Marines are hardly killing anybody that wants to shoot, and theyre not really outshooting Orks out of everyone by a lot).

Also, you could always create a role for Tactical Marines, perhaps.

"Sweep and Clear: Each Adeptus Astartes Tactical Marine counts as 4 models for the purposes of Objective Secured." or something like that. It represents them not having a role to focus on in the fluff - Devastators are distracted responding to calls for fire support, Assault Squads are distracted looking for duders to murderize, Sternguard Squads are distracted guarding sterns, while the Tactical Marines can sit on an objective and focus on methodically securing it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
Not directly related to the 10 man squad issue, but anyone else think it's kinda weird that an Imperial Guard Platoon Commander gets 3 wounds while a Space Marine gets only 1?

M.

Everyone thinks that is weird. It usually devolves into a discussion about marine players wanting movie marines and what not. Marines want to automatically win blah blah blah. Personally I think most heros have to many wounds. It's because they were afraid of the sniper rule with these new character rules.

Actually it's because of old ID mechanic now translating into different damage stats for weapons instead.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Also, you could always create a role for Tactical Marines, perhaps.

"Sweep and Clear: Each Adeptus Astartes Tactical Marine counts as 4 models for the purposes of Objective Secured." or something like that. It represents them not having a role to focus on in the fluff - Devastators are distracted responding to calls for fire support, Assault Squads are distracted looking for duders to murderize, Sternguard Squads are distracted guarding sterns, while the Tactical Marines can sit on an objective and focus on methodically securing it.

That doesn't help though because if someone REALLY wants a Tactical Marine dead...theyll die. They're not exactly hard to kill. That's part of the issue with the OS rule. It isn't terribly valuable on most units, with anyone gaining a benefit is a actually an exception rather than a rule.

I really see no problem in allowing Tacs to count more than the average Guardsman, and much more than the average Eldar, when it came to ObSec. It's what they do.

But CC stats already kinda do that. If I set 5 DAs on a point, and you set 5 Marines on the same point, you're going to assault me. THen you'll have more marines than I have DAs very, very quickly.

If you can't make use of the stats, sure, they are wasted for you. But why should those who enjoy those stats lose them, too?

One Guardian squad can do that trick you talked about. Two can deepstrike (for 3CP, not 2), but you can only protect one of them, and can only use that strat on one of them.

Marines *CAN* do the 'deepstrike' thing - either with a pod or with Infiltrate. They can't get the 3++, which is good, but they're also a lot more durable per model, and their deepstrike/infiltrate options aren't as restrictive as WWP.

It's an asymetric game. Of course things are different.

"you're going to assault me."

My units won't live long enough to assault you. That's the problem. Listen to the problems, please. Assault doesn't matter at all. Shooting matters.

That's not a problem, Martel.

Units die all the time. If units dying is your problem, you're playing the wrong game.

If you are proposing that it is impossible for a Tactical Marine squad to cover the ~6" max distance between the 5 DAs in that scenario...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's not a problem, Martel.

Units die all the time. If units dying is your problem, you're playing the wrong game.

If you are proposing that it is impossible for a Tactical Marine squad to cover the ~6" max distance between the 5 DAs in that scenario...

My problem is all units dying before assault vs a meaningful target happens. Which is every game against lists with screening units.

Bharring wrote:
I really see no problem in allowing Tacs to count more than the average Guardsman, and much more than the average Eldar, when it came to ObSec. It's what they do.

But CC stats already kinda do that. If I set 5 DAs on a point, and you set 5 Marines on the same point, you're going to assault me. THen you'll have more marines than I have DAs very, very quickly.

If you can't make use of the stats, sure, they are wasted for you. But why should those who enjoy those stats lose them, too?

One Guardian squad can do that trick you talked about. Two can deepstrike (for 3CP, not 2), but you can only protect one of them, and can only use that strat on one of them.

Marines *CAN* do the 'deepstrike' thing - either with a pod or with Infiltrate. They can't get the 3++, which is good, but they're also a lot more durable per model, and their deepstrike/infiltrate options aren't as restrictive as WWP.

It's an asymetric game. Of course things are different.

People keep talking about Tactical Marines assaulting as though that ever happened a lot.

Since I started using Marines in 5th, you know how many times I had a Tactical Marine squad assault anything? FOUR times. That's when I had Heavy Flamer access too so at least they were close and wanted to be close.
Couple in weapons that don't let you assault most of the time and there ya go.

Even in tournaments it only happens once in a blue moon, so I don't know why it's still being mentioned.

Because it's something they can find to justify the cost of tactical marines. Theoretical assaults that never happen because of how 8th works.

You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

I assault with Tacs all the time. That's part of how you get their value. It's not that they kill a lot, it's that they stay in the fight longer. Value in assault is not just S, A and WS, but also T, Sv. and Morale. If you're left with just one or two marines, and they can still get a charge off againt a non-fly vehicle or unit, that target unit often can't shoot next turn, or loses another model to morale, or can't control an objective because there is an Obsec unit still standing on it.

Just a few games ago I held an objective with one guy left from a bolter squad, against 7 pathfinders.

Yes, Devastators could technically do the same thing (except the ObSec example) but you position them differently on the table. Because of the higher points investment and the importance of not moving, you keep them more protected and still.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Yeah, that's basically how I dealt with Tau in 7th.

Who are you playing that lets any marine get that close? Because I want to play them, too.

Martel732 wrote:
Who are you playing that lets any marine get that close? Because I want to play them, too.

A: I bring a lot of marines. 70+

B: Drop Pods! They can't really avoid them getting close.

Martel732 wrote:
Who are you playing that lets any marine get that close? Because I want to play them, too.

I let them get that close.

Turn 1: They go first, move + advance + smoke on 4 Rhinos.

Turn 1 bottom: I blow up the Rhinos.

Turn 2: They move up and charge.

They've just moved 12 + d6 + 3 + 6", then charged 2d6. That's 21+3d6 inch total movement, top of turn 2.

Really not hard to get.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Who are you playing that lets any marine get that close? Because I want to play them, too.

A: I bring a lot of marines. 70+

B: Drop Pods! They can't really avoid them getting close.

They can turn off your pods with screens. When I say I can't assault, I mean I can't meaningfully assault. I can assault all the guardsmen or gaunts I want. I just can never get to the dakkafex or the wyvern. Because they take that possibility away in their deployment. They turn off assault elements by just setting up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Who are you playing that lets any marine get that close? Because I want to play them, too.

I let them get that close.

Turn 1: They go first, move + advance + smoke on 4 Rhinos.

Turn 1 bottom: I blow up the Rhinos.

Turn 2: They move up and charge.

They've just moved 12 + d6 + 3 + 6", then charged 2d6. That's 21+3d6 inch total movement, top of turn 2.

Really not hard to get.

And then they hit the meaningless screening units. Which prevent any kind of meaningful assault from ever occurring.

Martel732 wrote:
And then they hit the meaningless screening units. Which prevent any kind of meaningful assault from ever occurring.

Ah, now the goalposts are moving to "meaningful" assaults.

Actually, I don't bring screening units with my Baneblades. They absolutely made it in, with a few models that didn't die to Overwatch, and then got crushed undertread.

But my point is: tactical marines can absolutely assault. In your example versus Sisters of Battle, their screening units are 9ppm Sisters of Battle. That's actually a pretty good target for a charging tac squad.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Who are you playing that lets any marine get that close? Because I want to play them, too.

A: I bring a lot of marines. 70+

B: Drop Pods! They can't really avoid them getting close.

They can turn off your pods with screens. When I say I can't assault, I mean I can't meaningfully assault. I can assault all the guardsmen or gaunts I want. I just can never get to the dakkafex or the wyvern. Because they take that possibility away in their deployment. They turn off assault elements by just setting up.

It has worked for me, that's all I can say. That it hasn't worked for you, I don't know what to tell you.

Part of it is that I'm not necessarily assaulting, a lot of what I'm doing is getting to a forward firing base and shooting. The assualt against pathfinders I referred to earlier was by a guy who came up in a Rhino, shot and assaulted some Fire Warriors, and then later made it to the objective which the remaining Pathfinders tried to clear him from. That particular marine was involved in two assaults that game, the last assault was for at least two rounds.

The Pods carry a lot of shooting, firing past screens at whatever I have to deal with. At least initially. Sometimes they charge too. I'm sure I assaulted with some of them in that particular game as well. Because they can deploy, shoot and charge, sometimes they do it all in one turn, and at different targets. Come to think of it, I did a lot of assaulting that game. Even in the backfield against some Piranhas.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And then they hit the meaningless screening units. Which prevent any kind of meaningful assault from ever occurring.

Ah, now the goalposts are moving to "meaningful" assaults.

Actually, I don't bring screening units with my Baneblades. They absolutely made it in, with a few models that didn't die to Overwatch, and then got crushed undertread.

But my point is: tactical marines can absolutely assault. In your example versus Sisters of Battle, their screening units are 9ppm Sisters of Battle. That's actually a pretty good target for a charging tac squad.

I didn't mean to move the goalposts. I should have said meaningful from the get go. My opponents let me assault 4 ppm losers all day long.

BA workflow: Move up one turn -> get shot to hell by opponent -> turn 2, assault screening units -> screens fall back and then rest of list shoots BA to hell -> turn 3, no BA left to continue assaulting. This is similar for all assault lists except BA run out of assault chumps first because our stuff is crazy overcosted.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And then they hit the meaningless screening units. Which prevent any kind of meaningful assault from ever occurring.

Ah, now the goalposts are moving to "meaningful" assaults.

Actually, I don't bring screening units with my Baneblades. They absolutely made it in, with a few models that didn't die to Overwatch, and then got crushed undertread.

But my point is: tactical marines can absolutely assault. In your example versus Sisters of Battle, their screening units are 9ppm Sisters of Battle. That's actually a pretty good target for a charging tac squad.

I didn't mean to move the goalposts. I should have said meaningful from the get go.

BA workflow: Move up one turn -> get shot to hell by opponent -> turn 2, assault screening units -> screens fall back and then rest of list shoots BA to hell -> turn 3, no BA left to continue assaulting. This is similar for all assault lists except BA run out of assault chumps first.

That's a neat list of what happens when you play against IG and Tyranids.

Now, please, tell me what you do against the other ~14 factions without screens?

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And then they hit the meaningless screening units. Which prevent any kind of meaningful assault from ever occurring.

Ah, now the goalposts are moving to "meaningful" assaults.

Actually, I don't bring screening units with my Baneblades. They absolutely made it in, with a few models that didn't die to Overwatch, and then got crushed undertread.

But my point is: tactical marines can absolutely assault. In your example versus Sisters of Battle, their screening units are 9ppm Sisters of Battle. That's actually a pretty good target for a charging tac squad.

I didn't mean to move the goalposts. I should have said meaningful from the get go. My opponents let me assault 4 ppm losers all day long.

BA workflow: Move up one turn -> get shot to hell by opponent -> turn 2, assault screening units -> screens fall back and then rest of list shoots BA to hell -> turn 3, no BA left to continue assaulting. This is similar for all assault lists except BA run out of assault chumps first because our stuff is crazy overcosted.

Don't buy as much of the shiny stuff. Buy more of the basic stuff.

All factions have better screens than marines for the most part.

Ad mech are getting 7ppm dudes
Sisters are 9ppm with 3/5 having stormbolters
Guardians are 8 ppm
etc

Those all sound pretty superior to marines to me as screens.

You don't need 4 ppm models to screen BA to death. You just need to buy a couple of turns while you table them with superior shooting. The 4 ppm models just make it so nothing can ever, ever go wrong. That's why I have a few wins in 8th. And most were against index lists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And then they hit the meaningless screening units. Which prevent any kind of meaningful assault from ever occurring.

Ah, now the goalposts are moving to "meaningful" assaults.

Actually, I don't bring screening units with my Baneblades. They absolutely made it in, with a few models that didn't die to Overwatch, and then got crushed undertread.

But my point is: tactical marines can absolutely assault. In your example versus Sisters of Battle, their screening units are 9ppm Sisters of Battle. That's actually a pretty good target for a charging tac squad.

I didn't mean to move the goalposts. I should have said meaningful from the get go. My opponents let me assault 4 ppm losers all day long.

BA workflow: Move up one turn -> get shot to hell by opponent -> turn 2, assault screening units -> screens fall back and then rest of list shoots BA to hell -> turn 3, no BA left to continue assaulting. This is similar for all assault lists except BA run out of assault chumps first because our stuff is crazy overcosted.

Don't buy as much of the shiny stuff. Buy more of the basic stuff.

Marines don't have basic stuff. At least, not compared to the competition. Another part of the problem. At least, they're not priced as basic. They cheapest jump pack guy is an outrageous 16 ppm.

Not all non-Marines armies have viable screens.

Those 8ppm Guardians die relatively quickly to even Boltgun fire. Even outside rapidfire range. 8ppm Guardians take up more space, but die much faster per point than 13ppm Tacs (more than twice vs most firepower).

And how are you never in range to charge when faced with units with guns of 12"?

The specific example was in discussing "Super ObSec". The point was, against many other ObSec, Marines already have in in effect. This is because, if both armies have the same number of troops on the point, the Marines will charge the non-Marines. I'm not saying that happens often. What I'm saying is that improving their ObSec won't do much, as they already win those scenarios.

You might never charge with Tacs. I do. My opponents do. Tourny players don't for a variety of reasons. But one of the reasons Tacs don't charge is because most players know they can't give the Tacs a charge. And that typically costs them a lot. My Guardians might move faster than Tacs, but they can't engage the Tacs directly - they would lose badly. So Tacs control that matchup. Most min troop squads can't take a 5-man Tac or Dev squad backfielder - but a 5-man Tac squad can take a 5-man Kalabite or Corsair backfielder squad.

The opponent not charging because they'll lose or not engaging because they'll get charged are times Marine CC helps you, but you seem to not see it.

Martel was definitely referring to screening units stopping assault armies all along.

Tac Marines are "Basic".

They are supersoldiers. But Orkz are super hooligans. Necrons are super undead. Eldar are super fast space elves. Guard are super numerous.

It's a game where everything is super. Marines are super at being OK at each part of the game. That might not be what you're looking for, but there are players that do look at them for that.

Necron Warriors/Immortals and CWE Aspect Warriors are on about the same level in PPM terms.

A Tac Marine can survive a crapton of firepower in cover at 13ppm.

Bharring wrote:
Not all non-Marines armies have viable screens.

Those 8ppm Guardians die relatively quickly to even Boltgun fire. Even outside rapidfire range. 8ppm Guardians take up more space, but die much faster per point than 13ppm Tacs (more than twice vs most firepower).

And how are you never in range to charge when faced with units with guns of 12"?

The specific example was in discussing "Super ObSec". The point was, against many other ObSec, Marines already have in in effect. This is because, if both armies have the same number of troops on the point, the Marines will charge the non-Marines. I'm not saying that happens often. What I'm saying is that improving their ObSec won't do much, as they already win those scenarios.

You might never charge with Tacs. I do. My opponents do. Tourny players don't for a variety of reasons. But one of the reasons Tacs don't charge is because most players know they can't give the Tacs a charge. And that typically costs them a lot. My Guardians might move faster than Tacs, but they can't engage the Tacs directly - they would lose badly. So Tacs control that matchup. Most min troop squads can't take a 5-man Tac or Dev squad backfielder - but a 5-man Tac squad can take a 5-man Kalabite or Corsair backfielder squad.

The opponent not charging because they'll lose or not engaging because they'll get charged are times Marine CC helps you, but you seem to not see it.

All assault lists care about is how much real estate you are clogging up per point spent. I don't care about how durable you are against boltguns, because I'm not shooting you, I'm trying to assault you! Assault marines and vanguards don't get boltguns, and even if they did, the damage is done IN THE MOVEMENT PHASE. Your guardians EXISTING make me lose. I have no say in the matter. Unless your Eldar gunline rolls spectacularly terribly, I'm staring at turn 3 tabling.

"A Tac Marine can survive a crapton of firepower in cover at 13ppm."

Have you seen the Eldar and Tyranid codices? They really can't. And even if they could, that doesn't help me assault you.

"but they can't engage the Tacs directly - they would lose badly."

Not after the Eldar shooting phase. 20 guardians can kill 2 stragglers easily.

"most players know they can't give the Tacs a charge"

Seriously? Live in fear of the incredible 1 swing per 13 ppm, fewer than that if you bought them special weapons. Tac marines lose to guardsmen in CC on a ppm basis.

But somehow Sisters are only 9ppm even after buying 2 Storm Bolters for every 5? Everyone needs to pay for specials/heavies.

I think playing a GEQ army for a while would do you a lot of good. 5 Marines is a threat to almost any Aspect Warrior unit that I leave out of position. Getting me to leave them out of position is hard, but it severely limits my options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
20 Guardians cost more than a 10-man Tac squad. Why on earth would them being able to kill 2 if they get within 12" without dying mean Marines are bad?

I've army swapped in previous editions. Marines are a joke to play against because they have no staying power against superior guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
But somehow Sisters are only 9ppm even after buying 2 Storm Bolters for every 5? Everyone needs to pay for specials/heavies.

I think playing a GEQ army for a while would do you a lot of good. 5 Marines is a threat to almost any Aspect Warrior unit that I leave out of position. Getting me to leave them out of position is hard, but it severely limits my options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
20 Guardians cost more than a 10-man Tac squad. Why on earth would them being able to kill 2 if they get within 12" without dying mean Marines are bad?

Because of how easily the Eldar list kills the other 8. What I'm saying is that these scenarios with tacs assaulting never happen because the marines have been shot into ineffectiveness in two turns of Xeno/Ig shooting. The model count is so low that they can't take the beating.

And so we're back to "Tacs are the worst troops because the worse troops have other things in their armies"?

These conversations always go in circles.

Martel732 wrote:
. . . these scenarios with tacs assaulting never happen. . .

Oh, so I guess my play experience is just not allowed in the conversation then?

Bharring wrote:
And so we're back to "Tacs are the worst troops because the worse troops have other things in their armies"?

These conversations always go in circles.

That's basically the game though. Spending less on units that are just there to take up space -> buy bigger guns (that are better if you Eldar or IG) -> kill marines with bigger guns before they can use their alleged marine advantages up close. Any attempt marines make to get close fast are a) expensive and b) 100% cock-blocked by screens with no input at all from the marine player. There is no counter play. BA and SW-style lists lose in the deployment phase before moving a model. Yes, you screen can be shot, but that's AFTER you have dictated where I can move and by then, it's too late.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
. . . these scenarios with tacs assaulting never happen. . .

Oh, so I guess my play experience is just not allowed in the conversation then?

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

Only if you consider the 80 points for a minimum Guardian squad to be fewer points than the 65 points for a minimum Tac squad - and neither of them are the cheapest Troop option in their Dexes.

Marines can pay less per Troop slot than CWE, so by that logic they can bring more guns -> Therefore, how is that an argument that Tacs need to be buffed to handle other troops?

If all your Troops are is a tax, there is no change that would make them viable for you that wouldn't also make them OP for others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Guardian screens were everything you think they are, Boltgun tacticals would be a big deal.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

But our opponents can make sure we are charging low-value units, negating all of those changes. Which would be tolerable if the beta strikes weren't so crazy.

Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

Bharring wrote:
Only if you consider the 80 points for a minimum Guardian squad to be fewer points than the 65 points for a minimum Tac squad - and neither of them are the cheapest Troop option in their Dexes.

Marines can pay less per Troop slot than CWE, so by that logic they can bring more guns -> Therefore, how is that an argument that Tacs need to be buffed to handle other troops?

If all your Troops are is a tax, there is no change that would make them viable for you that wouldn't also make them OP for others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If Guardian screens were everything you think they are, Boltgun tacticals would be a big deal.

No, they can't. It's price per MODEL, not per squad that matters. That 10 man guardian squad covers twice the real estate of a 5 man tac squad. It's about clogging the board and making a ton of movement illegal.

The boltgun tacticals wouldn't be a big deal because the guardians already did their job when they were set up on the board.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

But our opponents can make sure we are charging low-value units, negating all of those changes. Which would be tolerable if the beta strikes weren't so crazy.

Do you always let the opponent make all the decisions for you?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

It got worse because shooting got a lot better, and no consolidating into a new combat. That created the sacrificial chump squad to eat assaults phenomenon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

But our opponents can make sure we are charging low-value units, negating all of those changes. Which would be tolerable if the beta strikes weren't so crazy.

Do you always let the opponent make all the decisions for you?

If they are good, they can eliminate my assault counter play in their movement phase. That's it. I'm assuming your opponents aren't this savvy? My choices are assault what I'm given or stand around and get shot some more. Same as its been since they got rid of consolidating into a new combat.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

Necrons are pretty much Ld10 across the board... They are more immune to morale break than any other armies in the game....

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

In those edditions when you couldn't willingly fall back - tactical marine squads just ended up being convenient places for enemies to hide from your guns because you couldn't be over run. This was especially bad vs things like wraith knights. Now everyone can just fall back from combat - this is bad for assault in general. Ultimately it doesn't benefit or hurt marines in particular this edition but it hoses blood angels.

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

It got worse because shooting got a lot better, and no consolidating into a new combat. That created the sacrificial chump squad to eat assaults phenomenon.

That's not assaults getting worse though, esp when they also got more effective with morale. Besides, 5th was the edition of the TH/SS Terminators, an assault only unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

But our opponents can make sure we are charging low-value units, negating all of those changes. Which would be tolerable if the beta strikes weren't so crazy.

Do you always let the opponent make all the decisions for you?

If they are good, they can eliminate my assault counter play in their movement phase. That's it. I'm assuming your opponents aren't this savvy?

"Or I'm savvy enough to deal with it."

No, because you get no input on their movement phase, and there is no way to make illegal moves on your own phase.

" 5th was the edition of the TH/SS Terminators"

Not really. By the time SW dropped, people had given up on them because of just being chipped out by dakka and million wolfy swings.

The post I was referring to is where you were saying the only thing that mattered was how cheap they were so you could by bigger guns. When looking at guns, price per unit matter. But yes, for footprint, Guardians are a little better - 80 pts vs 130 pts, although the 10man Tac squad can combat squad (2x5mans have a bigger footprint than 1x10man).

That's assuming a T1 charge - which, if that were easy, most factions would autolose. On a T2 or later charge, many more of those Guardians can be dead than those Marines. Especially if cover is an option. So I'm not convinced that Marines are notably worse at screening than Guardians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have input on my opponent's movement phase all the time. And he has input on mine. It's a different kind of input, becuase our units are different kinds of threats, though.

 skchsan wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

Necrons are pretty much Ld10 across the board... They are more immune to morale break than any other armies in the game....

They weren't Ld 10 when they lost a combat by 5 casualties. Then they were Ld. 5. And when they could be run down (unlike a marine) and not get a WBB roll, that was the way to deal with them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

In those edditions when you couldn't willingly fall back - tactical marine squads just ended up being convenient places for enemies to hide from your guns because you couldn't be over run. This was especially bad vs things like wraith knights. Now everyone can just fall back from combat - this is bad for assault in general. Ultimately it doesn't benefit or hurt marines in particular this edition but it hoses blood angels.

"Hiding in CC" cut both ways. I spent a ton of time in those edition "hiding" my Tacs among squads of lesser troops, too.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Ultimately it doesn't benefit or hurt marines in particular this edition but it hoses blood angels.

BA have guns too, suprisingly enough. You don't have to banzai charge every opponent with jump pack Marines all the time. There are other ways.

Bharring wrote:
The post I was referring to is where you were saying the only thing that mattered was how cheap they were so you could by bigger guns. When looking at guns, price per unit matter. But yes, for footprint, Guardians are a little better - 80 pts vs 130 pts, although the 10man Tac squad can combat squad (2x5mans have a bigger footprint than 1x10man).

That's assuming a T1 charge - which, if that were easy, most factions would autolose. On a T2 or later charge, many more of those Guardians can be dead than those Marines. Especially if cover is an option. So I'm not convinced that Marines are notably worse at screening than Guardians.

Well, I can tell you they are. At T2 or later, I'm already running out of marines. Because 8th ed.

"BA have guns too, suprisingly enough. You don't have to banzai charge every opponent with jump pack Marines all the time. There are other ways. "

Yeah. Right now, I just line up and play the lascannon game. Because there's no point in sending assault elements at ALL. I know the -1 trait is made to try to change this, but it really doesn't.

Just like how, if Aspect Hosts are on the losing side, they're running out of Aspect Warriors.

Or CSM on the losing side are running out of guys.

Or anyone else.

If you let the opponent run all of T1 the way he wants, things are going to go badly for you.

Bharring wrote:
Just like how, if Aspect Hosts are on the losing side, they're running out of Aspect Warriors.

Or CSM on the losing side are running out of guys.

Or anyone else.

If you let the opponent run all of T1 the way he wants, things are going to go badly for you.

Assault lists don't have a choice. If you actually ran assault lists, you'd know this. But you are probably 90% shooting and then assaulting the ravaged stragglers. I've already admitted that works. But almost every army is better at this than marines, especially BA marines. Which is super ironic, because that seems like something the marines should be good at, too.

While it's true I usually try to mangle what I want to charge, I've run Assault-heavy lists. Not pure assault, because I play Marines Eldar and Tau.

Perhaps an Assault list with some shooting support might work better than a mindless bumrush?

That's what BA are supposed to be, but the shooting is ineffective unless you dedicate a lot of points to it. At which point, you might as well gunline. Maybe the Baal pred gets a point reduction. Maybe not.

It's that marine costing problem rearing its head again. Not enough shots, even at BS 3+ -> not enough dead enemies -> more enemies left alive to shred your assault units in the shooting phase -> too many enemies alive when you do assault. The inescapable conclusion is to quit trying to assault at all.

Bharring wrote:
Not all non-Marines armies have viable screens.

Those 8ppm Guardians die relatively quickly to even Boltgun fire. Even outside rapidfire range. 8ppm Guardians take up more space, but die much faster per point than 13ppm Tacs (more than twice vs most firepower).

And how are you never in range to charge when faced with units with guns of 12"?

The specific example was in discussing "Super ObSec". The point was, against many other ObSec, Marines already have in in effect. This is because, if both armies have the same number of troops on the point, the Marines will charge the non-Marines. I'm not saying that happens often. What I'm saying is that improving their ObSec won't do much, as they already win those scenarios.

You might never charge with Tacs. I do. My opponents do. Tourny players don't for a variety of reasons. But one of the reasons Tacs don't charge is because most players know they can't give the Tacs a charge. And that typically costs them a lot. My Guardians might move faster than Tacs, but they can't engage the Tacs directly - they would lose badly. So Tacs control that matchup. Most min troop squads can't take a 5-man Tac or Dev squad backfielder - but a 5-man Tac squad can take a 5-man Kalabite or Corsair backfielder squad.

The opponent not charging because they'll lose or not engaging because they'll get charged are times Marine CC helps you, but you seem to not see it.

Uh Tourney Players don't charge with Tactical Marines because they're not good on the charge. It isn't hard to grasp and not a variety of reasons line you claim. It's a waste of time, simple as that. On top of that, a majority of upgrades until 8th made charging not possible. So I literally choose to disregard anyone claiming that Tactical Marines charged anyone. I don't care what happens at the CAAC locals you guys have. Hell, you guys probably let charges happen because it's cool.
You're also using uneven points for comparisons. How much cheaper are those Kalabites compared to Tactical Marines? More importantly...why are Kalabites camping anything? Your thoughts are so scattered sometimes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Also, based on what metrics did assaults gotten worse 5th? 5th I think reintroduced casualties counting against your Ld. for break tests.This was a big bonus for marines, as ATSKNF meant they were largely unaffected by this change, while groups like Necrons were run down far more easily.

It got worse because shooting got a lot better, and no consolidating into a new combat. That created the sacrificial chump squad to eat assaults phenomenon.

That's not assaults getting worse though, esp when they also got more effective with morale. Besides, 5th was the edition of the TH/SS Terminators, an assault only unit.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

I'm happy for you. But I've been playing marines a LONG time, and since 5th, assault has overall gotten steadily worse and worse. And tacs were terrible at assault in 5th.

I've been playing marines for a long time, too. Over two decades now. sheesh.

Some aspects of assault have gotten worse, some better. Marines can now shoot their bolter twice and charge. You can shoot with heavy weapons and charge. If you're not doing that, you're wasting the value of your troops.

But our opponents can make sure we are charging low-value units, negating all of those changes. Which would be tolerable if the beta strikes weren't so crazy.

Do you always let the opponent make all the decisions for you?

If they are good, they can eliminate my assault counter play in their movement phase. That's it. I'm assuming your opponents aren't this savvy?

Or I'm savvy enough to deal with it.

You know, I do run assault lists, Martel.

I am 100% happy to shove my Baneblades treads-first into the enemy.

In fact, I try to. The stratagem I use the most (excluding the re-roll stratagem) is Crush Them! - the one that forces you to charge and hit on a 2+ with a vehicle.

I do play an assault army, and even for something the size of a Baneblade I usually manage to punch a wide enough hole in the enemy screens.

It has something to do with shooting before I charge, and declaring a charge at a unit I didn't shoot... something you couldn't do before 8th...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Did... did you read my post?

He was the one that charged me with tactical marines...

I don't know the particulars of baneblades, but i'm speaking of elite infantry assault, not lord of war assault. I believe you that baneblade assault works. I'm fresh out of baneblades.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Did... did you read my post?

He was the one that charged me with tactical marines...

Which you literally had to let happen.

Would you camp backfield objectives with Wyches instead?

Change the Kalabites to Fire Warriors or 10-man Guardian Squads. Even at same-point unit sizes, the Marines would still win those charges, if the opponents let it happen.

Perhaps we should just accept that you don't care about what your proposed changes does to those who don't play your way, and move on with our lives.

If you can't get why being potentially better in CC matters even if you don't get into CC, I don't see how this conversation is going to be productive.

Have you ever seen 5 Tac Marines sit on an objective with 5 other troops and *not* charge? Now, I wouldn't be surprised if you haven't seen equal numbers of each on an objective in 8th, but in the specific discussion of if "super obsec" would be useful, how is the CC discussion not relevant? How likely is "super obsec" to be relevant in a case where Marines *wouldn't* be able to charge the other guy?

We're talking past eachother here. I hope your hatred of "CAAC" players doesn't help worsen the game.

"If you can't get why being potentially better in CC matters even if you don't get into CC, I don't see how this conversation is going to be productive. "

If it wasn't so trivial to gut marines with Xeno shooting, this would be a LOT more relevant.

I don't hate any players. I just hate having 1000's of points of elite infantry turned off by a few chaff units.

CAAC actually ruins the game, because those players actually refuse to accept what's actually wrong. If everything is balanced, the crummy L2P argument from the CAAC players that somehow refuse to prove they're better than tournament players cam actually go away. A balanced game benefits both parties. So no, anyone who is CAAC can stay out of the entire Proposed Rules Subforum in general.

Also if wyches are cheaper, yeah they'd be the better camper. Also probably the better screener. In fact, nothing in the Dark Eldar camp seems to be made for camping. Aren't Wracks supposed to be slightly durable or am I thinking of something else?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you were really that savvy, you'd be dominating tournaments as apparently no other tournament player can pull anything off like you can.

Not at all, all I have to be is not completely defeatist in the way Martel is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
CAAC actually ruins the game, because those players actually refuse to accept what's actually wrong. If everything is balanced, the crummy L2P argument from the CAAC players that somehow refuse to prove they're better than tournament players cam actually go away. A balanced game benefits both parties. So no, anyone who is CAAC can stay out of the entire Proposed Rules Subforum in general.

So am I a CAAC player because I don't go to big tourneys but manage to be competitively locally?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you were really that savvy, you'd be dominating tournaments as apparently no other tournament player can pull anything off like you can.

Not at all, all I have to be is not completely defeatist in the way Martel is.

Then why aren't Tactical Marines consistently dominating tournaments like they should be then? Are tournament players really so bad they can't get as much mileage out of a tactical Marine like you can?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you were really that savvy, you'd be dominating tournaments as apparently no other tournament player can pull anything off like you can.

Not at all, all I have to be is not completely defeatist in the way Martel is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
CAAC actually ruins the game, because those players actually refuse to accept what's actually wrong. If everything is balanced, the crummy L2P argument from the CAAC players that somehow refuse to prove they're better than tournament players cam actually go away. A balanced game benefits both parties. So no, anyone who is CAAC can stay out of the entire Proposed Rules Subforum in general.

So am I a CAAC player because I don't go to big tourneys but manage to be competitively locally?

I know you're not competitive at your locals based off the list being ran. You're trying to pull a Jancoran. Please don't do that and just own up to it

Tac Marines might not be dominating tournies, but over the last few editions they've been more common amongst top lists than the majority of Troops available in the game.

I'm not saying Tac Marines are OP. I'm saying that they compare reasonably to most troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you start using CAAC as an epitaph, don't be surprised when it excites the conversation negatively.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then why aren't Tactical Marines consistently dominating tournaments like they should be then? Are tournament players really so bad they can't get as much mileage out of a tactical Marine like you can?

There's no logic behind this. If tourneys are benefitting from running OP units, and Tacticals are not OP units, why would they be run in tourneys? I merely say Tacticals are decent units, and that a lot of people don't use them well, because their generalist role makes it harder to squeeze the potential out of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you were really that savvy, you'd be dominating tournaments as apparently no other tournament player can pull anything off like you can.

Not at all, all I have to be is not completely defeatist in the way Martel is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
CAAC actually ruins the game, because those players actually refuse to accept what's actually wrong. If everything is balanced, the crummy L2P argument from the CAAC players that somehow refuse to prove they're better than tournament players cam actually go away. A balanced game benefits both parties. So no, anyone who is CAAC can stay out of the entire Proposed Rules Subforum in general.

So am I a CAAC player because I don't go to big tourneys but manage to be competitively locally?

I know you're not competitive at your locals based off the list being ran. You're trying to pull a Jancoran. Please don't do that and just own up to it

A: There's nothing particularly qualifying you to be an expert in that assessment. You're just some dude on the internet like I am.

B: It's moot. Most 40K players are not tourney goers. As someone who doesn't go to big tournies, arguably I'm more representative of the 40K community than someone who goes to big tournaments all the time.

Bharring wrote:
Tac Marines might not be dominating tournies, but over the last few editions they've been more common amongst top lists than the majority of Troops available in the game.

I'm not saying Tac Marines are OP. I'm saying that they compare reasonably to most troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you start using CAAC as an epitaph, don't be surprised when it excites the conversation negatively.

Absent in 6th, then they get free vehicles in 7th, and then they pop up once or twice in 8th and that's more common. Right.

And yeah I think CAAC players should be removed from the conversation because they don't understand grasping balance.

More common than what, though? Wyches? Guardians? Immortals? Kroot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would argue that those who are deriding people for being 'CAAC' players for not coming to the same conclusion are not inherently more authoritative on balance.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then why aren't Tactical Marines consistently dominating tournaments like they should be then? Are tournament players really so bad they can't get as much mileage out of a tactical Marine like you can?

There's no logic behind this. If tourneys are benefitting from running OP units, and Tacticals are not OP units, why would they be run in tourneys? I merely say Tacticals are decent units, and that a lot of people don't use them well, because their generalist role makes it harder to squeeze the potential out of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

If you were really that savvy, you'd be dominating tournaments as apparently no other tournament player can pull anything off like you can.

Not at all, all I have to be is not completely defeatist in the way Martel is.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
CAAC actually ruins the game, because those players actually refuse to accept what's actually wrong. If everything is balanced, the crummy L2P argument from the CAAC players that somehow refuse to prove they're better than tournament players cam actually go away. A balanced game benefits both parties. So no, anyone who is CAAC can stay out of the entire Proposed Rules Subforum in general.

So am I a CAAC player because I don't go to big tourneys but manage to be competitively locally?

I know you're not competitive at your locals based off the list being ran. You're trying to pull a Jancoran. Please don't do that and just own up to it

A: There's nothing particularly qualifying you to be an expert in that assessment. You're just some dude on the internet like I am.

B: It's moot. Most 40K players are not tourney goers. As someone who doesn't go to big tournies, arguably I'm more representative of the 40K community than someone who goes to big tournaments all the time.

Which means, even if they WERE decent they'd pop up more. "Decent" units get taken all the time to tournaments. Guess which "decent" isn't showing up?

A. I used to do tournaments in 4th before I moved states and lost all my Necrons. Then I tried making Necrons and Marines but lost those to a fire. Now I'm building. Again.
Rest assured that, once one of the armies is complete, you'll see me in tournaments again instead of borrowing most of my models.
B. Which makes it mob rule. I don't trust the average 40k player overall to make balance changes. Have you SEEN most of the changes people try to make here?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which means, even if they WERE decent they'd pop up more. "Decent" units get taken all the time to tournaments. Guess which "decent" isn't showing up?

I remember one with Tacticals Otherwise I think most tourney goers are using a different philosophy when they put their lists together. As a generalist unit Tacticals often don't fit that philosophy, but I wouldn't say that makes them not decent.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

A. I used to do tournaments in 4th before I moved states and lost all my Necrons. Then I tried making Necrons and Marines but lost those to a fire. Now I'm building. Again.
Rest assured that, once one of the armies is complete, you'll see me in tournaments again instead of borrowing most of my models.

Sure, sure. . . and if I didn't have a newborn and was trying to buy a house in an expensive neighborhood and have heavy product deadlines, I'd consider it too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

B. Which makes it mob rule. I don't trust the average 40k player overall to make balance changes. Have you SEEN most of the changes people try to make here?

So you're the authority on who takes part in the conversation because... ?

Those Gulliman + Tac + Razorback lists are actually doing pretty well in tourny's you know.
And it does include multiple tactical squads.

Just sayin'.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Which means, even if they WERE decent they'd pop up more. "Decent" units get taken all the time to tournaments. Guess which "decent" isn't showing up?

I remember one with Tacticals Otherwise I think most tourney goers are using a different philosophy when they put their lists together. As a generalist unit Tacticals often don't fit that philosophy, but I wouldn't say that makes them not decent.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

A. I used to do tournaments in 4th before I moved states and lost all my Necrons. Then I tried making Necrons and Marines but lost those to a fire. Now I'm building. Again.
Rest assured that, once one of the armies is complete, you'll see me in tournaments again instead of borrowing most of my models.

Sure, sure. . . and if I didn't have a newborn and was trying to buy a house in an expensive neighborhood and have heavy product deadlines, I'd consider it too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

B. Which makes it mob rule. I don't trust the average 40k player overall to make balance changes. Have you SEEN most of the changes people try to make here?

So you're the authority on who takes part in the conversation because... ?

1. Numbers are key. That's why I always bring up the one of the topping 6th edition Chaos Marine lists that had 3 squads of Rubric Marines and Ahriman, yet that wasn't ever used as a defense except by one person on the entire forum.

That's because it was universally accepted that Chaos Marines had a garbage codex with only a few key units doing any heavy lifting. The difference is Loyalist Scum had a bad codex too, but people overall hate Loyalists and therefore nobody cares. As someone that was originally a Chaos Marine player that's pretty annoying to have to defend me trying to improve their codex.

2. If it mattered to you, you'd do more than consider it and just taking time to do it. It hasn't stopped other people, right?

3. My only evidence I can give for that is to look at the extensive changes I tried to make for 7th as a work in progress before tossing it for playing 8th. I tried pretty damn hard and that was only 5 Codices I had done!
Of course 8th is less a dumpster fire for rules, but there's still bad internal balances and external balances abound.

So to wrap up, Tacticals have been in tournaments, even if rarely.

I could go to tournaments if it was a higher priority.

And you're still just some guy on the internet.

So you wan't to try and have a constructive dialog now?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Did... did you read my post?

He was the one that charged me with tactical marines...

Which you literally had to let happen.

Did you read how it happened?

And that... it was a bad decision on his part?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Did... did you read my post?

He was the one that charged me with tactical marines...

Which you literally had to let happen.

Did you read how it happened?

And that... it was a bad decision on his part?

It's something I'd never see in a Tournament report I can tell ya that much. I can also say I feel bad they didn't know the Steel Behemoth rule existed.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know just two weeks ago I played a list that was 40 Tactical Marines in Rhinos. 37 of them charged me.

Unfortunately I was playing my Baneblade list so charging me wasn't the secret to winning and was probably a bad move.

But perhaps some food for thought.

Screens are part of the game. Your bad decisions are not up for discussion.

Did... did you read my post?

He was the one that charged me with tactical marines...

Which you literally had to let happen.

Did you read how it happened?

And that... it was a bad decision on his part?

It's something I'd never see in a Tournament report I can tell ya that much. I can also say I feel bad they didn't know the Steel Behemoth rule existed.

They knew it existed.

And the reason you wouldn't read about it in a tournament is probably that Baneblades and Tactical Marines are neither tournament units.

They knew it existed and chose to charge anyway...

I'm actually at a loss for words.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They knew it existed and chose to charge anyway...

I'm actually at a loss for words.

Why are you at a loss for words? His plan was to get within 1" with me hitting on 6s, so that I would have to fall back to shoot him with anything other than heavy bolters, but I was pinned against my board edge and so would have been hard pressed to do so with tanks that big against so many tactical marines.

The foil came from the Defensive Gunners stratagem.

8th edtion has made larger squads a liability with the leadership/remove model thing

Looking through this thread, I’ve just realised now why units in matched play in AoS come at a discount when taken at maximum size. It’s because it’s almost always better to take greater numbers of smaller units than just one big one. The discount was to even things out. Too bad it’s harder to do that in 40k with the way the current points system is going.

However, AFAIK people still consider number of drops to be a part of their lists for tourneys, no? This would seem to promote larger squads.

I wouldn't mind a rule that allowed Combat Squads to be one drop instead of two, but the rules get a little clunky.

I overreacted yesterday to being told I don't matter, sorry about that.

IIRC, I've seen a writeup of a then-considered-scary baneblade list being tabled by a Tac-heavy list in 8thE at a high-profile event.

I think on the Marines charging thing, we're still talking past eachother. You're saying you never see it. I'm saying it's a threat, and thus most players play to ensure it doesn't happen. Those two don't conflict.

I'm not going to give a bunch of Tacs an easy charge into my FDs or DAs or even Banshees (if outnumbered). I don't see tourny players often give that option.

The usefulness of that option is debateable. But the point was brought up specificly when discussing "Super Obsec" for marines. I wouldn't mind if they got that rule, but the point was that their Assault stats mean they have that effect anyways.

We shouldn't see Tacs get to charge much, at all, in competitive events - much like you don't see the 4-move at high-level chess tournaments. It's not that a guarded queen challenging a king early isn't a threat - it's that most competent players are prepared to handle it. But we also don't see many situations where two roughly-equal-numbers ObSec models sit on the same objective. If we did, we'd see the better-at-CC unit charge the worse one. Even if it's Guardians vs Guardsmen.

When it comes down to it, though, units should be impacting your games beyond the actions they take. Their potential actions matter. For instance, if someone has 10 Reapers next to a Farseer, so you don't deep strike your NDK or DP or something where you wanted to, didn't the Reapers hurt you more than just their shooting?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To try to move this back to the topic of the thread - incentivising 10-man (or at least more-than-5-man) Tac squads over 5mans - here are some ideas that have been thrown out here:

1) Frontload the points cost. Sarge goes up 5 or 10 points, Tacs go down 1 or 2 ppm (net slight decrease in Tac points)

2) Super-Obsec, where each Marine counts as 2 or 4 models for the purpose of ObSec

3) Combat Squadding can be chosen when deploying a unit, as a single drop

4) Increase the special/heavy weapon loadout at different model counts (above what it is now, in all cases)

5) Allow Combat Squadding to take up 2 FoC slots

6) Various potential buffs directly to Marines

I like #1 the most.
#2 seems clunky, prone to inflation ("But this chapter counts as SIX!"..), and usually moot.
#3 has some merit, but might be a little confusing
#4 is OK, but I'm not a fan
#5 i think is the wrong direction - it'd be a first (as far as I know)
#6 I don't think addresses the question at hand (and has been talked to death in several threads)

Best option, IMO, would be #1 and #3 - although the specific points for the first option might need to be played with.

I didn't know AOS effectively did #1. For many armies - like Loyalist Marines - it makes a lot of sense. Makes less sense for Alpha Legion or Aspect Hosts, so shouldn't be game-wide. If it's done in AOS on the unit, it'd be better if they did it the same in 40k instead of the janky "Sarge at +5pts" I suggested - Sarge himself isn't the one worth the extra points.

I think the discount is most viable.

 Insectum7 wrote:
However, AFAIK people still consider number of drops to be a part of their lists for tourneys, no? This would seem to promote larger squads.

While that is true - putting units in transports is the most effective way to reduce drops. Razors only hold 6 so favors a 5 man AND rhinos hold 10 so favors 2 5 mans because it gives you 2 troop compared to 1.

The single biggest reason currently is that 10 man squads give up ITC maelstrom objectives less easily.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
However, AFAIK people still consider number of drops to be a part of their lists for tourneys, no? This would seem to promote larger squads.

While that is true - putting units in transports is the most effective way to reduce drops. Razors only hold 6 so favors a 5 man AND rhinos hold 10 so favors 2 5 mans because it gives you 2 troop compared to 1.

Agreed, although the transport route isn't for everybody. Strategic choices and all.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
I agree, with morale being what it is, and the front-loading of squads, having a 'full' squad needs to be incentivized. I liked your previous idea, because it related to 'numbers' within the squad. Too few, and it wouldn't work, but going full size would give you a decent buffer against casualties while still providing the bonus. +1 to advance and charge rolls isn't so bad, but +1 to to hit rolls is pretty powerful for a 'shooty' unit just because it has '6' models in it. We're aiming to encourage the full 10 men, my solution would involve that in some way. The problem here is that once you encourage 10 men, you still want combat squadding (5 men splits) to be viable too.

Very good points. What about a hybrid of the two ideas? In the movement phase, roll 2D6 and if the result is equal to or less than the size of the squad, they add +1 to their advance, charge (and to hit rolls?).
I know I said try letting them shoot/charge/double move in the movement phase but it's probably too time consuming. Or maybe not?

Well, my problem is the not wanting to add too much complication like the test, which could bog down each phase. My own ideas on the subject are probably never going to fly, but looking at other ideas i've seen: What if 6+ tactical marines could add +1 shot at close/long range? It's a flat rate that doesn't offer options or require tests, but it improves their dps (ie lack of volume of shots which is their problem compared to cheaper alternatives), and gives them a reason to take ablative wounds/possibly the whole 10 men. But at the trade-off of being hit harder than msu due to morale and lack of +1 veteran sergeant. Tactical marines are basically a shooty unit at this point. That might encourage 10 man squads again, but then we need to find a reason to combat-squad them instead of just take 2 5-mans. What if the 6+ marines was counted on the entire squad, even when combat squaded? So you'd need to kill 5 marines between 2 5-man squads to kill the bonus? My only problem with this approach, is that while it may work for tacticals and possibly even devastators, it does nothing for assault squads. Who are absolutely dire atm. But, it is another alternative.

Could just have the bonus based as the doctrines from 7th.
A special bonus for each squad type. So maybe having a full squad of 10 assault marines they get an extra attack.
10 devs they get to shoot twice or something

But then the first casualty is a huge blow to each squad. Which makes for very gamey play - the opponent just needs to ensure 1 casualty on each squad, then move on.

Also, the rules clutter the game mid-battle - wouldn't it be ideal to keep the unit rules as-is in-game, but modify the list building rules? So you only care about it when you're making the decision?

That's depending on how you want to modify list building. The way it's done is fine overall with some exceptions (Guard getting 9 command points for a force they were building anyway, the HQ FOC not being too restrictive), though most tournaments having a max of 3 detachments makes this easier.

Maybe there shouldn't be 10-man units at all.

Maybe a single troop choice can be a 5 man squad, and optionally an additional 5 man squad.

M.

Okay; my thoughts are thus?

no one ever combat squads anymore. why the hell would you? the 5 man team with the heavy weapon costs the exact same as a devastator squad with a single heavy weapon, and fires at BS 2+ instead of 3+

Maybe if units from tactical squads could fire overwatch for each other pseudo-tau style they'd become an appealing choice for guarding devastators or command structures?? just a thought?

 GamerGuy wrote:
Okay; my thoughts are thus?

no one ever combat squads anymore. why the hell would you? the 5 man team with the heavy weapon costs the exact same as a devastator squad with a single heavy weapon, and fires at BS 2+ instead of 3+

Maybe if units from tactical squads could fire overwatch for each other pseudo-tau style they'd become an appealing choice for guarding devastators or command structures?? just a thought?

Presumably they cost the same because, once again, the devastators are specialists and the tacticals are generalists.

The Devastators hit with shooting on a 2+ with the heavy weapon. They're shooting specialists, so it's good that they're better at it than tactical marines.

On the other hand, Tactical Marines get Objective Secured and offer an avenue to get additional CP. They trade in the mono-focused benefit of the specialist to open up different options (as befits a generalist).

I had an idea, approaching it from another direction. What if a 10-man squad (tactical/assault/devastator) got an additional 'free' veteran sergeant (2nd squad leader)? Who *had* to lead the second squad if combat squadding was utilized in that game. Then there would be no difference between 2x 5 man squads and 1x10 man squad, except the 10-man squad could decide where the special/heavy weapons were allocated when combat squadding (eg 2x weapons in 1 squad, nothing but bolters/vet sergeant in the other).

I thought being a Devistator was one of the things you had to pass through to become a Tactical? Why the heck would they have better BS?

M.

 Infantryman wrote:
I thought being a Devistator was one of the things you had to pass through to become a Tactical? Why the heck would they have better BS?

M.

They get a Signum, which is a piece of wargear on the Sergeant that I think gives +1 to hit to one weapon in the squad. So if it was 4 Lascannons, 3 would hit on normal SM BS and one would get the Signum on a 2+.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
I thought being a Devistator was one of the things you had to pass through to become a Tactical? Why the heck would they have better BS?

M.

They get a Signum, which is a piece of wargear on the Sergeant that I think gives +1 to hit to one weapon in the squad. So if it was 4 Lascannons, 3 would hit on normal SM BS and one would get the Signum on a 2+.

Don't forget they can buy a Cherub as well, which is only 5 points.

Reserve Company devs are passed through to get to companies.

Battle Company devs are no different from Battle Company tacs.

What about if the rule for Combat Squads was changed to reflect the Tactical Marines being more experienced in tactics and warfare?

-Make it so Combat Squads deploy separately but count as one squad for Killpoints/First Blood.

-Combat Squads from the same Tactical Squad may fire Overwatch when the other Combat Squad is being charged with a +1 to hit modifier if they are within 12" of each other and have line of sight.

That reflects the experience of a Marine Tactical Squad using the Combat Squads to support each other while pushing forwards. Also rewards the player by taking 10 man squads since they give fewer Kill Points and make getting First Blood slightly more difficult if you choose to shoot at them.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
What about if the rule for Combat Squads was changed to reflect the Tactical Marines being more experienced in tactics and warfare?

-Make it so Combat Squads deploy separately but count as one squad for Killpoints/First Blood.

-Combat Squads from the same Tactical Squad may fire Overwatch when the other Combat Squad is being charged with a +1 to hit modifier if they are within 12" of each other and have line of sight.

That reflects the experience of a Marine Tactical Squad using the Combat Squads to support each other while pushing forwards. Also rewards the player by taking 10 man squads since they give fewer Kill Points and make getting First Blood slightly more difficult if you choose to shoot at them.

That might just be a general direction to fix Combat Squad as a whole, so I support it for anything with the rule.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
What about if the rule for Combat Squads was changed to reflect the Tactical Marines being more experienced in tactics and warfare?

-Make it so Combat Squads deploy separately but count as one squad for Killpoints/First Blood.

-Combat Squads from the same Tactical Squad may fire Overwatch when the other Combat Squad is being charged with a +1 to hit modifier if they are within 12" of each other and have line of sight.

That reflects the experience of a Marine Tactical Squad using the Combat Squads to support each other while pushing forwards. Also rewards the player by taking 10 man squads since they give fewer Kill Points and make getting First Blood slightly more difficult if you choose to shoot at them.

That might just be a general direction to fix Combat Squad as a whole, so I support it for anything with the rule.

I was just thinking about my training as an infantryman in the army, when the squad was split into two fireteams we supported the movement of the other team by suppressing the enemy. It just made sense to me that a Space Marine, with their many years of training and experience in warfare, would use a similar tactic.

Yeah, it doesn't fix the Space Marine Tactical Squad as a whole (that is a whole separate discussion), but to me that would make using Combat Squads more relevant and useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, if you were to combine it with the "Bolter Fix" proposed in another thread of Marines counting their rolls of a 6+ as two hits with Bolt Weaponry, it actually becomes a pretty stout rule.

Now the supporting Combat Squad counts rolls of a 5 or 6 as two hits on Overwatch when supporting their other half. I could seriously see myself using full 10 man Tactical Squads and splitting them at that point.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:
What about if the rule for Combat Squads was changed to reflect the Tactical Marines being more experienced in tactics and warfare?

-Make it so Combat Squads deploy separately but count as one squad for Killpoints/First Blood.

-Combat Squads from the same Tactical Squad may fire Overwatch when the other Combat Squad is being charged with a +1 to hit modifier if they are within 12" of each other and have line of sight.

That reflects the experience of a Marine Tactical Squad using the Combat Squads to support each other while pushing forwards. Also rewards the player by taking 10 man squads since they give fewer Kill Points and make getting First Blood slightly more difficult if you choose to shoot at them.

That might just be a general direction to fix Combat Squad as a whole, so I support it for anything with the rule.

I was just thinking about my training as an infantryman in the army, when the squad was split into two fireteams we supported the movement of the other team by suppressing the enemy. It just made sense to me that a Space Marine, with their many years of training and experience in warfare, would use a similar tactic.

Yeah, it doesn't fix the Space Marine Tactical Squad as a whole (that is a whole separate discussion), but to me that would make using Combat Squads more relevant and useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, if you were to combine it with the "Bolter Fix" proposed in another thread of Marines counting their rolls of a 6+ as two hits with Bolt Weaponry, it actually becomes a pretty stout rule.

Now the supporting Combat Squad counts rolls of a 5 or 6 as two hits on Overwatch when supporting their other half. I could seriously see myself using full 10 man Tactical Squads and splitting them at that point.

I'm still not sure how I feel on making Bolt weapons Tesla-lite. I still wanted something unique but oh well.

I currently just field my tactical squads like this...


Tac Squad 1 - Sergeant with Power Axe/Stormbolter, +3 Marines + Plasma
Tac Squad 1.5 Sergeant with boltgun and boltpistol, + 3 Marines + Lascannon.

Sure, it's mechanically two different squads, but it gets across the combat squadding fluff wise perfectly well in my eyes.