Just wondering since I don't have a clue about anything 40k. Kill team is my jam, wanting dip my toes into 40k and I'm trying to make a 2k list but not sure if a heavy weapon and a special is more optimal than x2 squads of 5 with a special weapon. I would imagine a squad of 10 would be better for a morale test since you have more models, if you fail don't you run of the board or something similar? For some reason that's in my head, it could be from a previous edition not sure. Anyway I don't know what I'm talking about so I'll let someone set me straight.
You get the sarge for free, more flexible, generally more options for gear. etc. Less likely to die due to overkill, and also more resilient to morale. 8th works where you roll a die and add how many guys died that turn, if it’s over your leadership, you loose that many guys. With a small squad, they are all going to be dead due to fire before any run due to morale. Large squads not so much.
The reason to take large squads is for stratagems and other buffs. You can hit more guys with one use. Also, less drops for counting how many units you have, which can help get first turn in some formats. While these are nice perks, they do not outweigh the benifits of multiple small units in most cases.
Yep, it's one of the major issues with 8th's design. A bit they got wrong.
The way the rules are written, smaller squads become immune to morale (meaning they're dead before they'd actually fail the test) while also being a cheaper option to produce more CP. It also gives you more flexibility, and you reduce your "shoot at me" target indication.
The only major positive is auras/stratagems which impact a unit. Spending a "re-roll shooting" stratagem on a unit of 10 is obviously better than spending it on a unit of 5. This is the only consideration. However, if you make a large squad and your opponent is savvy enough to realize it's only large because it'll benefit from a stratagem - they're likely to target it.
so long you can not recycle the unit or have a massive stratagem, then big squads of marines don^'t work,
If you can recycle but are not morale immune, then intermediate squads can work.
If you have no access to both, go for the smallest possible squad.
Nevelon wrote: ...The reason to take large squads is for stratagems and other buffs. You can hit more guys with one use. ...
And that is assuming you have a strat worth using, which Tacs generally don't.
As an Ultramarine, I do like the full re-rolls I can get for one CP with Scions of Guiliman on my tacs. Bolter Drill for ‘Fists also gets more milage from a lot of dice being tossed. While implied with the talk of special and heavy weapons, the 5/10 debate can also cover other squads. The +1 to wound strat on sternguard is pretty nice to have.
Yes, compared to other codexes our buffs and strats are a little lackluster, unfortunately it’s what we have. Don’t get me wrong, they are probably not worth running 10 man squads for, but they are a reason to run larger squads. Just not a very compelling one.
HoundsofDemos wrote: 10 man marine squads have been a bad idea for three editions. Five man squads get you another Sgt and another special weapon.
At least in 5th edition you got a free rocket launcher at 10 marines in a squad. And combat squad rule made it usefull (when split fire did not exist yet).
Now both 10 man squads and combat squad rule are useless.
I know we dont want to go back to formations, but I honestly thought that was how armies would get CPs this edition. Space Marine Demi company with max sqds? Give them more CPs. Etc
HoundsofDemos wrote: 10 man marine squads have been a bad idea for three editions. Five man squads get you another Sgt and another special weapon.
At least in 5th edition you got a free rocket launcher at 10 marines in a squad. And combat squad rule made it usefull (when split fire did not exist yet).
Now both 10 man squads and combat squad rule are useless.
If I recall correctly in 5th you couldn't take a special or a heavy unless you had ten, at least for anyone who wasn't SWs. The minute GW changed that removed any reason to ever take 10.
Since 6th I've ran my tacticals with a special, a matching combi and no other upgrades. Long way from the days of ten man squads and PFs every day all day.
I always buy 10 man Tac squads because it allows me deployment flexibility. I can keep them together for aura, stratagem and number-of-drops benefits, or I can split them up into combat squads to send them into different missions. The Special-dense squads might band together in transports and head forward, while the heavy weapon units stay back.
Yeah as said, 5 man generally is better. It's kind of sad though that it is that way. I will say as well some food for thought, Dark Angels only ever lose 1 model to failed morale so they can more safely take large squads without fear.
As well Deathwatch squads of veterans can usually benefit from larger squads but they focus on firepower and have ways to mitigate damage with storm shields as well as morale tricks like terminators keeping you safe from morale checks, mostly.
Mostly though min squads for most things are better without the rare instance being an exception to the rule.
The way that fits with your style. You'll do better with a slightly less effective method that gels in your mind than you'll do with a slightly more effective method that isn't instinctual for you.
AngryAngel80 wrote:Yeah as said, 5 man generally is better. It's kind of sad though that it is that way. I will say as well some food for thought, Dark Angels only ever lose 1 model to failed morale so they can more safely take large squads without fear.
As well Deathwatch squads of veterans can usually benefit from larger squads but they focus on firepower and have ways to mitigate damage with storm shields as well as morale tricks like terminators keeping you safe from morale checks, mostly.
Mostly though min squads for most things are better without the rare instance being an exception to the rule.
Deathwatch also has better strats. Like being able to deep strike a squad straight into rapid fire vengence rounds range and/or to get frag cannons upfield.
Breton wrote:The way that fits with your style. You'll do better with a slightly less effective method that gels in your mind than you'll do with a slightly more effective method that isn't instinctual for you.
For all my bringing up the advantages of 5 man squads, when it comes time to put a list together, I field full 10 man squads. With a special and a heavy, and assorted toys on the sarge (normally a combi to match, sometimes a CC weapon) Why? I know it’s not optimal. But I’m an Ultramarine. If we don’t follow the codex, who will? It just doesn’t feel right to put a Space Marine army on the table without a full tac sqad or two rolling around. Unless you are playing top tables at a tournament, there is room for a little flex in your list, as long as you are playing with like minded people.
Everyone has units that are “meh” but they love. They might be the hot unit from editions past that have been hit a little to hard with the nerf bat (but you have fond memories of them leading you to victory). Decent units that are overshadowed by better options (take scouts). Just stuff you like the way it looks, or think you did an awesome paint job on. The competitive number crunchers will tell you to shelve those units, take the stuff that's FOTM you need to win. When you ask a question like “What is better” that’s the kind of answer you should get. But once you get the answer, feel free to ignore it. This is a game, it’s supposed to be fun. And it’s a game that’s part of a wider hobby, that includes fluff, modeling, and painting. So you need to weigh the mechanical benefits of what’s best on the table against the other aspects of the hobby. We want to have fun, and it’s not fun getting your teeth kicked in. But if you loose sight of what brought you to the hobby, if your army does’t resonate with you, is it worth it to win?
Obviously, you are not going to auto-loose for taking a 10 man squad. Heck, one of the things it does (lower your drops) helps with what is often the most important part of the game (going first). There is a LOT of randomness in 40k. Some of the subtleties in list building are going to wash out in the actions of out fickle little 6 sided friends. But just note that every time you make a fluff call, you do soften your list a little, and in the long run that adds up. If you are playing with like minded friends, it evens out. If you have a very competitive local meta, you might need to tighten up other parts of your list to compensate.
Sometimes the rules for your chosen Chapter make the decision for you.
I play Crimson Fists. I gain such a massive benefit from MSU against most armies that it's a no brainer.
But here's the key - to have a truly TAC approach, I actually do usually bring a 10 man Intercessor unit in case I really want to use the Indomitus Crusaders detachment. Sure, I give up the extra Sarge if I don't need it and decide to run then separate with combat squads, but the flexibility of choice is worthwhile. Like when facing a horde style army where a 10 man Vet squad can get the best of both worlds.
Lemondish wrote: Sometimes the rules for your chosen Chapter make the decision for you.
I play Crimson Fists. I gain such a massive benefit from MSU against most armies that it's a no brainer.
But here's the key - to have a truly TAC approach, I actually do usually bring a 10 man Intercessor unit in case I really want to use the Indomitus Crusaders detachment. Sure, I give up the extra Sarge if I don't need it and decide to run then separate with combat squads, but the flexibility of choice is worthwhile. Like when facing a horde style army where a 10 man Vet squad can get the best of both worlds.
It also depends on the unit you're talking about. Taking 10 Tacs makes a lot more sense than taking 10 Dev's, but I've also taken the 10 Dev's, Combat Squad'ed them and stuck the other half in a razorback. I would not do so this edition I'd rather have the objective Secured.. Taking a 5 man Terminator, Van/Stern -Guard Veteran squad etc isn't the end of the world from either a fluff or competitive standpoint.
Likewise, I normally don't like Min size units, but 6 Aggressors won't fit in a Repulsor of any type yet. Let alone adding Calgar, a LT, and an apothecary, so I run 3 and they all JUST fit inside the Repulsor.
If you are just thinking of getting into 40k I wouldn't invest any $$ into tacs. As much as some people want to rail against it, the writing is on the wall for the little bois. I'd start with intercessors (primaris) if I were going out spending new hobby money on marines...
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I don't go to tournaments. My matches are mostly semi-competitive so no soups or a lot of min maxing. Sometimes I do face Death Guard led by Mortarion or a pure Knight army and I'm about 50/50 win ratio against them.
My Space Marine army hails back from the days of 3rd edition and could've easly walked out of the pages of the White Dwarf at the time. I don't follow the latest trends in army building: I don't think it's worth the money and effort even if it handicaps me somewhat.
I just take what I have and try to be the better general on the battlefield: There's a hell of a lot more to 40k than math hammer and net lists.
Ok, so you are playing in a much more casual setting, i asked because in anything other then a casual, space marines especially 10 man tac squads are very bad.
Loyal 32 are 30 guards men, 2 commanders for the easy 5 CP for sub 200 points.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
Oh yeah now the castellen is a much rarer sight, but my point still is, seeing 10man tac squads in a competative settings is a rare sight as they kinda just suck.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
Oh yeah now the castellen is a much rarer sight, but my point still is, seeing 10man tac squads in a competative settings is a rare sight as they kinda just suck.
I get that it's a common sentiment, I just don't agree. They're units without a pre-ordained purpose, but that doesn't make them suck. You just have to define their role yourself, and they can shift that role from game to game, which I like, personally.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
Oh yeah now the castellen is a much rarer sight, but my point still is, seeing 10man tac squads in a competative settings is a rare sight as they kinda just suck.
I get that it's a common sentiment, I just don't agree. They're units without a pre-ordained purpose, but that doesn't make them suck. You just have to define their role yourself, and they can shift that role from game to game, which I like, personally.
Which can be said about aanay unit, but the problem with tac marines is that what ever role they fill, other units can do it better and usually for cheaper.
After you give 1 W power armor any kind of equipment, they are hopeless glass cannons. Intercessors not having extra doodads available is a strength in 8th.
The loyal 32 is a problem, whether you think it is or not. Every boltgun pointed at a guardsmen puts your opponent further ahead. There is a real schism between players who get this and players who don't. They also provide CP fuel to kill your fragile-ass marines.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
Oh yeah now the castellen is a much rarer sight, but my point still is, seeing 10man tac squads in a competative settings is a rare sight as they kinda just suck.
I get that it's a common sentiment, I just don't agree. They're units without a pre-ordained purpose, but that doesn't make them suck. You just have to define their role yourself, and they can shift that role from game to game, which I like, personally.
Which can be said about aanay unit, but the problem with tac marines is that what ever role they fill, other units can do it better and usually for cheaper.
It's the troop choice in the marine book with the most damage output against the widest array of targets.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
I have a choas buddy who just loves to bring 2 CSM units of 20 and give them defensive buffs. He often looks shocked when I kill all 40 in 1 turn. I'm like...what did you expect? I'm firing between 100 and 200 shots rerolling all my hits and wounds most with ap-1. Space marines aren't even a road block. They just cost more to die even faster than guardsmen per point - while doing less damage.
Intercessors are just better - though still to expensive. They have a roll though. Sit in cover with 2+ save and 2 wounds and shoot at 30".
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
Oh yeah now the castellen is a much rarer sight, but my point still is, seeing 10man tac squads in a competative settings is a rare sight as they kinda just suck.
I get that it's a common sentiment, I just don't agree. They're units without a pre-ordained purpose, but that doesn't make them suck. You just have to define their role yourself, and they can shift that role from game to game, which I like, personally.
Which can be said about aanay unit, but the problem with tac marines is that what ever role they fill, other units can do it better and usually for cheaper.
It's the troop choice in the marine book with the most damage output against the widest array of targets.
If your going fro troops in a SM list, your better off either taking primaris marines in 5 mans, or if your trying to go for points just min it with scounts. Tac marines are just poop.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
I have a choas buddy who just loves to bring 2 CSM units of 20 and give them defensive buffs. He often looks shocked when I kill all 40 in 1 turn. I'm like...what did you expect? I'm firing between 100 and 200 shots rerolling all my hits and wounds most with ap-1. Space marines aren't even a road block. They just cost more to die even faster than guardsmen per point - while doing less damage.
Again this, because taking 10 guard is better off with damage output for less.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
Oh yeah now the castellen is a much rarer sight, but my point still is, seeing 10man tac squads in a competative settings is a rare sight as they kinda just suck.
I get that it's a common sentiment, I just don't agree. They're units without a pre-ordained purpose, but that doesn't make them suck. You just have to define their role yourself, and they can shift that role from game to game, which I like, personally.
Which can be said about aanay unit, but the problem with tac marines is that what ever role they fill, other units can do it better and usually for cheaper.
It's the troop choice in the marine book with the most damage output against the widest array of targets.
If your going fro troops in a SM list, your better off either taking primaris marines in 5 mans, or if your trying to go for points just min it with scounts. Tac marines are just poop.
If you have your mind made up already, why ask?
I'd rather have the 90 point 5Tacs with one Lascannon unit, than the 85(?) point Intercessor unit. The Lascannon alone out-damages the Intercessors against most heavy targets, iirc. And then they got the Bolters left over. Plus access to cheap Transports, which is something I take advantage of fairly often.
10 man tac squad no weapons are 130 points. Thats a wopping 20 bolter shots at max range if you did not move, in rapid its still 20 s4 ap - shots
for 130 points i can take 10 tempestus scions, and a company commander. which at max range is going to be 20 s3 ap -2 shots with first rank second rank.
at rapid fire range its 40 s3 ap -2 shots. I get a better statistic average for less.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
Oh yeah now the castellen is a much rarer sight, but my point still is, seeing 10man tac squads in a competative settings is a rare sight as they kinda just suck.
I get that it's a common sentiment, I just don't agree. They're units without a pre-ordained purpose, but that doesn't make them suck. You just have to define their role yourself, and they can shift that role from game to game, which I like, personally.
Which can be said about aanay unit, but the problem with tac marines is that what ever role they fill, other units can do it better and usually for cheaper.
It's the troop choice in the marine book with the most damage output against the widest array of targets.
In practice, this is not true. Because they only get one or two shots. If we bring back firing ports, things change. But having so many points in a transport doing nothing sucks. They get out, shoot once, then die.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
Oh yeah now the castellen is a much rarer sight, but my point still is, seeing 10man tac squads in a competative settings is a rare sight as they kinda just suck.
I get that it's a common sentiment, I just don't agree. They're units without a pre-ordained purpose, but that doesn't make them suck. You just have to define their role yourself, and they can shift that role from game to game, which I like, personally.
Which can be said about aanay unit, but the problem with tac marines is that what ever role they fill, other units can do it better and usually for cheaper.
It's the troop choice in the marine book with the most damage output against the widest array of targets.
In practice, this is not true. Because they only get one or two shots. If we bring back firing ports, things change. But having so many points in a transport doing nothing sucks. They get out, shoot once, then die.
If they even make it out, T7 is nothing to write home about for a transport.
Backspacehacker wrote: 10 man tac squad no weapons are 130 points. Thats a wopping 20 bolter shots at max range if you did not move, in rapid its still 20 s4 ap - shots
for 130 points i can take 10 tempestus scions, and a company commander. which at max range is going to be 20 s3 ap -2 shots with first rank second rank.
at rapid fire range its 40 s3 ap -2 shots. I get a better statistic average for less.
Eligius wrote: I always take 3 full Tactical squads in my 2000pts Salamander army.and they haven't let me down yet.
Curious if you play competativly or just casually, were castellens popular in your area or are the loyal 32 big in your area?
I'll respond to this as I almost always take 3-4 full Tac Squads, and definitely had the loyal 32 and Castellan in my meta. The loyal 32 is no problem. The Castellan WAS a problem, but not anymore.
Oh yeah now the castellen is a much rarer sight, but my point still is, seeing 10man tac squads in a competative settings is a rare sight as they kinda just suck.
I get that it's a common sentiment, I just don't agree. They're units without a pre-ordained purpose, but that doesn't make them suck. You just have to define their role yourself, and they can shift that role from game to game, which I like, personally.
Which can be said about aanay unit, but the problem with tac marines is that what ever role they fill, other units can do it better and usually for cheaper.
It's the troop choice in the marine book with the most damage output against the widest array of targets.
In practice, this is not true. Because they only get one or two shots. If we bring back firing ports, things change. But having so many points in a transport doing nothing sucks. They get out, shoot once, then die.
If they even make it out, T7 is nothing to write home about for a transport.
No, T7 is fine at their price point. It's the fact that they turn off your squad while they are in transit that kills them.
Backspacehacker wrote: 10 man tac squad no weapons are 130 points. Thats a wopping 20 bolter shots at max range if you did not move, in rapid its still 20 s4 ap - shots
for 130 points i can take 10 tempestus scions, and a company commander. which at max range is going to be 20 s3 ap -2 shots with first rank second rank.
at rapid fire range its 40 s3 ap -2 shots. I get a better statistic average for less.
That's great. I play marines.
There is some truth that all the marine troops are horribly flawed in some way, and he's just picking the flaw he can tolerate the most. I want my marines to bleed points as slowly as possible. That's clearly not his goal.
Backspacehacker wrote: 10 man tac squad no weapons are 130 points. Thats a wopping 20 bolter shots at max range if you did not move, in rapid its still 20 s4 ap - shots
for 130 points i can take 10 tempestus scions, and a company commander. which at max range is going to be 20 s3 ap -2 shots with first rank second rank.
at rapid fire range its 40 s3 ap -2 shots. I get a better statistic average for less.
That's great. I play marines.
Which i dont think anyone is saying you are wrong for playing marines. Im just saying you are not correct in saying that tac marines are a good troop choice for marines out of the options they are the worst.
Backspacehacker wrote: 10 man tac squad no weapons are 130 points. Thats a wopping 20 bolter shots at max range if you did not move, in rapid its still 20 s4 ap - shots
for 130 points i can take 10 tempestus scions, and a company commander. which at max range is going to be 20 s3 ap -2 shots with first rank second rank.
at rapid fire range its 40 s3 ap -2 shots. I get a better statistic average for less.
That's great. I play marines.
Which i dont think anyone is saying you are wrong for playing marines. Im just saying you are not correct in saying that tac marines are a good troop choice for marines out of the options they are the worst.
Backspacehacker wrote: 10 man tac squad no weapons are 130 points. Thats a wopping 20 bolter shots at max range if you did not move, in rapid its still 20 s4 ap - shots
for 130 points i can take 10 tempestus scions, and a company commander. which at max range is going to be 20 s3 ap -2 shots with first rank second rank.
at rapid fire range its 40 s3 ap -2 shots. I get a better statistic average for less.
That's great. I play marines.
Which i dont think anyone is saying you are wrong for playing marines. Im just saying you are not correct in saying that tac marines are a good troop choice for marines out of the options they are the worst.
Scions are not a Troops choice for Marines.
Intercessors are, scouts are. Honestly all the troops choices of marines are not good compaired to the grand scheme, but of marines intercessors and scouts are a much better choice.
This is going to quickly winnow down to there are very few marine units worth using in an IMPERIUM list. Any given marine list is a subset of Imperium, so better options are inherently available. This is why the only entries in BA that matter are scouts and smash capt. Or maybe libby dread, mephy, smash.
Backspacehacker wrote: 10 man tac squad no weapons are 130 points. Thats a wopping 20 bolter shots at max range if you did not move, in rapid its still 20 s4 ap - shots
for 130 points i can take 10 tempestus scions, and a company commander. which at max range is going to be 20 s3 ap -2 shots with first rank second rank.
at rapid fire range its 40 s3 ap -2 shots. I get a better statistic average for less.
That's great. I play marines.
Which i dont think anyone is saying you are wrong for playing marines. Im just saying you are not correct in saying that tac marines are a good troop choice for marines out of the options they are the worst.
Scions are not a Troops choice for Marines.
Intercessors are, scouts are. Honestly all the troops choices of marines are not good compaired to the grand scheme, but of marines intercessors and scouts are a much better choice.
Scouts are not MUCH better. They are giving up a lot of defense for that deploy ability. An 11 pt 4+ model sucks, really.
Backspacehacker wrote: 10 man tac squad no weapons are 130 points. Thats a wopping 20 bolter shots at max range if you did not move, in rapid its still 20 s4 ap - shots
for 130 points i can take 10 tempestus scions, and a company commander. which at max range is going to be 20 s3 ap -2 shots with first rank second rank.
at rapid fire range its 40 s3 ap -2 shots. I get a better statistic average for less.
That's great. I play marines.
Which i dont think anyone is saying you are wrong for playing marines. Im just saying you are not correct in saying that tac marines are a good troop choice for marines out of the options they are the worst.
Scions are not a Troops choice for Marines.
Intercessors are, scouts are. Honestly all the troops choices of marines are not good compaired to the grand scheme, but of marines intercessors and scouts are a much better choice.
Ok, lets go back to that. Out of the troop choices, Tactical Squads are the most capable of doing damage against the widest array of targets. Plus they have the advantage over Intercessors of having access to cheap transports. The original poster you responded to about Tactical Marines, plays Salamanders, and Tacs are absolutely ideal for the Salamanders trait.
Honestly space marine lists have 2 options IMO. Spam 40+ intercessors around a banner of some kind. Indomidus vetreens with gman / DA with azreal / BA with FNP banner.
Or you just say forget troops all together. Spam repulsor executioners / FW dreads / redemptor dreads.
Assuming you care about causing damage with troops. And the transport problem rears its head again. Your salamander tacs are doing jack all in the transport.
Martel732 wrote: Assuming you care about causing damage with troops. And the transport problem rears its head again. Your salamander tacs are doing jack all in the transport.
You have a choice of not putting them in a Transport. Duh.
How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
Backspacehacker wrote: 10 man tac squad no weapons are 130 points. Thats a wopping 20 bolter shots at max range if you did not move, in rapid its still 20 s4 ap - shots
for 130 points i can take 10 tempestus scions, and a company commander. which at max range is going to be 20 s3 ap -2 shots with first rank second rank.
at rapid fire range its 40 s3 ap -2 shots. I get a better statistic average for less.
That's great. I play marines.
Which i dont think anyone is saying you are wrong for playing marines. Im just saying you are not correct in saying that tac marines are a good troop choice for marines out of the options they are the worst.
Scions are not a Troops choice for Marines.
Intercessors are, scouts are. Honestly all the troops choices of marines are not good compaired to the grand scheme, but of marines intercessors and scouts are a much better choice.
Ok, lets go back to that. Out of the troop choices, Tactical Squads are the most capable of doing damage against the widest array of targets. Plus they have the advantage over Intercessors of having access to cheap transports. The original poster you responded to about Tactical Marines, plays Salamanders, and Tacs are absolutely ideal for the Salamanders trait.
I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility. If I'm gonna take a soup list im taking loyal 32. Why would I take salamanders battalion? What worthless AFHq's am I gonna take with that salamander detachment?
Backspacehacker wrote: How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.
Vs Leman Russ
10 Intercessor shots (10x.666x.17x.05) = .56
1 Lascannon (1x.666x.666x.83x3.6) = 1.28 + longer range, plus more bolters to shoot at whatever.
This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
Backspacehacker wrote: How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.
If your trying to generate CP, literally no reason to not take the loyal 32, If your goal is to generate CP, you never want to take SM as your batalion filler.
Also, if you round up on those numbers against a 1 wound model, they both kill a single model.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
If your gimick is spamming them with rowboat then yes, spamming 5 mans works, but thats the gimmick move with them. If you are trying to take them because of CP farm, your doing it wrong.
Backspacehacker wrote: How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.
If your trying to generate CP, literally no reason to not take the loyal 32, If your goal is to generate CP, you never want to take SM as your batalion filler.
Also, if you round up on those numbers against a 1 wound model, they both kill a single model.
Not really, considering its math aand thats how that works. If i get 1 wound off on a 1 wound model, one weapon only does one wound, the other does 6, who care, those other 5 wounds are wasted, the model still dies
Not to mention considering in 8th invulns are abound, its better to go with volume of fire over single shot large damage as if i get say 6 single damage wounds against a model with a 4++ vs a single shot at 6 damage on average the 6 single wound shots will do more damage. If wounds still bled over than yes i would strongly agree.
Backspacehacker wrote: How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.
Vs Leman Russ
10 Intercessor shots (10x.666x.17x.05) = .56
1 Lascannon (1x.666x.666x.83x3.6) = 1.28 + longer range, plus more bolters to shoot at whatever.
Not that it helps much but they get a free grenade at 30".
Backspacehacker wrote: How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.
If your trying to generate CP, literally no reason to not take the loyal 32, If your goal is to generate CP, you never want to take SM as your batalion filler.
One reason not to is that Loyal 32 aren't Salamanders. So it's not the ideal choice when building a Salamander list.
In theory, Tacs (or Scouts) give you better CP mileage than Devs. Not enough to take a "filler batalion", sure. But one of many factors to concern yourself with.
We won't see Marines replace Loyal 32 as the standard IoM core. A contender for top-10 at a major GT isn't taking Tacs for a CP farm. But this thread isn't about a typical IoM netlist; it's a question about, when first getting into 40k, when fielding Tacs, should they be 5mans or 10mans.
Also, if you round up on those numbers against a 1 wound model, they both kill a single model.
Same could be said about a Reaper Launcher and a LasPistol. They're still nowhere near equivalent.
Backspacehacker wrote: How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.
Vs Leman Russ
10 Intercessor shots (10x.666x.17x.05) = .56
1 Lascannon (1x.666x.666x.83x3.6) = 1.28 + longer range, plus more bolters to shoot at whatever.
Not that it helps much but they get a free grenade at 30".
Ah, fair enough. Is that in addition to or instead of the bolt rifle?
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
You mean before everyone else got their codex and GMan got a point cut? Yeah no wonder people argued.
It's like Flyrants doing all the lifting in 6th and saying that possible Gaunts taken for a troop tax were fine.
Small squads. When in doubt, default to small squads unless the large squad has some specific reason to exist [recyclable, stratagem buff-able, etc.].
Sans buffs, 2 small squads have the same offensive output and cost as a large squad, but is less morale-vulnerable, more flexible positionally, and slightly more resilient since it will take at least 2 weapons to kill them versus one go with a Punisher Cannon.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
If your gimick is spamming them with rowboat then yes, spamming 5 mans works, but thats the gimmick move with them. If you are trying to take them because of CP farm, your doing it wrong.
Roboute works no better on Tacs than Devs. The schtick was that he'd have at least 3 Tacs for CP reasons, and the other two could be Devs or Tacs. I'd have thought the 2+ to-hit on the Devs would be more important; looks like he went with the ObSec being more important. Seems weird to me, but I've never played at that level.
I think the core here is something we're both saying, though; You don't take Tacs for a CP farm. But you might take them (for CP or Gman or whatever) in a pure-SM list.
Backspacehacker wrote: How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.
Vs Leman Russ
10 Intercessor shots (10x.666x.17x.05) = .56
1 Lascannon (1x.666x.666x.83x3.6) = 1.28 + longer range, plus more bolters to shoot at whatever.
Not that it helps much but they get a free grenade at 30".
Ah, fair enough. Is that in addition to or instead of the bolt rifle?
It would be instead. The Aux Launcher shoots a grenade at 30". So you you theoretically in your scenario use two separate squads for 8 Bolt Shots and 2 Krak shots. Like I said it doesn't help much, but seeing that a single Lascannon doesn't do much either, does the Troop choice doing only a little more damage matter vs deployment or durability?
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
If your gimick is spamming them with rowboat then yes, spamming 5 mans works, but thats the gimmick move with them. If you are trying to take them because of CP farm, your doing it wrong.
Roboute works no better on Tacs than Devs. The schtick was that he'd have at least 3 Tacs for CP reasons, and the other two could be Devs or Tacs. I'd have thought the 2+ to-hit on the Devs would be more important; looks like he went with the ObSec being more important. Seems weird to me, but I've never played at that level.
I think the core here is something we're both saying, though; You don't take Tacs for a CP farm. But you might take them (for CP or Gman or whatever) in a pure-SM list.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
If your gimick is spamming them with rowboat then yes, spamming 5 mans works, but thats the gimmick move with them. If you are trying to take them because of CP farm, your doing it wrong.
Roboute works no better on Tacs than Devs. The schtick was that he'd have at least 3 Tacs for CP reasons, and the other two could be Devs or Tacs. I'd have thought the 2+ to-hit on the Devs would be more important; looks like he went with the ObSec being more important. Seems weird to me, but I've never played at that level.
I think the core here is something we're both saying, though; You don't take Tacs for a CP farm. But you might take them (for CP or Gman or whatever) in a pure-SM list.
If the goal is to utilize the G man rules then yes taking tac squads is good for CP gan, IF you trying to 'abuse' rowboats rules, But if your just trying to get 5 CP in your list with out rowboat sillyness literally no reason to do it with tac marines other then fluff.
Backspacehacker wrote: How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.
Vs Leman Russ
10 Intercessor shots (10x.666x.17x.05) = .56
1 Lascannon (1x.666x.666x.83x3.6) = 1.28 + longer range, plus more bolters to shoot at whatever.
T8 is the only target a single las is going to outperform 10 bolt rifle shots by any significant margin. Plus - I don't expect my mandatory troop selections to be focusing heavy supports that are probably outta range anyways.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Small squads. When in doubt, default to small squads unless the large squad has some specific reason to exist [recyclable, stratagem buff-able, etc.].
Sans buffs, 2 small squads have the same offensive output and cost as a large squad, but is less morale-vulnerable, more flexible positionally, and slightly more resilient since it will take at least 2 weapons to kill them versus one go with a Punisher Cannon.
Just for kicks. . . My math gives me the Commander Punisher Cannon (firing twice) killing ~6 marines not in cover, leaving the couple guys with the fancy weapons still around to shoot.
Obviously other weapons would be shot at them, too. But those Marines might be in cover. And so on and so forth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Backspacehacker wrote: Saying well the las cannon is better against T8 is super goal post moving, look on average whats going to be better.
I didn't move any goal posts. My original statement, if I recall, is that the Tacs can do more damage against a wider array of targets.
Intercessors are great for bullying infanty. But I personally don't have problems in dealing with infantry. I have more problems dealing with Leman Russ Command Tanks, Knights, etc.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
How different was the game then? having small drop count = go first. So Gman and razors with tacs inside was a very low drop army that probably was going first. There would be almost no reason to include the tac squads now plus that army is about 120 more points than it was at the time and ltierally every army has gotta better with the exception of sisters of battle. If you brought that list to a tournament today. You'd be at -1 razorback PLUS your gets raped in 2 turns by just about any army at the competitive level.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
You mean before everyone else got their codex and GMan got a point cut? Yeah no wonder people argued.
It's like Flyrants doing all the lifting in 6th and saying that possible Gaunts taken for a troop tax were fine.
Wow, I need to be clearer.
When I was talking about the endless drivel about how top-ranked players are too dumb to realize that Devs are obviously better than Tacs, I was not referring to whether Gman was OP.
His points changes really have no bearing on that. At all. There was a meta. One choice worked well in the meta. A group of players - arguing about the same exact meta - went on about how bad that choice was. How much better they could do.
This had nothing to do with external balance. Or troop taxes.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Small squads. When in doubt, default to small squads unless the large squad has some specific reason to exist [recyclable, stratagem buff-able, etc.].
Sans buffs, 2 small squads have the same offensive output and cost as a large squad, but is less morale-vulnerable, more flexible positionally, and slightly more resilient since it will take at least 2 weapons to kill them versus one go with a Punisher Cannon.
Just for kicks. . . My math gives me the Commander Punisher Cannon (firing twice) killing ~6 marines not in cover, leaving the couple guys with the fancy weapons still around to shoot.
Obviously other weapons would be shot at them, too. But those Marines might be in cover. And so on and so forth.
That was a hypothetical, because the Punisher is a very big anti-infantry weapon, and both attacks have to target the same unit, so while one unit of 10 might sustain 7 casualties from it [I calculated an average # of kills as 6.9], plus ~1-2 from morale, 2 5 man squads would sustain a maximum of 5 casualties.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
If your gimick is spamming them with rowboat then yes, spamming 5 mans works, but thats the gimmick move with them. If you are trying to take them because of CP farm, your doing it wrong.
Roboute works no better on Tacs than Devs. The schtick was that he'd have at least 3 Tacs for CP reasons, and the other two could be Devs or Tacs. I'd have thought the 2+ to-hit on the Devs would be more important; looks like he went with the ObSec being more important. Seems weird to me, but I've never played at that level.
I think the core here is something we're both saying, though; You don't take Tacs for a CP farm. But you might take them (for CP or Gman or whatever) in a pure-SM list.
He already gives 3CP for existing.
Fun fact: Gman in a list with 5 Tacs gives 3CP - and Gman in a list with 3 Tacs and 2 Devs gives 3 CP.
Perhaps it wasn't obvious. For clarity, Gman's +3CP rule doesn't care one whit about which of those two options you take.
That was a hypothetical, because the Punisher is a very big anti-infantry weapon, and both attacks have to target the same unit, so while one unit of 10 might sustain 7 casualties from it [I calculated an average # of kills as 6.9], plus ~1-2 from morale, 2 5 man squads would sustain a maximum of 5 casualties.
Ahh, both shots have to fire at the same unit. I didn't know that, I don't think it's ever come up for me.
T8 is the only target a single las is going to outperform 10 bolt rifle shots by any significant margin.
The Lascannon is not the only weapon available to Tacs.
What does that matter? You can only chose 1 weapon pre game. It's not like you can pick and choose during the game. If they could do that they would actually be okay. It would almost make them...tactical...
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
How different was the game then?
Tons. Which is why an anectdote about how the thread goes off the rails discussing marines from a while back should be taken more as evidence that this thread will continue off the rails than a comment on modern balance/options.
Perhaps additional hints in that direction - such as phrases like "back when [thing] were the big thing" or "this thread reminds me...". Or all the past-tense. Perhaps I should have included one of those things in my post...
T8 is the only target a single las is going to outperform 10 bolt rifle shots by any significant margin.
The Lascannon is not the only weapon available to Tacs.
What does that matter? You can only chose 1 weapon pre game. It's not like you can pick and choose during the game. If they could do that they would actually be okay. It would almost make them...tactical...
I don't think being able to gear up tacs is actually to your advantage in 8th, though. If the gear was free, then we would be talking. But pushing them up to 20+ ppw is insane for troops.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think being able to gear up tacs is actually to your advantage in 8th, though. If the gear was free, then we would be talking. But pushing them up to 20+ ppw is insane for troops.
Given that the 25 points spent on a Lascannon makes a squad twice as effective as a competing squad vs. at least some targets, it's hard to agree with that.
Taking Tacs without buying the gear would be the real waste, imo.
The real problem is Tacs just can't compete. They weren't in a good spot before the last major adjustment - then everything else went down in points, and Tacs didn't.
If you're going to field Tacs, I'd suggest kitting them. But keep in mind the cost/benefits. So a Lascannon on a backfield squad is a good idea. A Thunder Hammer on a backfield squad, not so much.
"If you're going to field tacs, how's best" is a very different question from "Should I field Tacs".
There's no way I'd give them a 25 pt gun. Not when the same gun is 20 pts on other marine platforms. Naked, in cover, they at least have some advantages over scouts.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
How different was the game then?
Tons. Which is why an anectdote about how the thread goes off the rails discussing marines from a while back should be taken more as evidence that this thread will continue off the rails than a comment on modern balance/options.
Perhaps additional hints in that direction - such as phrases like "back when [thing] were the big thing" or "this thread reminds me...". Or all the past-tense. Perhaps I should have included one of those things in my post...
It's almost like they shouldn't have nefred it because every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs.
Martel732 wrote: I think it's wasteful to give such expensive gear to such fragile models. Your lascannon squad is up to 18 ppw. For a single shot.
Well, you get more than the single Lascannon shot. And again, even that single shot is still more effective against certain targets than an entire other troops unit is for around the same cost.
And again, again, that single shot is absolutely ideal if you're fielding Salamanders.
Maybe for salamanders tacs are remotely worth it. For most chapters, they are pure fail. Equipped tacs in cover are still bleeding points to gak like flayed skull splinter. Or ignore cover wyverns.
Also, your 25 pt gun lacks a good target in a lot of meta lists atm. Demons lol all the way home.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
How different was the game then?
Tons. Which is why an anectdote about how the thread goes off the rails discussing marines from a while back should be taken more as evidence that this thread will continue off the rails than a comment on modern balance/options.
Perhaps additional hints in that direction - such as phrases like "back when [thing] were the big thing" or "this thread reminds me...". Or all the past-tense. Perhaps I should have included one of those things in my post...
It's almost like they shouldn't have nefred it because every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs.
This is why it's hard to take all this "But Mahreens" complaints seriously. GMan still pops up from time to time, as is. The nerfs were to *him* and Razorbacks, not to Tacs. If he's still occasionally good enough now, he'd be absurdly OP at his old cost. Now, maybe Razorbacks went up a little too much, but this is just silly.
As for "every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs", hell no.
IG received only a couple marginal buffs. And larger marginal nerfs. They're mostly in the same place as a book - but IoM as a whole (which includes Marines) got a lot more toys. Like Knights.
CWE had their deathstar at the time nerfed. Then they got their replacement deathstar nerfed. Then they got their replacement deathstar nerfed. Then various other parts got further nerfed. A couple sidelined units got buffed, but nowhere close to balanced. They're much worse off than in Gman's heyday.
And Ynnari got a couple nerfs, then outright destroyed. Ynnari is a joke compared to what they were then.
Chaos has gone up and down, but things like Infiltrating Zerkers aren't even a thing anymore.
The top armies in those days were *not* buffed. Most were nerfed. The ones that were closest to Gman got nerfed the hardest.
"every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs" is just so very incorrect on so many levels. It buggers belief that people think that.
But if it makes you feel any better, with Salamanders the single Lascannon comes to 2.29. Four times the entire output of the Bolt Rifles.
And that is just an average: That lascannon has the potential for up to 6 damage; When rolling damage you have a 66% chance of doing at least 3 damage.
Also a lascannon has 48" range so it's aesier to put in the back and snipe with it the entire game while sitting on an objective. An Intercessor squad needs to be more in your face in order to do damege.
So which squad is better? Neither, the 5 man Las Tacs and the Intercessors fulfill 2 very different roles. It all depends what you want from your Troop choices in your army.
Martel732 wrote: Maybe for salamanders tacs are remotely worth it. For most chapters, they are pure fail. Equipped tacs in cover are still bleeding points to gak like flayed skull splinter. Or ignore cover wyverns.
This is why I love the Sally CT. It's not competitive. But it very much reinforces the Tac Squad mentality. And greatly diminishes the impact of AuraHammer. It's too bad it's not strong enough to mean enough, but I love it anyways.
It should be competitive. But to use the tactic, the glass cannon factor comes in. You do damage for two turns, and then your dudes are dead. I really don't understand how GW can't just watch half a dozen marine batreps and see this trend.
The more I play, I really think durability/pt is a bigger problem for marines than firepower/pt. It certainly is for BA.
Never attribute to stupidity what is equally attributable to malice?
More seriously, it seems likely that GW intends Tacs to remain uncompetitive, with Primaris being the way of the future. Much like how they basically abandoned Cents (among other things), they'll remain "suboptimal" so that Primaris look better comparitively. They can't directly nerf them without pushback, but they can just watch while buffs elsewhere push them further and further out of the game.
Tacs not getting a buff are unlikely because GW doesn't realize how bad they are. There's a reason they didn't get a buff. CA seemed to clearly be written with Tacs going down in points, but GW didn't include that change for a reason.
I mean all marines. Look how long their precious gravis idiots last when dissy cannons get pointed their way. Or star cannons. Or autocannons. Or battle cannons. Or plasma. Or kellermorphs. Or......
Thanks to relying on T5 instead of 2+, even wyverns disintegrate them outside of over. Or inside with the formation.
"We have a milion shots!" Once. Then you die. That just screams "elite shock troops", doesn't it?
Martel732 wrote: I mean all marines. Look how long their precious gravis idiots last when dissy cannons get pointed their way. Or star cannons. Or autocannons. Or battle cannons. Or plasma. Or kellermorphs. Or......
Thanks to relying on T5 instead of 2+, even wyverns disintegrate them outside of over. Or inside with the formation.
"We have a milion shots!" Once. Then you die. That just screams "elite shock troops", doesn't it?
So what, I also face all those weapons and my army isn't just gone after a couple of turns.
Do you play with enough big shot blockers? Do you play on planet Bowling Alley? Maybe you need to work on how to deploy your army so that it doesn't matter who gets the first shooting fase: Deploy for surviveability and not potential damage output. Let them come for you so you can concentrate your shooting and assault in the latter half of the game.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
How different was the game then?
Tons. Which is why an anectdote about how the thread goes off the rails discussing marines from a while back should be taken more as evidence that this thread will continue off the rails than a comment on modern balance/options.
Perhaps additional hints in that direction - such as phrases like "back when [thing] were the big thing" or "this thread reminds me...". Or all the past-tense. Perhaps I should have included one of those things in my post...
It's almost like they shouldn't have nefred it because every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs.
This is why it's hard to take all this "But Mahreens" complaints seriously. GMan still pops up from time to time, as is. The nerfs were to *him* and Razorbacks, not to Tacs. If he's still occasionally good enough now, he'd be absurdly OP at his old cost. Now, maybe Razorbacks went up a little too much, but this is just silly.
As for "every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs", hell no.
IG received only a couple marginal buffs. And larger marginal nerfs. They're mostly in the same place as a book - but IoM as a whole (which includes Marines) got a lot more toys. Like Knights.
CWE had their deathstar at the time nerfed. Then they got their replacement deathstar nerfed. Then they got their replacement deathstar nerfed. Then various other parts got further nerfed. A couple sidelined units got buffed, but nowhere close to balanced. They're much worse off than in Gman's heyday.
And Ynnari got a couple nerfs, then outright destroyed. Ynnari is a joke compared to what they were then.
Chaos has gone up and down, but things like Infiltrating Zerkers aren't even a thing anymore.
The top armies in those days were *not* buffed. Most were nerfed. The ones that were closest to Gman got nerfed the hardest.
"every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs" is just so very incorrect on so many levels. It buggers belief that people think that.
You do realize when other armies got codex compared to index...this was a massive buff? This army you speak of was facing index armies and GK and CSM before mortarion (actually Im not sure if 8th ed codex mortain was on the table at this point). Before Imperial knights. Literally every army got better. Minus maybe Ynnari which isn't actually an army - it's a craftworld basically. Eldar on the whole are massively buffed compared to their index. Massive. They probably got buffed harder in the codex than any other army except maybe imperial knights or IG.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: It should be competitive. But to use the tactic, the glass cannon factor comes in. You do damage for two turns, and then your dudes are dead. I really don't understand how GW can't just watch half a dozen marine batreps and see this trend.
The more I play, I really think durability/pt is a bigger problem for marines than firepower/pt. It certainly is for BA.
Absolutely. Durability is the most important problem for marines. They can do plenty of damage. They just can't take it.
Bharring wrote: This thread reminds me of the dozens-of-pages thread we had back when Gman/Razorbacks were the big thing, and the prominent GT was won with 5-6 5-man Tac squads each with a LC.
The usual posters went on ad nausium about how bad the list was. How they could do better. How *obviously* it should have been dev squads not tacs. But the usual posters spouting that drivel *haven't* gone on to any notable tournament wins.
Bottom line; don't take posts on DakkaDakka as gospel. Some is more reliable than others (you probably want 5man Tacs instead of 10mans). But that was answered in the first couple posts. Now we'll have a dozen pages about how Tacs have always been the worst Troop, how Marines have been the worst army in the game for decades, and how it's impossible to not lose if you take any Tacs.
How different was the game then?
Tons. Which is why an anectdote about how the thread goes off the rails discussing marines from a while back should be taken more as evidence that this thread will continue off the rails than a comment on modern balance/options.
Perhaps additional hints in that direction - such as phrases like "back when [thing] were the big thing" or "this thread reminds me...". Or all the past-tense. Perhaps I should have included one of those things in my post...
It's almost like they shouldn't have nefred it because every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs.
This is why it's hard to take all this "But Mahreens" complaints seriously. GMan still pops up from time to time, as is. The nerfs were to *him* and Razorbacks, not to Tacs. If he's still occasionally good enough now, he'd be absurdly OP at his old cost. Now, maybe Razorbacks went up a little too much, but this is just silly.
As for "every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs", hell no.
IG received only a couple marginal buffs. And larger marginal nerfs. They're mostly in the same place as a book - but IoM as a whole (which includes Marines) got a lot more toys. Like Knights.
CWE had their deathstar at the time nerfed. Then they got their replacement deathstar nerfed. Then they got their replacement deathstar nerfed. Then various other parts got further nerfed. A couple sidelined units got buffed, but nowhere close to balanced. They're much worse off than in Gman's heyday.
And Ynnari got a couple nerfs, then outright destroyed. Ynnari is a joke compared to what they were then.
Chaos has gone up and down, but things like Infiltrating Zerkers aren't even a thing anymore.
The top armies in those days were *not* buffed. Most were nerfed. The ones that were closest to Gman got nerfed the hardest.
"every single army it was facing was going to get significant buffs" is just so very incorrect on so many levels. It buggers belief that people think that.
You do realize when other armies got codex compared to index...this was a massive buff? This army you speak of was facing index armies and GK and CSM before mortarian.
And Codex IG. And Codex CWE. Those were both in play at the time.
Before Imperial knights.
I can't believe I missed this one. Perhaps I should have mentioned Knights (Note: sarcasm, as I did).
Literally every army got better.
So Codex CWE got better after the Gman nerf because their Codex was released? Your timeline is way off. Codex CWE was in play at the tourny in mention. It came out notably before the (first) Gman nerf. They certainly didn't get better.
IG, too, already had their Codex.
So "Literally every army" except for two of the three factions Gman went up against. "Maybe one faction" is a far cry from "literally every army".
Minus maybe Ynnari which isn't actually an army - it's a craftworld basically.
I'm not sure that changes much. Either way, they've only seen nerfs since the point in time in question.
Eldar on the whole are massively buffed compared to their index. Massive. They probably got buffed harder in the codex than any other army except maybe imperial knights or IG.
Which happened *before* Gman got nerfed. *Before* the tournament in question. *Before* the discussion mentioned. Since that point, where Gman was winning, CWE have received far more nerfs than buffs. And that's not even counting the "Ynnari are really CWE" BS you've got going.
Your point only makes sense if you redefine history to fit the skew you're trying to present.
Martel732 wrote: I mean all marines. Look how long their precious gravis idiots last when dissy cannons get pointed their way. Or star cannons. Or autocannons. Or battle cannons. Or plasma. Or kellermorphs. Or......
Thanks to relying on T5 instead of 2+, even wyverns disintegrate them outside of over. Or inside with the formation.
"We have a milion shots!" Once. Then you die. That just screams "elite shock troops", doesn't it?
So what, I also face all those weapons and my army isn't just gone after a couple of turns.
Do you play with enough big shot blockers? Do you play on planet Bowling Alley? Maybe you need to work on how to deploy your army so that it doesn't matter who gets the first shooting fase: Deploy for surviveability and not potential damage output. Let them come for you so you can concentrate your shooting and assault in the latter half of the game.
Los blockers hurt marines as much as helps unfortinately.
IDK. I can't find the information anywere on book of kittens. I just know it was was the beginning of the eddition and before the first big FAQ. It was pre first FAQ and Tornaments all have a cutt off to what rules are allowed to be played.
Martel732 wrote: I mean all marines. Look how long their precious gravis idiots last when dissy cannons get pointed their way. Or star cannons. Or autocannons. Or battle cannons. Or plasma. Or kellermorphs. Or......
Thanks to relying on T5 instead of 2+, even wyverns disintegrate them outside of over. Or inside with the formation.
"We have a milion shots!" Once. Then you die. That just screams "elite shock troops", doesn't it?
So what, I also face all those weapons and my army isn't just gone after a couple of turns.
Do you play with enough big shot blockers? Do you play on planet Bowling Alley? Maybe you need to work on how to deploy your army so that it doesn't matter who gets the first shooting fase: Deploy for surviveability and not potential damage output. Let them come for you so you can concentrate your shooting and assault in the latter half of the game.
Los blockers hurt marines as much as helps unfortinately.
It hurts more actually. Army have 0 mobility and doesn't want to move anyways. Know whats easy to hide from? Units that are slow and don't want to move.
Backspacehacker wrote: How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.
Vs Leman Russ
10 Intercessor shots (10x.666x.17x.05) = .56
1 Lascannon (1x.666x.666x.83x3.6) = 1.28 + longer range, plus more bolters to shoot at whatever.
Not that it helps much but they get a free grenade at 30".
Ah, fair enough. Is that in addition to or instead of the bolt rifle?
It would be instead. The Aux Launcher shoots a grenade at 30". So you you theoretically in your scenario use two separate squads for 8 Bolt Shots and 2 Krak shots.
I was giving a single Intercessor squad Rapid fire to help them out. So 8 Bolt rifle shots and 1 Krak grenade. Which looks like .674 wounds against a LR rather than .56
Backspacehacker wrote: How do you figure? because they can take any heavy weapon on them?
If thats your reasoning, why would you not take a dev squad with a single heavy weapon? Same cost as a tach squad but you can give your heavy weapon a +1 to hit. Literally better in every way then a tac squad.
You can only take 3 Devastator Squads, and Devs are not Troops. If I want to generate CPs I need Troops, and of the Troop Choices, Tacticals do the most damage against the widest array of targets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: I disagree. AP-1 on all your guns is actually the winner based on versatility.
Vs Leman Russ
10 Intercessor shots (10x.666x.17x.05) = .56
1 Lascannon (1x.666x.666x.83x3.6) = 1.28 + longer range, plus more bolters to shoot at whatever.
Not that it helps much but they get a free grenade at 30".
Ah, fair enough. Is that in addition to or instead of the bolt rifle?
It would be instead. The Aux Launcher shoots a grenade at 30". So you you theoretically in your scenario use two separate squads for 8 Bolt Shots and 2 Krak shots.
I was giving a single Intercessor squad Rapid fire to help them out. So 8 Bolt rifle shots and 1 Krak grenade. Which looks like .674 wounds against a LR rather than .56
Which is still about half a Lascannon.
You really want to be getting 4 shots each when you use that stratagem. 40 shots ap-1 with gman buff is basically the best thing out right now for just a 174 point unit - to really get the most out of it I take 4 10 mans so I am always able to get full value out of the strat. Plus that is a lot of CC attacks to.
Oh wait, is that one of the Vigilus things? I really didnt pay close attention to those.
You should man - it's beast. Yes the vigilis detachment.
I'm less impressed. It costs you 1 CP to start the ball rolling as a Indomitus Detach, then 1 CP - PER INTERCESSOR SQUAD - to make them Veterans, then ANTOHER CP to give them Rapid Fire 2 for one turn. 3 CP to do it the first time, and 1 more each additional. The guy who wrote that series, and the guy who wrote the guard sets is not the same guy, or he has a serious soft spot for Guard and hates Vanilla Marines.
