Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 mew28 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

chaos45 wrote:
the main issue with marines is 1 wound for the point cost this edition.

They should be a lot cheaper point wise or have a better stat line period, 2 wounds and 2 attacks for a normal marine at like a 10-12 points per marine is where a normal tactical marine needs to be this edition to be useful due to the lethality.

3 Imperial guard infantry is 12 points for 3 wounds, more shots, and in general just superior to a marine in every way. There is absolutely no reason to play a marine for 13 points this edition and CA 18 was stupid because it did nothing to fix this issue.

Basically its either cheap infantry increase in point cost a chunk- probably not going to happen or the power armor/terminator armor marines all improve basic statlines to make them playable for the point cost GW seems to want to keep.

No question about it. A marine isn't worth 13 points. Special rules that aren't over the top wont fix this. What would you pay for a marine at it's current stat line? This is the only place this discussion should be going. What is the value of a tactical marine? IMO they are worth roughly 10 points and even still would not be great at that cost because they don't do anything useful. At least they might be used to fill out detachments or something.

From my last Poll on my old thread Cost of a space marine witch had over 400 votes 23% said space marines should cost 10 26% said 11 but then 13% of people said they need a nerf and should cost 14+.

I'm convinced that anyone who wants a space marine to be 14 or more points is either trolling or doesn't know what the space marine stat line actually looks like.

Bharring wrote:
"If you compare those 185 points of plasma dudes with 180 of bustas (10 of them + 1 bomb squig) you'll notice that there isn't that much difference in terms of killyness. The SM should be more deadly actually. Against monsters and characters there's even no contest here."

Wait a second. You're concerned that 10 T4 3+ models only do roughly the same damage as 11 T4 6+ models vs the ideal target for the latter unit?

Offensive output has nothing to do with the unit durability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:


The difference there is Tankbustas are not a Troops choice (to the best of my knowledge anyway - traditionally they have not been). Orks can fill their Troops slots with cheap and useful squads of Gretchin, which can increase the durability of the Tankbustas by taking hits for them

And also vs Knights, the difference in durability between a SM Tac Squad and a similar size squad of Ork Tankbustas is minimal. Anything Knights throw at Space Marines is apt to mostly or entirely deny them their saves anyway, and their Toughness is the same. If anything, the Orks are more durable because they can exploit Gretchin to take hits for them, and Gretchin are cheap.

All theoryhammer. In practise tankbustas are not lootas that just sit in a corner and are surrounded by gretchins, they only have a 24'' range and gretchins need to be closer to the enemy shooter to soak the firepower that goes to tankbustas, they can't just bubble-wrap the tankbustas, so it's super easy so outmaneuver them and kill the bustas behind. If you deepstrike those bustas it's quite hard to make use of the grot shield stratagem, and if you're giving them a battlewagon to ride in you're just adding a 120 points tax that is now a juicy target to the enemy anti tank.

Being troop is also a high pro, they unlock more CPs than elites. In fact those SM have an advantage towards tankbustas by being troops.

Against pure knights sure, they're more durable than SM, but the most competitive lists aren't pure knights, are imperium soups, tipycally with tons of lasguns or other weapons that are perfect against infantries with low saves. They actually just need a single mediocre anti infantry unit to wipe out 15 tankbustas. Against pure knights even pure SM should have fairly balanced matches.

I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.

Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.

Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

ok, but then something like GK do not have primaris and don't have the one good troop choice. So if GW decides that the fix to power armored units is primaris and they said no to GK primaris, then GK will never get fixed, at least not in this edition.

Karol wrote:

ok, but then something like GK do not have primaris and don't have the one good troop choice. So if GW decides that the fix to power armored units is primaris and they said no to GK primaris, then GK will never get fixed, at least not in this edition.

I reckon that GK will get a Primaris equivalent this edition.

I don’t think the ‘fix’ to power armour is the same as the fix to GK either. GK can be fixed, IMO, without a change to power armour.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.

Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

I think it boils down to tacs because everybody knows what a tactical marine is, they probably know it's stats too. Now copy and paste that Statline 40-50 times, that's the marine codex. It's just easier to refer to the same unit consistently.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

How does any Chapter which isn't Ultramarines compete on-par with Guilliman? Even if the strongest lists can sorta kinda compete internal balance is completely out of whack.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

How does any Chapter which isn't Ultramarines compete on-par with Guilliman? Even if the strongest lists can sorta kinda compete internal balance is completely out of whack.

With utility rules build in to their chapters tactic. Maybe they are super specilised in one form of combat or use of specific weapons. Maybe their drop pods or some other vehicles get a big buff to a point where it becomes a based of a playstyle. Lets say someone wants to play dreadnoughts, they aren't bad, but you won't build an army around them. But here comes chapter X whose chapter tactic makes dreads more flexible or more resilient. Maybe they are the only ones who can put them in pods. The Gulliman list maybe the best list to play, but if the dreadnought list is good enough and someone wants to play such a list, it would be better to run it as non ultramarines.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Karol wrote:

ok, but then something like GK do not have primaris and don't have the one good troop choice. So if GW decides that the fix to power armored units is primaris and they said no to GK primaris, then GK will never get fixed, at least not in this edition.

I reckon that GK will get a Primaris equivalent this edition.

I don’t think the ‘fix’ to power armour is the same as the fix to GK either. GK can be fixed, IMO, without a change to power armour.

At the last seminar the anwset to when or if GK get primaris was a no. Not a we aren't planing it right now, we are maybe looking in to it later on or some other form of saying, not within the next year plus. It was a quick no, and the person giving the anwser didn't even have to think about it, from what people said that were in real life at the seminar.

I personaly have no idea how to make GK good, I think they would have to rewrite the whole codex and change the point cost. A stormbolter dude with a storm shield and special ammo, looks odd costed next to a same costed dude with no SS, no ammo and a baby smite.

Karol wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

How does any Chapter which isn't Ultramarines compete on-par with Guilliman? Even if the strongest lists can sorta kinda compete internal balance is completely out of whack.

With utility rules build in to their chapters tactic. Maybe they are super specilised in one form of combat or use of specific weapons. Maybe their drop pods or some other vehicles get a big buff to a point where it becomes a based of a playstyle. Lets say someone wants to play dreadnoughts, they aren't bad, but you won't build an army around them. But here comes chapter X whose chapter tactic makes dreads more flexible or more resilient. Maybe they are the only ones who can put them in pods. The Gulliman list maybe the best list to play, but if the dreadnought list is good enough and someone wants to play such a list, it would be better to run it as non ultramarines.

But that's not what An Actual Englishman said. He said he thought it'd be enough to just make Chapter Tactics apply to everything. That's my point: giving my Predators rerolls to failed charges just isn't going to make Black Templars competetive because it's a complete non-buff. Similarly, White Scars wouldn't gain much either.

Speaking of chapter traits, I haven't seen any threads about the new Crimson Fist and Emperor's Spears traits. Does anyone think the CF trait is enough to make a noticable difference to how much Marines struggle versus cheap horde lists?

Edit: And also the Stoic Defender warlord trait. Funny how CF have three warlord traits listed and Emperor's spears didn't get any at all. Funnier that one of them is stupid better than the other two.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Karol wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

How does any Chapter which isn't Ultramarines compete on-par with Guilliman? Even if the strongest lists can sorta kinda compete internal balance is completely out of whack.

With utility rules build in to their chapters tactic. Maybe they are super specilised in one form of combat or use of specific weapons. Maybe their drop pods or some other vehicles get a big buff to a point where it becomes a based of a playstyle. Lets say someone wants to play dreadnoughts, they aren't bad, but you won't build an army around them. But here comes chapter X whose chapter tactic makes dreads more flexible or more resilient. Maybe they are the only ones who can put them in pods. The Gulliman list maybe the best list to play, but if the dreadnought list is good enough and someone wants to play such a list, it would be better to run it as non ultramarines.

But that's not what An Actual Englishman said. He said he thought it'd be enough to just make Chapter Tactics apply to everything. That's my point: giving my Predators rerolls to failed charges just isn't going to make Black Templars competetive because it's a complete non-buff. Similarly, White Scars wouldn't gain much either.

That's the same issue all factions have, some of their "chapters" are simply better than other ones and some units don't get benefit at all from the chapter trait.

Orks snakebite or blood axes for example are way inferior than evil sunz, freebootas or deathskulls while bad moons are only good for small detachments. Goffs tankbustas don't get benefit from having more eventual hits in combat.

Similarly coven stuff are ranked quite high but it's all about one specific chapter, as the other two never see the table at competitive levels. Same for kabals. A ravager doesn't get any benefit at all from the poisoned tongue kabal for example.

It's biased to consider BT or CF not competitive because they're not ultramarines and put all the orks or drukhari "chapters" into the same basket labelling them competitive, overpowered or even just good.

"How does any Chapter which isn't Ultramarines compete on-par with Guilliman?"
How does any Craftworld compete with CatLady?

Army-defining Special Characters are extremely hard to balance. They're about there with Gman, but the stuff you take with him hasn't kept up with his price hikes. However, Gman isn't the only offender in this regard.

"Offensive output has nothing to do with the unit durability."
Value = Sum(Capability)
Points should directly relate to value.
Offensive output is a component of capability.
Durability is a component of capability.

If you have two units for roughly the same points/value, and one has more durability, then unless it has other related downsides, the other should have more offensive output.

In other words, for the same points, offensive output should be *inversely related* to durability (roughly).

 Blackie wrote:


It's biased to consider BT or CF not competitive because they're not ultramarines and put all the orks or drukhari "chapters" into the same basket labelling them competitive, overpowered or even just good.

Not if the baseline units of the Drukhari or Orks are better baseline with a smaller buff in efficiency from their Chapter Tactics-equivalent. Sure, Goffs are worse than Evil Sunz, but the difference between the two is nowhere near the difference between Ultramarines and everyone else.

As an example, assume that Ork units are 7 on a scale from one to ten and that two Kultures add +1 and +2 respectively, for a total of 8 or 9. Then assume that Space Marine units are a 5, with one Chapter Tactic that adds +1 and one that adds +4, for a total of 6 or 9. While this would theoretically mean both Codices were competetive, it wouldn't change the fact that Orks would have a stronger book overall.

The old "It's unfair that non-Gman Marines can't compete with Catlady Eldar" argument.

There's some truth to it, but there's also a lot of doublestandards going on with it, too.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

But that's not what An Actual Englishman said. He said he thought it'd be enough to just make Chapter Tactics apply to everything. That's my point: giving my Predators rerolls to failed charges just isn't going to make Black Templars competetive because it's a complete non-buff. Similarly, White Scars wouldn't gain much either.

Ergo chapters tactics should be different. ultramarines should be vanila with a vanila chapter tactic. Not the worse, and not the best. Their cool part would come from awesome special characters, like tigurius or gman.

On the other hand something like BT chapter tactic should either be very strong or should be more unit specific. Maybe it should also be buffed by BT specific detachments. A combination of a strong chapter tactic that makes BT players actually want to use BT units and a detachment that sprinkles BT buffs to all units could easily fix the plight BT are in right now.

The same could be done with white scars and bike units. Maybe WS bikes are the only ones that could go up stairs 0_0 etc.

Right now GW for 8th cut out so many marine rules, that the only thing carrying them are special characters. Ultras have the most, so their chance to have the best is the biggest. I could imagine Dorn making IF or BT much better, but is seems like a lazy fix.

That's the same issue all factions have, some of their "chapters" are simply better than other ones and some units don't get benefit at all from the chapter trait.

Orks snakebite or blood axes for example are way inferior than evil sunz, freebootas or deathskulls while bad moons are only good for small detachments. Goffs tankbustas don't get benefit from having more eventual hits in combat.

The difference is much bigger though, as others said. Snakebite lootaz are still an ok unit. Black Templars don't have top units, and they good units are the same ones
ultramarines get, which are a ton better when run with the ultramarine primarch.

The issue is that non-Gman Space Marines can't compete with non-Catlady Eldar either. Eldar unis are far better baseline than Marine ones. Like, try fighitng Ulthwe Eldar with Black Templars or White Scars. It's not even fun.

An important distinction, but it's hard to talk about BT ASM vs Iyanden Scorpions, because people start talking about double-move/shoot/fight and Fieldcraft. Just make sure you're consistent.

That said, it's important that even the "good books" deal with "But I don't want to play that". CatLady vs Gman make a great example of this. So you're best of either comparing Ynnari to in-Gman-aura or non-Ynnari to not-in-Gman-aura.

Let's not get girlyman conflated with the UM trait discussion. ...or the "what's wrong with 3+ saves" discussion for that matter. Girlyman (and a good stable of characters that aren't girlyman) fething up balance for the Marine codex is a whole separate issue. The solution to girlyman is to just flat-out ban named characters from competitive play in the core rules and then balance everything else like they don't exist. * And no that doesn't hurt GK; "balance everything else like named characters don't exist" applies to them too.

On the chapter trait discussion, even the good ones like UM and RG effect some units more than others. Inceptors, Jump Pack marines, and melee Termies don't get any use at all out of the UM trait, anything melee focused or with a gun range under 20" gets very little benefit out of the RG trait.

Edit: * - And then point named characters like you can't account for their buffs in cost of the units they're buffing. Or possibly asign them a Power Level but no point level to emphasize that they're only for narative play.

I'm curious where these top tables that marines are competing at?

The one off successes of a couple of the best players in 40k hamstringing themselves taking "bad" armies is more about good players with bad tools vs a competent army.

Considering Astartes have the third lowest primary win percentage (39%) in ITC events (only above necrons and GK) I'm pretty sure I don't agree with your opinion.

Or look at the TiWIP where marines are 5% of the field but 3% of the armies in position to win (competing at the top tables) with a grand total of 0 undefeated lists

Other factions with 0 undefeated lists Sisters (44% primary win rate), Custodes (47%), BA (39%), DA (43%) , DW (43%), GK (31%), Crons (39%) and space wolves(39%) See any themes. PA and necrons seem to have a problem.

Orks also have a low win rate (41%) but with only a codex recently I'm curious how that number changes over the next couple months. Bumps up to 46% if you control for events only after codex was released.

By these numbers SM and power armor in general are not competitive at top tables and there seems to be something systemically wrong with PA in general.

Stats can be found here:
https://www.40kstats.com/

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.

Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

So we can't complain about a unit being bad because we aren't complaining about a unit in your codex at the same time?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.

Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

Recently i aquired some SM and i read most of this topic, after all this pages its unclear what is the real problem of the army.
Most of the complaints are about tacs and not because of the army balance. All fixes seem to be all around and some will clearly make the unit OP.
It`s obvious with the current rules tacs have little place in the game:
Scouts are probably the best SM troop choice, less points,can have sniper rifle and even have option to be -1 to hit +2 to save when in cover.
You can get intercessors for 4 more pts, +1wound +1 attack.

If you lower tac points, they will replace scouts, if you give them +1 wound they replace intercessors. The only fix for them is really some new rule or stratagem.
They can make them stronger melee unit, or really tactical fast unit that can advance and shoot with the rapid fire weapon or just give strat that allow them to shoot twice.

Marin wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.

Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

Recently i aquired some SM and i read most of this topic, after all this pages its unclear what is the real problem of the army.
Most of the complaints are about tacs and not because of the army balance. All fixes seem to be all around and some will clearly make the unit OP.
It`s obvious with the current rules tacs have little place in the game:
Scouts are probably the best SM troop choice, less points,can have sniper rifle and even have option to be -1 to hit +2 to save when in cover.
You can get intercessors for 4 more pts, +1wound +1 attack.

If you lower tac points, they will replace scouts, if you give them +1 wound they replace intercessors. The only fix for them is really some new rule or stratagem.
They can make them stronger melee unit, or really tactical fast unit that can advance and shoot with the rapid fire weapon or just give strat that allow them to shoot twice.

It's not so much that people are hung up on the Tacs as it is that Tacs are the base profile eveything else is based on. Giving Tacs W2 for example gives Assault Marines, Devastator Marines, and Veterans W2 by implication, and arguably gives Bikes and Termies W3 and Centurions W4.

Exactly, they're the base profile.

Blood Claws
Grey Hunters
Wolf Guard in Power Armor
Wolf Guard in Terminator Armor
Long Fangs
Thunderwolf Cavalry

etc.

Saying "TAC Marines are overpriced" is a way of saying the base marine statline is overpriced.

Aside from dreadnoughts, this is the basic statline than is getting chapter tactics.

Imagine if all of the other factions had the same restrictions. For instance, Eldar CW traits only applied to the base Guardian statline.

The Newman wrote:

Marin wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.

Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

Recently i aquired some SM and i read most of this topic, after all this pages its unclear what is the real problem of the army.
Most of the complaints are about tacs and not because of the army balance. All fixes seem to be all around and some will clearly make the unit OP.
It`s obvious with the current rules tacs have little place in the game:
Scouts are probably the best SM troop choice, less points,can have sniper rifle and even have option to be -1 to hit +2 to save when in cover.
You can get intercessors for 4 more pts, +1wound +1 attack.

If you lower tac points, they will replace scouts, if you give them +1 wound they replace intercessors. The only fix for them is really some new rule or stratagem.
They can make them stronger melee unit, or really tactical fast unit that can advance and shoot with the rapid fire weapon or just give strat that allow them to shoot twice.

It's not so much that people are hung up on the Tacs as it is that Tacs are the base profile eveything else is based on. Giving Tacs W2 for example gives Assault Marines, Devastator Marines, and Veterans W2, and Bikes and Termies W3 by implication.

Which is the core issues of Loyalist Scum in general.

For example, CSM for sure are based around that statline. However, each of their units overall has a defined role. With Sternguard, they're just Tactical Marines but better. Vanguard are just Assault Marines but better. Chosen are just Chaos Marines but better. Command Squads and their Biker variants are just Marines (and Bikers) but better. The other options though within the CSM codex (Cult of Destruction units, Possessed, the Cult Marines, and even cultists) aren't exactly confined to that statline. For Loyalists, you have Primaris, Terminators, Centurions, and of course Scouts. Otherwise a lot of stuff seems to be based on only one or two units.

 Marmatag wrote:
Exactly, they're the base profile.

Blood Claws
Grey Hunters
Wolf Guard in Power Armor
Wolf Guard in Terminator Armor
Long Fangs
Thunderwolf Cavalry

etc.

Saying "TAC Marines are overpriced" is a way of saying the base marine statline is overpriced.

Aside from dreadnoughts, this is the basic statline than is getting chapter tactics.

Imagine if all of the other factions had the same restrictions. For instance, Eldar CW traits only applied to the base Guardian statline.

Exactly!

ITs the same with guardsmen being the 'base' unit for all imperial guard.

Its why I am against giving marines +1 wound. If you do that then every unit in the space marine codex will get +1 wound. Which I am sorta against. W3 Intercessors is insane. That would make them the best infantry in the game period.

Marin wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.

Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

Recently i aquired some SM and i read most of this topic, after all this pages its unclear what is the real problem of the army.
Most of the complaints are about tacs and not because of the army balance. All fixes seem to be all around and some will clearly make the unit OP.
It`s obvious with the current rules tacs have little place in the game:
Scouts are probably the best SM troop choice, less points,can have sniper rifle and even have option to be -1 to hit +2 to save when in cover.
You can get intercessors for 4 more pts, +1wound +1 attack.

If you lower tac points, they will replace scouts, if you give them +1 wound they replace intercessors. The only fix for them is really some new rule or stratagem.
They can make them stronger melee unit, or really tactical fast unit that can advance and shoot with the rapid fire weapon or just give strat that allow them to shoot twice.

Indeed. The stack of "things that need to be compared to other things" is vastly too crowded; the fact that a Space Marine, a Veteran Space Marine, and a Primaris Space Marine all need to have different defined profiles is a big part of the problem.

interceptors would still have a better bolter, and they could define the them even more by adding 1-2 inches of movement as they really should be faster due to their size.

An just leave them at 2 wound and make them 2-3 points more than a tactical profile with 2 wounds and 2 attacks as baseline.

Marin wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I know this is going to catch me some serious flak but you guys understand that every codex has some choices that are better than others and perhaps the humble Tac marine is just not one of the better choices? It’s not like you only have one troop choice. I’d love to be able to take a Stompa or all of the new buggies but unfortunately GW has decided to make them somewhere between ‘underperforming’ to ‘auto win for opponent’ depending on who you ask. I hate to be so blunt but perhaps it’s just time to accept that GW want to sell their new Primaris models and that Tac marines can’t really compete with them as a high end versatile troop or scouts as a cheaper solution.

Primary Codex Astartes armies, regardless of what anyone tells you on here, are still managing to compete at the top tables. If they made Chapter Tactics affect most/all units I think they’d be there or thereabouts.

*runs and hides.

Recently i aquired some SM and i read most of this topic, after all this pages its unclear what is the real problem of the army.
Most of the complaints are about tacs and not because of the army balance. All fixes seem to be all around and some will clearly make the unit OP.
It`s obvious with the current rules tacs have little place in the game:
Scouts are probably the best SM troop choice, less points,can have sniper rifle and even have option to be -1 to hit +2 to save when in cover.
You can get intercessors for 4 more pts, +1wound +1 attack.

If you lower tac points, they will replace scouts, if you give them +1 wound they replace intercessors. The only fix for them is really some new rule or stratagem.
They can make them stronger melee unit, or really tactical fast unit that can advance and shoot with the rapid fire weapon or just give strat that allow them to shoot twice.

I feel like a decently clean thing to do would be to leave scouts as a 1W option and have made the intercessor profile the baseline for "full brothers" and build up from there. GW had to go and fubar the fluff and make primaris a thing to justify new models when they don't really need to be there IMO. The options to take weapons/transports that tacticals have always gotten would be okay with primaris statlines, assuming the power creep/scale gets put back in check. Thoughs?

Then what do you do with intercessors? well they shouldn't really have been a thing IMO but GW thought they needed to justify their new models i guess. If i just imagine all the options tacs usually have, packaged with intercessors and auto bolt rifles I think "meh, not bad". Though this is just for bog standard marines, doesn't even begin to address chapter tactics/preds/termies or anything else, just the plain marines.

Karol wrote:


Snakebite lootaz are still an ok unit. Black Templars don't have top units, and they good units are the same ones
ultramarines get, which are a ton better when run with the ultramarine primarch.

If lootas snakebites are "still ok" it means they're nowhere near a top unit as well, just like the black templars dudes you mentioned. Bad moons lootas are basically twice as good as snakebites ones as they come with a free re-rolling 1s and the ability to shoot twice for 2 CPs. Maybe BT don't have top units but they can definitely field a decent amount of "still ok" units then.

Honestly the gap between snakebites or blood axes to evil sunz is quite wide, but the gap between one of the most underperforming ork clans like snakebites and a list with mixed clans is absolutely huge, probably even wider than the gap between ultras and black templars.

That's an interesting conclusion to reach in light of the fact that Orks are outperforming Space Marines overall.