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.

A big part is the meta. Most of the time, I hear that Bolters are irrelevant. This is because so many people field IKs, or pure mech, or every threat has t5+ and often a 2+ save. But when facing anything t3, boltguns shine.

When do we face T3 again?

You'll never face T3 against my DE.

All my T3 models are safely ensconced in impregnable AV10 transports.

Bharring wrote:
A big part is the meta. Most of the time, I hear that Bolters are irrelevant. This is because so many people field IKs, or pure mech, or every threat has t5+ and often a 2+ save. But when facing anything t3, boltguns shine.

When does that happen, again? And even then, most T3 armies are shooting back three times as many shots, so they still outgun you by a large amount

Ya know thinking about it.

Sergeant Harker is technically no more stronger than a SM with no addition power armor boost and he can relentlessly run around with a heavy bolter.

FWs with rifles can outshoot Marines on a per-point basis.

DE Warriors only 'win' with concentration. (2/3)(1/2)(1/3) isn't great, compared to (2/3)(2/3)(1). They aren't that much cheaper than Marines.

Guardsmen might do OK in shooting against Marines.

Guardians die horribly to Marines at any range. Even if they get within 12", Marines still win

DAs can beat naked Tacs at 12-18, but lose horribly at 19+, 12-, and melee. For the same cost.

Harlequins will die fast to boltguns, too.

The current meta puts the ones marines eat easily in transports, for protection. But those listed above aren't really a threat in the current meta. IKs, Tides, WK, DK, Serpents, Necron boats, etc are more of the current meta. And boltguns aren't really a threat to them. So the boltguns aren't seen as a threat. If the meta were to change, and the sorts of things Boltguns were good against were common, instead of treated as dead weight, Marines would look a lot better.

TLR version: its the meta that makes us not see foot t3, and thus makes Boltguns worse. A meta shift could reverse it.

 raiden wrote:
When do we face T3 again?

Most non marine armies?

Bharring wrote:
FWs with rifles can outshoot Marines on a per-point basis.

DE Warriors only 'win' with concentration. (2/3)(1/2)(1/3) isn't great, compared to (2/3)(2/3)(1). They aren't that much cheaper than Marines.

Guardsmen might do OK in shooting against Marines.

Guardians die horribly to Marines at any range. Even if they get within 12", Marines still win

DAs can beat naked Tacs at 12-18, but lose horribly at 19+, 12-, and melee. For the same cost.

Harlequins will die fast to boltguns, too.

The current meta puts the ones marines eat easily in transports, for protection. But those listed above aren't really a threat in the current meta. IKs, Tides, WK, DK, Serpents, Necron boats, etc are more of the current meta. And boltguns aren't really a threat to them. So the boltguns aren't seen as a threat. If the meta were to change, and the sorts of things Boltguns were good against were common, instead of treated as dead weight, Marines would look a lot better.

TLR version: its the meta that makes us not see foot t3, and thus makes Boltguns worse. A meta shift could reverse it.

I would absolutely hope that FW out shoot marines point for point, considering their sole focus is shooting. If they didn't that'd be rather horrible design.

Bharring wrote:
FWs with rifles can outshoot Marines on a per-point basis.

DE Warriors only 'win' with concentration. (2/3)(1/2)(1/3) isn't great, compared to (2/3)(2/3)(1). They aren't that much cheaper than Marines.

Guardsmen might do OK in shooting against Marines.

Guardians die horribly to Marines at any range. Even if they get within 12", Marines still win

DAs can beat naked Tacs at 12-18, but lose horribly at 19+, 12-, and melee. For the same cost.

Harlequins will die fast to boltguns, too.

The current meta puts the ones marines eat easily in transports, for protection. But those listed above aren't really a threat in the current meta. IKs, Tides, WK, DK, Serpents, Necron boats, etc are more of the current meta. And boltguns aren't really a threat to them. So the boltguns aren't seen as a threat. If the meta were to change, and the sorts of things Boltguns were good against were common, instead of treated as dead weight, Marines would look a lot better.

TLR version: its the meta that makes us not see foot t3, and thus makes Boltguns worse. A meta shift could reverse it.

I've been ignoring them since 2nd ed, and my win rate vs marines is pretty good. I haven't seen a meta yet where boltguns are good.

Well, if only one of those can beat Marines at shooting, and only one can beat Marines at melee, meaning all the rest lose either way, is it really the Marines that need fixing?

Bharring wrote:
Well, if only one of those can beat Marines at shooting, and only one can beat Marines at melee, meaning all the rest lose either way, is it really the Marines that need fixing?

Marines suffer from putting lots of points into infantry that are provided with inferior support. The support for the opposing troops is what wipes standard marines off the table. I think DA also outshoot marines for the points.

DAs only marginally outshoot Marines 12-18", and cost CSM points (13ppm).

Unless Marines get good cover.
Or have a heavy weapon.
Or have a specialist weapon.

And CSM are widely regarded as crap.

So, the problem is support? Then why fix Tacs?

Remember guys, lots of transports and light vehicles have AV10 on the side, Chimeras included. I have had lots of times where a squad of 10 marines with bolters have glanced them gits to death.

Bharring wrote:
DAs only marginally outshoot Marines 12-18", and cost CSM points (13ppm).

Unless Marines get good cover.
Or have a heavy weapon.
Or have a specialist weapon.

And CSM are widely regarded as crap.

So, the problem is support? Then why fix Tacs?

They out shoot them tremendously at 13-18". They have twice the firepower.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
DAs only marginally outshoot Marines 12-18", and cost CSM points (13ppm).

Unless Marines get good cover.
Or have a heavy weapon.
Or have a specialist weapon.

And CSM are widely regarded as crap.

So, the problem is support? Then why fix Tacs?

Because when I pay points for something, I expect it to do something.

They are still pretty good at LOS blocking and obsec objective grabbing with their rhinos. I agree bolters are trash, but there are SOME reasons to take tacticals. Just don't footslog them

Twice the firepower, half the survivability.

A boltgun round kills twice as many DAs as Marines.

So little more than twice the firepower, but half the survivability puts Marines only slightly behind of DAs 13-18". Much further ahead at 12"-. Absurdly ahead at 18"-24". Absurdly ahead in melee.

And all this for the same cost. Naked CSM aren't even considered that great.

Compared to a lot of units, Marines get a lot for their points.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
They are still pretty good at LOS blocking and obsec objective grabbing with their rhinos. I agree bolters are trash, but there are SOME reasons to take tacticals. Just don't footslog them

Cheaper obj sec troops are better for those jobs, because they are less of a tax.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Twice the firepower, half the survivability.

A boltgun round kills twice as many DAs as Marines.

So little more than twice the firepower, but half the survivability puts Marines only slightly behind of DAs 13-18". Much further ahead at 12"-. Absurdly ahead at 18"-24". Absurdly ahead in melee.

And all this for the same cost. Naked CSM aren't even considered that great.

Compared to a lot of units, Marines get a lot for their points.

Well, the DA can keep the marines at 13-18" forever because of battle focus. That's huge.

Hence why DAs aren't completely useless.

But footslog vs footslog no terrain, naked Marines easily get first salvo. A and force DAs to BF forward to shoot with most of them. Allowing Marines to move into rapid fire range for the second round of shooting.

Covrr-save terrain lessens the DAs strength, and make moving into range a little less reliably.

LOS blocking terrain offers too many opportunities for shenanigans for both sides, but probably favors DAs.


Alternately, force their hand? Control the engagement? Take a special/heavy weapon?

And what about the other guys on the list above?

I get the point about the list, but tac marines still have the problem of being the most expensive on the list, making them the biggest tax, making them the biggest drag on their respective lists. Tac marines are largely only good against things on that list, whereas DA can engage MCs and FW can glance out vehicles.

By 5 pts/unit vs DAs.
Lose by 20 pts/unit to Guardians.
Assuming you're taking the Loyalist variant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tac Marines can take PGs or Grav for MCs, and MGs for vehicles, plus a heavy weapon.
Plus Krak grenades.

DAs can't hurt AV11 in any way. Can only glance AV10.

Naked Marines can deny territory to anything AV10 rear, and can even threaten AV12.

Bharring wrote:
By 5 pts/unit vs DAs.
Lose by 20 pts/unit to Guardians.
Assuming you're taking the Loyalist variant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tac Marines can take PGs or Grav for MCs, and MGs for vehicles, plus a heavy weapon.
Plus Krak grenades.

DAs can't hurt AV11 in any way. Can only glance AV10.

Naked Marines can deny territory to anything AV10 rear, and can even threaten AV12.

These things you point out never seem to come up, though. They just end up being wasted points.

So, its a Meta thing then?

Bharring wrote:
So, its a Meta thing then?

Maybe? I consider it more of a fire power thing. Most of the advantages you listed require marines to get very close to the target without being shot off the table. Getting shot off the table trivially is an issue. I don't find myself in a position to shoot at AV 10 much with bolters. I don't find myself in a position to use krak grenades. I don't use the frag grenades, because assault with tacs is usually suicide.

I'm kinda feeling Tacticals might've been better if melee wasn't such a joke. Most of the time it doesn't matter that Tactical Marines are better than Guardians or Guardsmen in melee, because they will never get there. It's half of what you're paying for down the drain in a majority of the games played.

I do wish my Tacs' melee was better. I get more use out of threatening it than doing it...

Bharring wrote:
I do wish my Tacs' melee was better. I get more use out of threatening it than doing it...

Tacs have a bad habit of running into meqs that didn't forget to bring a knife, or end up dead in ditch before they can assault. That's why their melee stats and gear seem like complete wastes.

A lot of that is because the things they would beat so readily in melee - DAs, Guardsmen, Fire Warriors, Kalabites, etc - must avoid melee with them, just like Marines need to avoid melee with Wraithlords.

The things that beat Marines in melee tend to have worse shooting, and most cost more.

Just being there is a threat. If my Falcon, Devilfish, Fire Warriors, or even the OP Serpent ends the round within 12" of Tac Marines, they're probably dead. Were as Marines are really only threatened by CQC specialist (and Riptide, WTF).

The problem with tac marines is they are far too generalist, and don't really fill their intended role. If tacs could take up to 2 specials or heavies it would make a big improvement on them. Or maybe the answer would be to treat them like bike troops allow two specials and a heavy. It would make them cost a bit more overall from the added special but would give them a bit more focus and punch. Do this and drop the cost of tacticals to 12 or 13 ppm, and allow them to take chainswords for 2ppm like in 30k and tacs might become useful. Would they be as good as bikes? No, but I don't expect them to be. As the rules are now I will take 5 bikes (sergeant + 2 specials + attack bike + 1 biker) over a squad of 10 tacs in a rhino with a special and/or heavy weapon any day. The bikers will live much longer and bring much more hurt, and the bikes are worth every point. I don't worry much about objectives placed out of reach of my bikes. My artillery takes care of that most of the time. Right now as things are i find bikes and scouts (with landspeeder) preferable to tacticals.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm kinda feeling Tacticals might've been better if melee wasn't such a joke.

...have you played in 7-th? Orks, SW, Dark Eldar, Newcrons - all have super solid mellee.

 koooaei wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm kinda feeling Tacticals might've been better if melee wasn't such a joke.

...have you played in 7-th? Orks, SW, Dark Eldar, Newcrons - all have super solid mellee.

Fine, let me rephrase that:

I'm kinda feeling Tacticals might've been better if melee wasn't such a joke outside of a few units with the speed and durability to get into combat.