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.

Martel732 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??

AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.

Almost every ones generic shooting weapon went to ap0

the only people that came out ahead on that one was guard as their guns capped out.

Tactical Marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of troops. That's what you have assault cannons and missiles for.

 Desubot wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??

AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.

Almost every ones generic shooting weapon went to ap0

the only people that came out ahead on that one was guard as their guns capped out.

Yes, but marines could ill-afford that hit, given their small model count. As I said, tacs are REALLY bad at doing any damage at all with bolters, because they just aren't throwing enough dice with enough special rules. Therefore, their usage is purely as a terrible version of a conscript squad. They can't shoot, can't fight in CC, can't move. But they can cower in cover and encourage the enemy to waste fire on them. Somehow.

Small model count is the original sin of 8th. Tac marines can evidently pretend to overcome this by getting a free +1 armor save. If you change tac marine armor to 2+, they then become worth 13 pt/model I think. That's the key in all this. It has to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Tactical Marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of troops. That's what you have assault cannons and missiles for.

But for 13 pts/model, they need to do more than they are capable of. I agree with you, that tac marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of anything. They should just be priced accordingly, which they are not. Missile don't hurt troops, either btw. Only the assault cannons. And only on the razorback, and only with Girlyman.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.

Sure.

Sacrificing battle-forged to get signums makes a lot of sense. Legion tactics are overrated and have no impact on the game, not to mention command points.

And when I want to keep battle-forged, I really enjoy spending points on multiple detachments with extra HQs. The fact 40% of my army's points go to HQs isn't inefficient, it's an investment.

Failing that, filling my battalion with scouts that will do nothing all game to account for the mandatory troop choices is a great fallback. When doing cost comparisons, I don't need to account for them because they are separate units.

Endless War scenarios really make this sort of strategy useful, since each unit kill matters.

I am willing to do all this because someone on Dakka said Tacticals are bad.

It's still battleforged if you do a spearhead? What am I missing here?

Well slayerfan, I think what you are missing is points. Command points for sure, points spent on units, perhaps.

But then there's the obvious point. Someone had success with this list in a tournament. Pen-and-paper arguments don't account for tournament conditions or a variety of other factors that have not been considered.

Like math. Trading 2 CPs for Signum + 2 additional Lascannon shots averages to about +1 wound per turn. Seems like a bad deal, a single reroll on a Heavy d6 weapon could do more.

Maybe you want to take that speartip and go win a tournament with it? Or just go on telling us how the Lascannons don't matter, then they do, then you can get them cheaper, then how no one understands what you are saying?

You are the one saying las cannons don't matter. I am abolsutely saying that las cannons matter. Which is why this list is not optimal. Even with his diesired drop number he could have included 3-4 more las cannons without hurting his game plan or durability. sacrificing a useless captain who's using the wrong relic BTW (he should have a primarchs wrath) and 4 useless marine bodies for 5 or more las cannons is absolutely worth more than 1 command point in this case ESP if you consdier the ancient who if you give him your relic can can be worth 4-5 more las cannon shots in a game easy. All of this is done without increasing drop number.

Uh, I totally think Lascannons matter. Clearly, the winning list had enough of them.

Sounds like you are arguing more lascannons would have let him win more rounds of the tournament.

Tactical Marines aren't excellent units, I'll give you that. But this tournament shows that they do have a place in the right lists and playstyle.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Tactical Marines aren't excellent units, I'll give you that. But this tournament shows that they do have a place in the right lists and playstyle.

But is the result any different with scouts? Conscripts? I don't think so. If he could have had 2,000 models with straight 1's for stats that come in at .2 pts/model, his list would be even BETTER. I don't think playstyle has anything to do with it. Tacs just become an acceptable speed bump with a free 2+ save.

The fact that boltguns don't even penetrate Ork T-shirts now is just killing them as a viable threat when naked, imo. Once you start paying for weapons, their durability goes straight to the toilet.

Martel732 wrote:

But is the result any different with scouts? Conscripts? I don't think so. If he could have had 2,000 models with straight 1's for stats that come in at .2 pts/model, his list would be even BETTER. I don't think playstyle has anything to do with it. Tacs just become an acceptable speed bump with a free 2+ save.

Scouts and conscripts cannot take lascannons. If the lascannons mattered, which I'm willing to bet they did, then the result was different.

 daedalus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

But is the result any different with scouts? Conscripts? I don't think so. If he could have had 2,000 models with straight 1's for stats that come in at .2 pts/model, his list would be even BETTER. I don't think playstyle has anything to do with it. Tacs just become an acceptable speed bump with a free 2+ save.

Scouts and conscripts cannot take lascannons. If the lascannons mattered, which I'm willing to bet they did, then the result was different.

Maybe. 6 lascannons doesn't seem like that much, especially when not buffed by Bobby G. Also, scouts can take missile launchers. Which are much closer to lascannons than they have been in a long time.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??

It's like the very concept represents some weird existential threat to their established world view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

But is the result any different with scouts? Conscripts? I don't think so. If he could have had 2,000 models with straight 1's for stats that come in at .2 pts/model, his list would be even BETTER. I don't think playstyle has anything to do with it. Tacs just become an acceptable speed bump with a free 2+ save.

Scouts and conscripts cannot take lascannons. If the lascannons mattered, which I'm willing to bet they did, then the result was different.

Maybe. 6 lascannons doesn't seem like that much, especially when not buffed by Bobby G. Also, scouts can take missile launchers. Which are much closer to lascannons than they have been in a long time.

When facing Guard with T8 vehicles, the S9 matters. Not to mention the additional -1 AP.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??

It's like the very concept represents some weird existential threat to their established world view.

They're still bad for the reasons I outlined, awful even, for 13pts/model, but also more functional for the reasons I outlined as well. They got better and worse at the same time. They're what marines have to fill space, which is a critical function in 8th. But if marines had even cheaper options, with fewer wasted points, that would work even better. I'd rather tarpit Bobby G with gaunts than marines.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
If tactical firepower had an impact. He could have had 4 devestator squads with 8 las cannons for about the same price. It would have been better. considering 4 of them can fire at bs2+ and its 3 additional las cannons. Which is a big deal when you most likely have to start inside the razors to get your prefered drop number. Not to mention cherubs which is another huge damage boost.

Sure.

Sacrificing battle-forged to get signums makes a lot of sense. Legion tactics are overrated and have no impact on the game, not to mention command points.

And when I want to keep battle-forged, I really enjoy spending points on multiple detachments with extra HQs. The fact 40% of my army's points go to HQs isn't inefficient, it's an investment.

Failing that, filling my battalion with scouts that will do nothing all game to account for the mandatory troop choices is a great fallback. When doing cost comparisons, I don't need to account for them because they are separate units.

Endless War scenarios really make this sort of strategy useful, since each unit kill matters.

I am willing to do all this because someone on Dakka said Tacticals are bad.

It's still battleforged if you do a spearhead? What am I missing here?

Well slayerfan, I think what you are missing is points. Command points for sure, points spent on units, perhaps.

But then there's the obvious point. Someone had success with this list in a tournament. Pen-and-paper arguments don't account for tournament conditions or a variety of other factors that have not been considered.

Like math. Trading 2 CPs for Signum + 2 additional Lascannon shots averages to about +1 wound per turn. Seems like a bad deal, a single reroll on a Heavy d6 weapon could do more.

Maybe you want to take that speartip and go win a tournament with it? Or just go on telling us how the Lascannons don't matter, then they do, then you can get them cheaper, then how no one understands what you are saying?

You are the one saying las cannons don't matter. I am abolsutely saying that las cannons matter. Which is why this list is not optimal. Even with his diesired drop number he could have included 3-4 more las cannons without hurting his game plan or durability. sacrificing a useless captain who's using the wrong relic BTW (he should have a primarchs wrath) and 4 useless marine bodies for 5 or more las cannons is absolutely worth more than 1 command point in this case ESP if you consdier the ancient who if you give him your relic can can be worth 4-5 more las cannon shots in a game easy. All of this is done without increasing drop number.

Uh, I totally think Lascannons matter. Clearly, the winning list had enough of them.

Sounds like you are arguing more lascannons would have let him win more rounds of the tournament.

' Just saying his list is not optimal. I know he won the thing. Supposedly he even played against a guard army...which he must be exceptionally lucky. It's really unlikely to happen again. It's comical to me that an un-optimized space marine list won a tournament with the AM codex is as strong as it is.

Martel732 wrote:

Maybe. 6 lascannons doesn't seem like that much, especially when not buffed by Bobby G. Also, scouts can take missile launchers. Which are much closer to lascannons than they have been in a long time.

I guess I gotta agree with that last part.

Huh... looking at the list again, I only counted 1957 points. Did I miss something?

 daedalus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Maybe. 6 lascannons doesn't seem like that much, especially when not buffed by Bobby G. Also, scouts can take missile launchers. Which are much closer to lascannons than they have been in a long time.

I guess I gotta agree with that last part.

Huh... looking at the list again, I only counted 1957 points. Did I miss something?

hunter killers and storm bolters

Martel732 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??

AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.

Almost every ones generic shooting weapon went to ap0

the only people that came out ahead on that one was guard as their guns capped out.

Yes, but marines could ill-afford that hit, given their small model count. As I said, tacs are REALLY bad at doing any damage at all with bolters, because they just aren't throwing enough dice with enough special rules. Therefore, their usage is purely as a terrible version of a conscript squad. They can't shoot, can't fight in CC, can't move. But they can cower in cover and encourage the enemy to waste fire on them. Somehow.

Small model count is the original sin of 8th. Tac marines can evidently pretend to overcome this by getting a free +1 armor save. If you change tac marine armor to 2+, they then become worth 13 pt/model I think. That's the key in all this. It has to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Tactical Marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of troops. That's what you have assault cannons and missiles for.

But for 13 pts/model, they need to do more than they are capable of. I agree with you, that tac marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of anything. They should just be priced accordingly, which they are not. Missile don't hurt troops, either btw. Only the assault cannons. And only on the razorback, and only with Girlyman.

At what point do you feel they would be worth it at 13 points a model.

as well yeah using cover tends to be a very good tactic.

thats why i love playing imp fists so i can ignore it

 Xenomancers wrote:
' Just saying his list is not optimal. I know he won the thing. Supposedly he even played against a guard army...which he must be exceptionally lucky. It's really unlikely to happen again. It's comical to me that an un-optimized space marine list won a tournament with the AM codex is as strong as it is.

Thing is: he DID optimize it. It's just he optimized it for something that most other people wouldn't have.

 daedalus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Maybe. 6 lascannons doesn't seem like that much, especially when not buffed by Bobby G. Also, scouts can take missile launchers. Which are much closer to lascannons than they have been in a long time.

I guess I gotta agree with that last part.

Huh... looking at the list again, I only counted 1957 points. Did I miss something?

Although, you have to pay points to make the scouts equally durable, so that's the primary problem there. The 2+ is pretty key, I think. 3+ is far inferior in the face of gak like triple wyvern.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??

AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.

Almost every ones generic shooting weapon went to ap0

the only people that came out ahead on that one was guard as their guns capped out.

Yes, but marines could ill-afford that hit, given their small model count. As I said, tacs are REALLY bad at doing any damage at all with bolters, because they just aren't throwing enough dice with enough special rules. Therefore, their usage is purely as a terrible version of a conscript squad. They can't shoot, can't fight in CC, can't move. But they can cower in cover and encourage the enemy to waste fire on them. Somehow.

Small model count is the original sin of 8th. Tac marines can evidently pretend to overcome this by getting a free +1 armor save. If you change tac marine armor to 2+, they then become worth 13 pt/model I think. That's the key in all this. It has to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Tactical Marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of troops. That's what you have assault cannons and missiles for.

But for 13 pts/model, they need to do more than they are capable of. I agree with you, that tac marines aren't meant to wipe out masses of anything. They should just be priced accordingly, which they are not. Missile don't hurt troops, either btw. Only the assault cannons. And only on the razorback, and only with Girlyman.

At what point do you feel they would be worth it at 13 points a model.

as well yeah using cover tends to be a very good tactic.

thats why i love playing imp fists so i can ignore it

I have no idea what change could be made to make them worth 13 ppm, but they are definitely not worth it atm.

Frankly, I don't if your imp fist tac marines ignore it. Can't throw enough dice at me. Curse of marines and all that.

Martel732 wrote:


I have no idea what change could be made to make them worth 13 ppm, but they are definitely not worth it atm.

Frankly, I don't if your imp fist tac marines ignore it. Can't throw enough dice at me. Curse of marines and all that.

If you dont know what would make them worth 13 ppm then how would you know they are not worth it in the first place.

 Desubot wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Man. Some people really can not live with the idea that maybe Tactical Marines aren't actually that bad this edition. Their shooting and weapons got straight buffs and AP doesn't hurt them as bad anymore. Therefore, they must be the worst they have ever been??

AP 0 on bolters makes them REALLY bad at removing enemy models, especially guardsmen. Also, they suffer from low volume of fire which severely hampers how much damage they can actually do. They are, in some ways, worse than ever. But the free armor save in cover makes them double tough against enemy AP 0 and 50% better vs -1.

Almost every ones generic shooting weapon went to ap0

the only people that came out ahead on that one was guard as their guns capped out.

I would just point out that basic troops in the 8/9 point band (tau/eldar) get S4 and a special rule on their weapons. It's not until you get to the 4 point band that models start getting 'bad' weapons, and then they make up for it with cheap numbers. Marines pay 13ppm for a pure s4 nothing else weapon.

 Desubot wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


I have no idea what change could be made to make them worth 13 ppm, but they are definitely not worth it atm.

Frankly, I don't if your imp fist tac marines ignore it. Can't throw enough dice at me. Curse of marines and all that.

If you dont know what would make them worth 13 ppm then how would you know they are not worth it in the first place.

Because they don't play like 13 ppm models. A squad of 10 is 130 pts naked, and is no threat in the shooting or CC phases at all. That's not worth 130 pts to me. It's a mathematical phenomenon of the combination of stats on the marine just aren't effective in the games that GW publishes. Never has been. Maybe having 2 base attacks like an ork and giving the boltgun 2 shots outside 12" and 3 shots inside 12" would get them there. They need more throw weight to make their presence felt on the battlefield.

Utilizing their "options" just ruins them completely due to costs for said equipment.

Martel732 wrote:


Because they don't play like 13 ppm models. A squad of 10 is 130 pts naked, and is no threat in the shooting or CC phases at all. That's not worth 130 pts to me. It's a mathematical phenomenon of the combination of stats on the marine just aren't effective in the games that GW publishes. Never has been. Maybe having 2 base attacks like an ork and giving the boltgun 2 shots outside 12" and 3 shots inside 12" would get them there. They need more throw weight to make their presence felt on the battlefield.

Utilizing their "options" just ruins them completely due to costs for said equipment.

Speaking from experience - I do something similar with CSMs - the benefit is the heavy weapons more than the individual models.

When you have multiple lascannons on a number of different units, your opponent cannot target them as fast as you can target their tanks / elite units. When you have a ton of ablative wounds on each unit, they stick around several rounds.

The complaints against tacticals are always about what they can do in rapid fire / close combat. Totally ignores what happens with heavy weapons in multiple units. On paper, there are better options. In the context of an overall army, where you have to make trade offs to make points, they are often the least-worst compromise.

Points matter but they don't explain everything. This is a shooting edition and blowing up your opponent's big threats from a distance is a valid strategy, as we have seen demonstrated.

" This is a shooting edition and blowing up your opponent's big threats from a distance is a valid strategy,"

It's the only strategy, actually. I've already tried the other stuff with BA, because that's what my collection has been designed to do for 20 years. Doesn't work. At least, not for meqs.

"Totally ignores what happens with heavy weapons in multiple units"

Maybe, now that guns other than grav cannons matter.

"The complaints against tacticals are always about what they can do in rapid fire / close combat"

That's what they are supposed to be for. Not life support systems for a single heavy. But crunch being crunch, it's looking like they are life support systems for a single heavy.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Speaking from experience - I do something similar with CSMs - the benefit is the heavy weapons more than the individual models.

People talk about doing it that way with IG Infantry squads too if you're going to footslog lascannons since HWS are way too fragile. Honestly it's 13 points more expensive for a 5 man tac squad to do it, and you get BS 3+ and better armor saves. From a "both but somewhat more of a guard player than a SM player" point of view, I'm kind of stunned more people don't do it.

From my point of view, Devastators are the crazy expensive squad that isn't worth taking, because they're too close to HWS for me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

That's what they are supposed to be for. Not life support systems for a single heavy. But crunch being crunch, it's looking like they are life support systems for a single heavy.

I've always seen them as the wounds for the hidden X, where X is the hidden plasma gun, or the hidden power fist, or the hidden missile launcher (or lascannon nowadays). I guess that fell by the wayside in 6th / 7th with the way wound allocation changed, but 5th all the way. Used to joke that our IG power blobs were 30W T3 5+ monstrous creatures.

Devastators are pure crap, because the wyvern battery erases them first.

6 lascannons w/rerolls vs. 6 missile launchers w/rerolls averages 13.7 wounds vs. 9.3 wounds, respectively, against T8 3+ save tanks btw. Almost a 50% increase in damage.

One thing is clear, razorbacks need to be nerfed hard. The assault cannon variant is a slap in the face to all Blood Angel players who have to pay so much more for a Baal Predator.

 Insectum7 wrote:
6 lascannons w/rerolls vs. 6 missile launchers w/rerolls averages 13.7 wounds vs. 9.3 wounds, respectively, against T8 3+ save tanks btw. Almost a 50% increase in damage.

You could pretty easily spread that out enough to degrade at least a couple profiles pretty quickly. Average case of two basilisks down to BS 5+ doesn't sound too bad, especially with the storm raven to follow up.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
So let me get this straight, Astra Millitarum has been winning tournaments left and right, and this guy wins with a sub-optimal list that 100% depends on Guilliman, and Razorbacks, so therefore ALL tactical marines in every faction are good?

This forum..../facepalm.

Thing is, this meme that "AM has been winning tournaments left and right" is total bs, and that's where you've gone wrong from the start.

With an extremely small sample size, in a very narrow window of time, with so few actual Codex being released - AM "Index" plus "Imperial Soup" sat near the top.

Already in a very short time (unprecedented really) we have a few more Codex released and the tournament results have shifted, but again we're looking at very small samples, at a point where every army is not up to date - this should be common sense.

Two more Codex are already announced, this is again, unprecedented, but at this point, there is literally zero actual evidence to support the claim that the AM codex, out for 1 week, is op.

A guy made a poll a while back. It's probably still up. It had AM index at about 80% winrate compared to space marines and practical every other army near 50% except orks which were like 20%. Take that for what it is - a random collection of data. It agrees with that I see on a regular basis so I have no problem agreeing with it. You really can't make an arguement that this codex isn't stronger than the index was. It's literally the same list of units with free rules and point cost reductions given to the other one....minus 2 entry that got minior nerfs and both are still viable options and still OP (conscripts and scions). It's a simple argument that anyone can understand. What was once OP and was made better - is still OP.

Uh ok lol wow, so a random poll full of knee jerk 'opinions' from the forum, rather than actual tournament or game results; that's your proof, well ok, very informative.

Let's just say your poll actually represented game data - we're still only talking about a narrow slice of time, which was my original point. Codex are coming out faster than we've seen, and while "Imperial Soup" seemed very strong among the Index armies, that has nothing to do with where we are now.

Martel732 wrote:
That's what they are supposed to be for. Not life support systems for a single heavy. But crunch being crunch, it's looking like they are life support systems for a single heavy.

More like, they stand back, shoot with the heavy, rapid fire at things that come in range, and chop them up if anything gets close enough to charge.

I find myself arguing this point over and over: 40k plays over 5 turns. You don't pick units based on what they do the turn they arrive. Likewise, you don't fight expecting your opponents to go away in one round.

CSMs are great at whiting down an opponent and finishing them off in close combat. They are not for charging forward. They don't do enough wounds to take on most things by shooting or in close combat. They do a few wounds a phase, play them like that.

You and i have different standards for "great", evidently. Marines: viable only while cowering in cover, while the brave fearless guard marches across the table.

 techsoldaten wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
That's what they are supposed to be for. Not life support systems for a single heavy. But crunch being crunch, it's looking like they are life support systems for a single heavy.

More like, they stand back, shoot with the heavy, rapid fire at things that come in range, and chop them up if anything gets close enough to charge.

I find myself arguing this point over and over: 40k plays over 5 turns. You don't pick units based on what they do the turn they arrive. Likewise, you don't fight expecting your opponents to go away in one round.

CSMs are great at whiting down an opponent and finishing them off in close combat. They are not for charging forward. They don't do enough wounds to take on most things by shooting or in close combat. They do a few wounds a phase, play them like that.

You probably have to argue that so much because 5 turns isn't the reality even if it is the rules. I recently fielded a tough as nails Custodes army at a multi-day tournament. Me or my opponent were tabled by Turn 3 in almost every game.

People base units on what they can do at arrival because against optimized lists most units don't GET to live any longer unless they're like Conscripts. Even Imperial Knights and Magnus get alpha struck off the board.