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:
Yet, gw does not give terrain parameters so it's completely an opinion about any given terrain setup.

Given how drastically this affects the game, perhaps it's kind of pointless to gather data? Like, someone who plays with a sheet over book piles will probably have different good/bad units compared to someone who plays Cityfight compared to someone who plays with a single 24" high wall right across the middle compared to someone who plays with the old 4e terrain placement rules?

Tacticals are a bit lackluster, imo. Perfectly fine for casual play, they're not grossly overcosted, but definitely less efficient than what is available in comparison to other armies.

Scouts provide the best screening deployment option in the game. They trump every other infiltration unit, and give critical first turn alpha assault protection. Their mobility post deployment is limited, but their main job is to screen, hide and grab objectives. Being cheaper than tacs makes them solid choices for this role.

Intercessors are the second cheapest source of MEQ wounds we have (Reivers at 18ppm with carbines are better). They have a decent gun, are resilient to small arms. They're not amazing by any means, but they fulfill the role of durable objective holder, although not particularly cheap for something that will most likely be used just to survive.

Tacticals fall in between, and as they always have, just don't really excel in any category well enough to be great. In a game that so heavily rewards specialization (Because points not used are points wasted), this makes them inefficient. For the same reason that generic dread style walkers will never see high level tourney play, but can still do well at normal tables. Their statline is fine, their guns are fine, they just pay for all of their above average capabilities and thus they end up paying more than a unit that does one job better.

Crusaders are a bit better than tacticals because of the extra heavy weapon in 5 man squads, but they're still not amazing. You also pay the opportunity cost of not taking UM or RG chapter tactics, though you get access to the BT relic which is, IMO one of the better chapter relics.

TL;DR - Tacs aren't gonna be seen often (if at all) at top tables (How much of any army is?), they just aren't efficient enough, though they are good enough to do work in many games and situations.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.

For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.

You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.

Yeah, the same tournaments with their own non-stadard rules, time limits, and often terrible terrain set ups.

Those non-standard rules are set up to nerf the OP or great units, and Tactical Marines STILL aren't used! Are you really using this as part of your argument?

Also terrain at tournaments is fine. You're sounding like the apologists from 7th that said CC was fine and you just needed terrain.

Tell me which armies from 7th were really doing that besides Wolfstar and Cults? The answer will be surprisingly limited. Well, surprising to you maybe.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.

For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.

You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.

Yeah, the same tournaments with their own non-stadard rules, time limits, and often terrible terrain set ups.

Those non-standard rules are set up to nerf the OP or great units, and Tactical Marines STILL aren't used! Are you really using this as part of your argument?

Also terrain at tournaments is fine. You're sounding like the apologists from 7th that said CC was fine and you just needed terrain.

Tell me which armies from 7th were really doing that besides Wolfstar and Cults? The answer will be surprisingly limited. Well, surprising to you maybe.

How does a 2-hour time limit nerf OP units?

The terrain is not so fine, really. I've been to WargamesCon and seen photos from elsewhere and I always cringe when I watch, say, a lascannon predator set in the corner that can see essentially everything, save one like, 6" corridor behind the singe hunk of terrain that the opponent has to cram their whole army into lol.

As for armies that did CC well in 7th, I mean, I can list all of the ones that killed my Armoured Battlegroup, but it would be awfully long. Hell, my Ordinatus army at one point got tabled by Tau Firewarriors with EMP grenades.

I honestly have replaced my tacs with Intercessors for this edition because they fit the role I need for troops in my army perfectly. I use 2 minimal squads of 5 with the "heavier" sniper bolters and a scout squad fitted with sniper rifles and a ML, using Raven Guard Tactics of course.

Then again, even if by practice I have disdained tacticals, I have to acknowledge there are things you can't do with either intercessors or scouts. I think a melta toting squad with either a captain or a lieutenant riding a razorback is a perfect setup for a squad that can do many things, including melting a Dreadnought. Going MSU with one or two squads deploying a lascannon is a viable strategy, as those lascannons tend to get ignored a LOT. Even if on paper Scouts with a MLs bring almost the same for less, the minimal Lascannon tac on terrain is a viable strategy.

Honestly I am starting to think that as long as you want a battalion detachment, having one of each choices is perhaps the best setup. One Tac, one scouts, and one inter squads.

I think that describing scenarios against IG is the wrong approach. IGs do everything better, we know it, so telling us that Tacs don't work against IG is worthless.
Not saying that tacs are good or not, i honestly have no opinion on the subject, but let's all try to use different references. Preferibly SM, CSM and GK since they are the only three "updated" factions right now.

Do tacs stack up to CSM specialty marines? I honestly don't know right now.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.

For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.

You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.

Yeah, the same tournaments with their own non-stadard rules, time limits, and often terrible terrain set ups.

Those non-standard rules are set up to nerf the OP or great units, and Tactical Marines STILL aren't used! Are you really using this as part of your argument?

Also terrain at tournaments is fine. You're sounding like the apologists from 7th that said CC was fine and you just needed terrain.

Tell me which armies from 7th were really doing that besides Wolfstar and Cults? The answer will be surprisingly limited. Well, surprising to you maybe.

How does a 2-hour time limit nerf OP units?

The terrain is not so fine, really. I've been to WargamesCon and seen photos from elsewhere and I always cringe when I watch, say, a lascannon predator set in the corner that can see essentially everything, save one like, 6" corridor behind the singe hunk of terrain that the opponent has to cram their whole army into lol.

As for armies that did CC well in 7th, I mean, I can list all of the ones that killed my Armoured Battlegroup, but it would be awfully long. Hell, my Ordinatus army at one point got tabled by Tau Firewarriors with EMP grenades.

2 hour time limit stops fiddlefarting around. I'm more talking limits on LoW (which is absurd), limited formations, no FW (Also absurd and luckily totally out of date), etc.

Also Armored Battle Group is a bad army, so if you really thought CC was effective there's a reason: anything can be effective vs that army!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.

For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.

You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.

Yeah, the same tournaments with their own non-stadard rules, time limits, and often terrible terrain set ups.

Those non-standard rules are set up to nerf the OP or great units, and Tactical Marines STILL aren't used! Are you really using this as part of your argument?

Also terrain at tournaments is fine. You're sounding like the apologists from 7th that said CC was fine and you just needed terrain.

Tell me which armies from 7th were really doing that besides Wolfstar and Cults? The answer will be surprisingly limited. Well, surprising to you maybe.

How does a 2-hour time limit nerf OP units?

The terrain is not so fine, really. I've been to WargamesCon and seen photos from elsewhere and I always cringe when I watch, say, a lascannon predator set in the corner that can see essentially everything, save one like, 6" corridor behind the singe hunk of terrain that the opponent has to cram their whole army into lol.

As for armies that did CC well in 7th, I mean, I can list all of the ones that killed my Armoured Battlegroup, but it would be awfully long. Hell, my Ordinatus army at one point got tabled by Tau Firewarriors with EMP grenades.

2 hour time limit stops fiddlefarting around. I'm more talking limits on LoW (which is absurd), limited formations, no FW (Also absurd and luckily totally out of date), etc.

Also Armored Battle Group is a bad army, so if you really thought CC was effective there's a reason: anything can be effective vs that army!

Keep running with those goalposts buddy, I'll be here when you finally figure out where you're gonna make your stand.

Gee, sorry I disagree that a TIME LIMIT is a household rule because I don't have 8+ hours to play.

Martel732 wrote:
Do tacs stack up to CSM specialty marines? I honestly don't know right now.

Definitely not. EC noise marines are actually good at stuff. And berserkers are pretty scary too.

jcd386 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Do tacs stack up to CSM specialty marines? I honestly don't know right now.

Definitely not. EC noise marines are actually good at stuff. And berserkers are pretty scary too.

Plague Marines got awesome new options, and Rubrics are workable for the first time in over a decade.

jcd386 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Do tacs stack up to CSM specialty marines? I honestly don't know right now.

Definitely not. EC noise marines are actually good at stuff. And berserkers are pretty scary too.

Tacs do not need to stack up to them, they are not troops except in one particular legion.
The question is, are tacks more useful than scouts or intercessors is a match against other SM, CSM or GK?

IMHO against SM intercessors are better, at least until we see the return of plasma cannons.

Against CSM tacs are better., since chaos lacks the amount of long range high AP shooting needed to remove tacs AND pursue high priority targets at the same time.

Against GK scouts are better, to negate all that teleporting around.

Spoletta wrote:
Tacs do not need to stack up to them, they are not troops except in one particular legion.

I don't see why them being a separate legion matters. Thousand Sons and Death Guard are going to have their own codices, essentially turning them into separate armies that will show up a lot in casual play, tournaments etc. So it makes perfect sense to compare SM options to TS or DG options. Rubric marines are great.

I think you can reasonably expect cult troops to be troops, most of the time. Berzerkers gain a lot from being world eaters, clearly.

I suppose you might see quite a few people going for alpha legion, for the same reason people go for raven guard. Alpha legion noise marines make a lot of sense, since they are pretty happy to fight from range.

Ultimately, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference whether a unit is troops or not. It helps bring CPs, mainly. Obsec helps a lot in maelstrom missions, where charging a troop unit in to grab an objective for a turn makes sense. It makes less difference in eternal war missions, as it's quite unusual (though by no means impossible) to end games that close to enemies.

So a tactical squad does benefit from being obsec because they can charge things that they might not expect to kill, just to grab an objective. Berzerkers don't care that much if they're obsec, because if they are in cc with something they'll probably kill it - unless it kills them first.

Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.

Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.

Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.

Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).

You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.

The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread).
The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.

Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.

Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).

You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.

The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread).
The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.

The issue with including the 'transport' as the cost means you're ignoring its own capabilities. The cost of a tactical squad + transport is not the same as the cost of a tactical squad, as the transport gives the squad more capabilities, including blocking LOS, firepower support (in the case of razorbacks), charging to absorb overwatch, an extra model to be near objectives, and for board control purposes.

EDIT: Oh, and improved durability.

EDIT2: Oh, and improved speed.

Don't say things that make sense. Those arguments are invalid here.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.

Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.

Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).

You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.

The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread).
The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.

The issue with including the 'transport' as the cost means you're ignoring its own capabilities. The cost of a tactical squad + transport is not the same as the cost of a tactical squad, as the transport gives the squad more capabilities, including blocking LOS, firepower support (in the case of razorbacks), charging to absorb overwatch, an extra model to be near objectives, and for board control purposes.

EDIT: Oh, and improved durability.

EDIT2: Oh, and improved speed.

I already went over the issues with the transports.
1. Rhino does not make them faster. Scouts already get their place that you want them. Scouts actually have the improved speed. Rhinos also require much more redundancy to be effective, which adds to cost. Up to you whether to decide if that's a bad thing or not.
If you're gonna say that the Marines can hop back in the transport, they're not going to. Scouts wouldn't either. Both will capture the objective and die. Difference is I'm doing it cheaper with the Scouts.
2. Razorbacks suck as transports, and with the Scouts already having that improved mobility, all I have to do is move them once or twice and keep using their full firepower. Why would I waste that? That's completely stupid.
3. I can have scouts absorb Overwatch too because they're cheap enough to do it? Why do I need to absorb Overwatch anyway? Minimum save in the army is the 4+. We aren't talking about Drew Carey or Tyranids or Orks. You can absorb Overwatch fine. That frees up taking objectives for other good units.
4. Therefore, both transports are opportunity costs, and why they must be included in the cost for offensive use of Tactical Marines (which is why I don't include the cost in the camping version). However, if I just decide to use the Scouts with their natural mobility, I can just use the Razorbacks as battle tanks, because for their cost I would rather hold an objective and make their points back instead of being useless as a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wtwlf123 wrote:
Don't say things that make sense. Those arguments are invalid here.

Well by all means point out what I said that doesn't actually make sense and I'll elaborate.

They're not useless as a transport.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.

Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.

Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).

You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.

The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread).
The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.

The issue with including the 'transport' as the cost means you're ignoring its own capabilities. The cost of a tactical squad + transport is not the same as the cost of a tactical squad, as the transport gives the squad more capabilities, including blocking LOS, firepower support (in the case of razorbacks), charging to absorb overwatch, an extra model to be near objectives, and for board control purposes.

EDIT: Oh, and improved durability.

EDIT2: Oh, and improved speed.

I already went over the issues with the transports.
1. Rhino does not make them faster. Scouts already get their place that you want them. Scouts actually have the improved speed. Rhinos also require much more redundancy to be effective, which adds to cost. Up to you whether to decide if that's a bad thing or not.
If you're gonna say that the Marines can hop back in the transport, they're not going to. Scouts wouldn't either. Both will capture the objective and die. Difference is I'm doing it cheaper with the Scouts.
2. Razorbacks suck as transports, and with the Scouts already having that improved mobility, all I have to do is move them once or twice and keep using their full firepower. Why would I waste that? That's completely stupid.
3. I can have scouts absorb Overwatch too because they're cheap enough to do it? Why do I need to absorb Overwatch anyway? Minimum save in the army is the 4+. We aren't talking about Drew Carey or Tyranids or Orks. You can absorb Overwatch fine. That frees up taking objectives for other good units.
4. Therefore, both transports are opportunity costs, and why they must be included in the cost for offensive use of Tactical Marines (which is why I don't include the cost in the camping version). However, if I just decide to use the Scouts with their natural mobility, I can just use the Razorbacks as battle tanks, because for their cost I would rather hold an objective and make their points back instead of being useless as a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wtwlf123 wrote:
Don't say things that make sense. Those arguments are invalid here.

Well by all means point out what I said that doesn't actually make sense and I'll elaborate.

1) Scouts only get to be "where you want them" if the enemy is not within 9" of that place. Otherwise, they have to walk. The tank, on the other hand, can literally get into close combat with them. Isn't one of the greatest complaints about guard how you can't deep-strike near anything valuable?
2) Razorbacks don't suck as transports, not really sure what you're on about. All you need to do with a razorback is move it once or twice, also.
3) You need to absorb overwatch because things like Immolators, which will blenderize scouts in its overwatch and then blenderize the second unit of scouts with relative ease, but won't blenderize a tank.
4) You mean the "natural mobility" that is completely at the mercy of your enemy making certain moves? Or perhaps you meant that scouts are faster... oh wait they're not. And your massive issue is that you're seeing a transport as a battle-tank, and then complaining that it is a bad battle tank because it has to transport things. The razorback is an awesome transport, not a ham-fisted battletank.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.

Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.

Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).

You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.

The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread).
The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.

The issue with including the 'transport' as the cost means you're ignoring its own capabilities. The cost of a tactical squad + transport is not the same as the cost of a tactical squad, as the transport gives the squad more capabilities, including blocking LOS, firepower support (in the case of razorbacks), charging to absorb overwatch, an extra model to be near objectives, and for board control purposes.

EDIT: Oh, and improved durability.

EDIT2: Oh, and improved speed.

I already went over the issues with the transports.
1. Rhino does not make them faster. Scouts already get their place that you want them. Scouts actually have the improved speed. Rhinos also require much more redundancy to be effective, which adds to cost. Up to you whether to decide if that's a bad thing or not.
If you're gonna say that the Marines can hop back in the transport, they're not going to. Scouts wouldn't either. Both will capture the objective and die. Difference is I'm doing it cheaper with the Scouts.
2. Razorbacks suck as transports, and with the Scouts already having that improved mobility, all I have to do is move them once or twice and keep using their full firepower. Why would I waste that? That's completely stupid.
3. I can have scouts absorb Overwatch too because they're cheap enough to do it? Why do I need to absorb Overwatch anyway? Minimum save in the army is the 4+. We aren't talking about Drew Carey or Tyranids or Orks. You can absorb Overwatch fine. That frees up taking objectives for other good units.
4. Therefore, both transports are opportunity costs, and why they must be included in the cost for offensive use of Tactical Marines (which is why I don't include the cost in the camping version). However, if I just decide to use the Scouts with their natural mobility, I can just use the Razorbacks as battle tanks, because for their cost I would rather hold an objective and make their points back instead of being useless as a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wtwlf123 wrote:
Don't say things that make sense. Those arguments are invalid here.

Well by all means point out what I said that doesn't actually make sense and I'll elaborate.

1) Scouts only get to be "where you want them" if the enemy is not within 9" of that place. Otherwise, they have to walk. The tank, on the other hand, can literally get into close combat with them. Isn't one of the greatest complaints about guard how you can't deep-strike near anything valuable?
2) Razorbacks don't suck as transports, not really sure what you're on about. All you need to do with a razorback is move it once or twice, also.
3) You need to absorb overwatch because things like Immolators, which will blenderize scouts in its overwatch and then blenderize the second unit of scouts with relative ease, but won't blenderize a tank.
4) You mean the "natural mobility" that is completely at the mercy of your enemy making certain moves? Or perhaps you meant that scouts are faster... oh wait they're not. And your massive issue is that you're seeing a transport as a battle-tank, and then complaining that it is a bad battle tank because it has to transport things. The razorback is an awesome transport, not a ham-fisted battletank.

I think these guys play 40k in a vacuum.

 Yuber wrote:

I think these guys play 40k in a vacuum.

I usually play it on a table!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

To be fair, I don't remember that. I am just coming back to play since the end of 4th / beginning of 5th. But I like free stuff ....

Back to the topic, I have been running tacticala for a long time. I always had trouble finding them a good roll until I tried this in 4th.

3 squads of 10, all in rhinos, no special weapons or equipment except for power sword on sarge (because why not back then). And these guys suddenly became something else on the field. Trust in the bolter is a saying I found to ring true back then.

Now we are in 8th, and I don't currently have any rhinos to try this out, but I think that when I do I will bring trying this tactic out again. Pure bolter fire. I can't see my opponent taking out all 3 rhinos at once and dropping that many rapid fire bolter in front of them for the cost would be quite effective against swarm targets. And I can charge the rhinos in after to lock anything that survives up in cc.

Also if my opponent decides to shoot at my rhinos instead then great, go ahead and ignore that squad of devs and that pred wifh the captain and lieutenant hanging out back there. Don't mind them, they are not plotting your death back there, they are playing emporers poker......

I think the only way to kit Tacticals is with flamer + combi flamer or plasma + combi plasma. I personally like the flamer + combi flamer best and I just use them as meat shields and objective holders. They are my sacrificial wall to keep my opponents at bay while I shoot from a distance. I don't typically run more than the bare minimum required for my troops. I still think they are completely lackluster, but I feel like SM just don't have very good options for troop choices. The troop choices all feel like a tax to me. Which is unfortunate.

 NorseSig wrote:
I think the only way to kit Tacticals is with flamer + combi flamer or plasma + combi plasma. I personally like the flamer + combi flamer best and I just use them as meat shields and objective holders. They are my sacrificial wall to keep my opponents at bay while I shoot from a distance. I don't typically run more than the bare minimum required for my troops. I still think they are completely lackluster, but I feel like SM just don't have very good options for troop choices. The troop choices all feel like a tax to me. Which is unfortunate.

Tacticals are good at everything they do. They can be productive in any situation. They're never better than a specialist at that specialist's speciality (hah), but they can respond to anything. The Scout squad's extraordinary deployment rule is really the only compelling argument I've heard in their favor, otherwise they're just inferior tacticals. 40k generally rewards specialists better than generalists, but that doesn't make generalists bad on the whole. It just means people prefer simplistic rock paper scissors tactical choices.

What change would make you want to bring tacticals? They're the gold standard middle of the road trooper, so you can't repoint them without repointing everyone else. What about the option for an extra special weapon?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Except those Scouts would've gotten close in the first place to do that task for cheaper, and with better damage output using CCW.

Scouts with BP/CCW charging a unit does less damage than a tactical marine using boltgun + charge, as the scouts take noticably more damage from overwatch than the tacticals (the tacticals do two attacks before the charge vs scouts' one; then the scouts have a 4+ save against overwatch to the tacticals' 3+). Scouts with BP+CCW are less effective at close combat than even assault marines, and I certainly can't find many people willing to say ASM are horribly strong.

Not for the points. Your Tactical Marines aren't getting there without the Rhino or Razorback. That's another Scout squad, almost half another one. Not to mention that, after the charge, the Tactical Marines will perform exceptionally less unless you've got a specific Chapter to make that work, and even then I'm not a fan (yeah you can argue Ultramarines for that, but in that range might as well use the Shotgun Scouts. Still more a fan of CCW regardless for counter charges and junk).

You can also use Shotguns in the equation, though they're equal until the 6" mark. I probably wouldn't but since I like the shotgun models that's what I'm gonna do.

The main issue is the transport cost always needs to be factored in the Tactical Marines outside the Lascannon camping loadout (and I already made my argument for using Sniper Scouts with the ML earlier in the thread).
The counter to that might be the Raven Guard Strategem or Lias, but I can't reason with you if you think Tactical Marines are even at minimum a mediocre target for those abilities.

The issue with including the 'transport' as the cost means you're ignoring its own capabilities. The cost of a tactical squad + transport is not the same as the cost of a tactical squad, as the transport gives the squad more capabilities, including blocking LOS, firepower support (in the case of razorbacks), charging to absorb overwatch, an extra model to be near objectives, and for board control purposes.

EDIT: Oh, and improved durability.

EDIT2: Oh, and improved speed.

I already went over the issues with the transports.
1. Rhino does not make them faster. Scouts already get their place that you want them. Scouts actually have the improved speed. Rhinos also require much more redundancy to be effective, which adds to cost. Up to you whether to decide if that's a bad thing or not.
If you're gonna say that the Marines can hop back in the transport, they're not going to. Scouts wouldn't either. Both will capture the objective and die. Difference is I'm doing it cheaper with the Scouts.
2. Razorbacks suck as transports, and with the Scouts already having that improved mobility, all I have to do is move them once or twice and keep using their full firepower. Why would I waste that? That's completely stupid.
3. I can have scouts absorb Overwatch too because they're cheap enough to do it? Why do I need to absorb Overwatch anyway? Minimum save in the army is the 4+. We aren't talking about Drew Carey or Tyranids or Orks. You can absorb Overwatch fine. That frees up taking objectives for other good units.
4. Therefore, both transports are opportunity costs, and why they must be included in the cost for offensive use of Tactical Marines (which is why I don't include the cost in the camping version). However, if I just decide to use the Scouts with their natural mobility, I can just use the Razorbacks as battle tanks, because for their cost I would rather hold an objective and make their points back instead of being useless as a transport.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wtwlf123 wrote:
Don't say things that make sense. Those arguments are invalid here.

Well by all means point out what I said that doesn't actually make sense and I'll elaborate.

1) Scouts only get to be "where you want them" if the enemy is not within 9" of that place. Otherwise, they have to walk. The tank, on the other hand, can literally get into close combat with them. Isn't one of the greatest complaints about guard how you can't deep-strike near anything valuable?
2) Razorbacks don't suck as transports, not really sure what you're on about. All you need to do with a razorback is move it once or twice, also.
3) You need to absorb overwatch because things like Immolators, which will blenderize scouts in its overwatch and then blenderize the second unit of scouts with relative ease, but won't blenderize a tank.
4) You mean the "natural mobility" that is completely at the mercy of your enemy making certain moves? Or perhaps you meant that scouts are faster... oh wait they're not. And your massive issue is that you're seeing a transport as a battle-tank, and then complaining that it is a bad battle tank because it has to transport things. The razorback is an awesome transport, not a ham-fisted battletank.

1. It isn't hard to kill Conscripts, though one can argue you can't kill them point efficiently. Also not everybody is guard.
For example, the Scouts I typically run are under Black Templar Chapter Tactics, or with Asterion. In a 3000 point game, I used Ultramarines Chapter Tactics (as I was wanting to see how good the Ultramarine Warlord Trait was. It's decent, but not fitting for the ultra aggressive melee I was going for) with that, and did 3 CCW minimum Scouts, and 2 minimum Shotgun Scouts, all Sergeants with Combi-Plasma and the CCW. With 5 squads, you'd be hardpressed to not be able to deliver any goods and I can show you the particular list if you'd like. My 2000 point one has been posted in the SM Tactic thread and in the Army lists subforum, with the difference being that the new codex allows me two more Tarantula Heavy Bolter Turrets thanks to price cuts here and there.
2. It does suck as a transport. You pay a lot for the gun it has, and therefore you want to make use of it. However, if you're having to move it for 2+ turns, you might as well have used a Rhino (which is the better option for Tactical Marines). Therefore, I've been seeing it as a cheap enough Assault Cannon that doesnt take up any Heavy Support or Fast Attack slots, which to me could be Devastators, Preds, or Tarantula Turrets (which might be the cheapest Heavy Bolter we have I'm sure. If hordes are still an issue I see it being used heavily).
3. An Immolator is basically a Heavy Flamer right? 3-4 hits, little over 2 wounded, and the 5+ is a little over one Scout dead? Anything with a 3+ save (modified to the 4+) is exactly 1 dead I'm pretty sure. I'm fine with that. Not particularly dangerous. If it disengaged it won't be able to fire until the next turn anyway, so they would've done their job.
If it's TL, that's maybe 3 scouts dead and exactly two MEQ dead. Again, why do I care? Casualties can be from the back if I want. They tied it up for one turn. That's all I needed.
4. I haven't complained once the Razorback was a bad battle tank. I said it was a good battle tank and a lousy transport, which I'm saying is bad use. Seriously, find where I said it was a poor battle tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 argonak wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
I think the only way to kit Tacticals is with flamer + combi flamer or plasma + combi plasma. I personally like the flamer + combi flamer best and I just use them as meat shields and objective holders. They are my sacrificial wall to keep my opponents at bay while I shoot from a distance. I don't typically run more than the bare minimum required for my troops. I still think they are completely lackluster, but I feel like SM just don't have very good options for troop choices. The troop choices all feel like a tax to me. Which is unfortunate.

Tacticals are good at everything they do. They can be productive in any situation. They're never better than a specialist at that specialist's speciality (hah), but they can respond to anything. The Scout squad's extraordinary deployment rule is really the only compelling argument I've heard in their favor, otherwise they're just inferior tacticals. 40k generally rewards specialists better than generalists, but that doesn't make generalists bad on the whole. It just means people prefer simplistic rock paper scissors tactical choices.

What change would make you want to bring tacticals? They're the gold standard middle of the road trooper, so you can't repoint them without repointing everyone else. What about the option for an extra special weapon?

A second special weapon would help (I've always said I would take them if I could get 2 Special Weapons, a Combi, and a Heavy Weapon at 10 dudes, and we got partly that), but that's about it. I still get the roles I want filled, because specialization is key to this game. Want to know why Eldar dominated so much for the game's history, even though you got crap tactics places like 1d4chan saying they're a specialist army that are glass cannons that require finesse to play?

It's because they aren't. They get the specialization and make sure something is dead or the objective is held. That or you're Scatterbikes and can do that to most areas of interest. Probably the most disgusting unit designed in the game, though that's off topic.

 argonak wrote:

 NorseSig wrote:
I think the only way to kit Tacticals is with flamer + combi flamer or plasma + combi plasma. I personally like the flamer + combi flamer best and I just use them as meat shields and objective holders. They are my sacrificial wall to keep my opponents at bay while I shoot from a distance. I don't typically run more than the bare minimum required for my troops. I still think they are completely lackluster, but I feel like SM just don't have very good options for troop choices. The troop choices all feel like a tax to me. Which is unfortunate.

Tacticals are good at everything they do. They can be productive in any situation. They're never better than a specialist at that specialist's speciality (hah), but they can respond to anything. The Scout squad's extraordinary deployment rule is really the only compelling argument I've heard in their favor, otherwise they're just inferior tacticals. 40k generally rewards specialists better than generalists, but that doesn't make generalists bad on the whole. It just means people prefer simplistic rock paper scissors tactical choices.

What change would make you want to bring tacticals? They're the gold standard middle of the road trooper, so you can't repoint them without repointing everyone else. What about the option for an extra special weapon?

How i wish this were true.