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.

starbomber
stop being dense. 3 guardsmen shoot 3 times a piece vs 1 marine shooting twice. Would you rather shoot 9 times 4+/5+/3+ or twice 3+/4+/3+?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jilallah
you said: "bolters are not imo what they should be. Nor is the cover system."

I agree. I don't understand the need for ridicule/hostility when you agree with someone.
AF

ComputerGeek01 wrote:I agree with you on one critical note, the cover system in 5th edition is WAY too generous, and this is coming from a Guard player :p . I think that a fire fight should be quick and decisive, 4+ MAX cover save and unless it's a structure built out of nano-hardend carbon steel for the purpose of stopping really big guns, then the most something should offer infantry is a 5+ cover save.

It's really not that terrible, or you would see a great deal more swarm armies on the table. Maybe you play in an area where swarms are really popular, in which case a person could always gear their lists to deal with that, no problem.

Firefights often last for a very long time, not that it has all that much to do with WH40k game mechanics, depending on what you want the game to be. With all of the mech armies I see, cover is never that big of a deal, and I gear lists with cover in mind as it is. A large part of this game is chance, and while I agree that 4+ cover save bonanza can be pretty lame sometimes, making sure you understand how to determine a fair amount of swarm friendly terrain makes a big difference. Hit swarms where it hurts, their formations. With roughly 3x the amount of models to manage, there are most definitely ways to take advantage of it as a weakness. Template weapons are mean, and bolters do a substantial job of cleaning up strays.

Use more light terrain, and bring along something that can disrupt tight-knit castle formations. There are several ways to disrupt use of cover, whether that is assault units like A. Termies or shooting units like vindies, there are ways to make use of too much cover uncomfortable for your opponent.

A bit of adjustment is needed, but I don't feel it is god-awful as it is.

Night Lords wrote:You didnt address the fact that bolters suck. Regardless, tacticals suck, and its not because of AP3 weaponry, it is because they have 1 base attack, 1 special weapon and bolters... which again, are terrible.

I considered it your opinion and most of what I would need to say, has already been said multiple times.

I have absolutely no problem with you avoiding those weapons like the plague, but I disagree that they suck.

They wouldn't be OP at all. Currently they are a complete waste and no one ever takes them. They are completely useless in the current state.

Again, that is your opinion. They aren't useless, and they aren't a complete waste. I personally wouldn't spam tacs and HB if I played SM, and that would be the only situation where it would appear to be a waste of points. People do take them, and they are quite nifty on a Dakka pred. 85 points is a really good deal, even if the tank is extremely limited in it's movement.

Don't spam HB, they are not useful when used in that way. You can have your opinion, it is yours.

Oh no, a tactical squad can shoot a single gun across the board at my gaunts/orks, and still manage to only kill two (or one if I have cover). It's a heavy machine gun and kills 2 of the weakest units in the game...spending an additional 10-15 points like you said would be completely laughable. It would get used less than never.

I am still not sure where you get the idea that a free/cheap weapon with a 36" range should be SUPER WEAPON 5000! Really though, the only place I would advise against using them is on Dev squads, and that is mainly because they kinda suck. I don't recommend using them on anything but Dakka preds, and getting an 8 shot S6/AP4 sponson array @ BS4 for 25 points on an AV13 tank... that would be an amazing deal.

Perhaps you could have an argument for updating the next Smurf dex with certain options like you have described. They still won't be free, nor should they be.

Yes, Devastators would get 16 shots (4*4 is 16) and kill eight 5 or 6 point models. They still only kill 2.3 marines. Nobody uses devastators as is. Now mathhammering it out, they should be even stronger as they still suck with my suggestion. Maybe they should get 5 shots each.

Devs definitely need a rework, but I don't see the HB being buffed as drastically as you suggest.

Eldar get Warwalkers with 12 shots each for less than that, and can take 3 per slot.

Okay...

They get 8 S6 36" shots each with AP6, they cost 60 points, and they are walkers with AV10 armor. They can also outflank but suffer from the fact that S4 weapons can crush their face. I don't even understand what point you were making here. Eldar can spam S6 weapons, it is one of the things they can do. Smurfs can take 40 point transports that can pop smoke, while having the ability to stack tank lines in large games, all the while backed up by AV13/14 tanks, and an entirely different style of codex.

There isn't a direct comparison here.

Dakka Predators might actually be worth taking in that case, but as is the Combi Pred is far better and more versatile.

They are quite nifty as they are, and implementing the changes you have suggested would more than likely raise their price substantially. It would make more sense to increase the cost of the tank, drop the cost of the sponsons by about 5 points each, then add one or two more types of sponsons that you could choose from.

...did you even read what I wrote? Tyranids, Orks, Guardsmen, Daemons etc get a 4+ save instead of the 5+/6+ they normally get. They can even go to ground for a 3+. Space Marines, on the other hand, get absolutely no advantage to their regular save for being in cover, even if they go to ground.

4+/5+/6+ saves suffer the wrath of standard flamers and heavy flamers, which can be taken in very large numbers for a lot of armies. Power armor laughs at flamers...
My squad with 2 flamers and a HF can annihilate light infantry with use of doom. Wipe them clean off of the board no problem. A squad of 5 tac marines can make great use of their small numbers through formations, further reducing damage from flamers.

Tyranids, Orks, and Guard are usually outnumber SM by a huge margin, and suffer from having that many models on the board. If they use formations that reduce damage from template weaponry, the fact that they are @ a 3:1 ratio most of the time opens them up to assault. 5-10 tac marines are a great deal easier to maneuver than 30 Orks, Guard, or Guants.

If your opponent can use cover as that much of an advantage without using risky formations, or loads of bubble wrap units (which cost points), there is a good chance that you are simply getting screwed by the terrain. Guard have the advantage here, and they can be a decent counter to tacs, but not an amazing one. Use scouts if tacs cause you that many problems, there are plenty of people that prefer them.

Cover rules need a bit of work, but the obvious option would be to play with a bit less terrain that is advantageous for swarm armies alone. Try using more 5+ cover if it is really that big of a deal, causing you to lose the majority of games. You can make changes like that, and they will have a very noticeable effect on the game. Heck, most places I play have a great deal of option to choose from, and you can compromise on what pieces you choose.

I personally think the hate for bolters specifically is mostly unsupportable, focusing mainly on the fact that people are trying to take out 3+ armor with standard small arms. I find that slightly ironic, given that the 3+ armor is kind of what makes Meq unique, not entirely so, but it is one of their greatest strengths as a style of army.

Wrex
nightlords wrote:
no one ever takes them [tactical marines] they are completely useless in the current state.

he's right. they have 1 attack a piece a pea shooter gun and an armor save that is consistently cancelled out by the opponent's shooting. at 16 points a piece these guys are horrible.

His point isnt that it should be a super weapon. his point is that it ought to be worth fielding. which it is not.

you wrote:
"4+/5+/6+ saves suffer the wrath of standard flamers and heavy flamers"
yes. the wrath of flamers. In fact flamers are pretty much all around better. which was my original point.

look if I can get a 4+ cover for 5-6 points a man why would I want a guy for 16 points whose main selling point is his 3+ armor?

In short this is what's wrong with tac marines:
they cost too much
they're at best marginal in close combat
they're at best marginal at shooting.
their mobility sucks.

there's pretty much nothing good about them except for their stat line, which is worth 10 points a man *tops*
AF

Bolters are great. In my opinion, greatest standard weapon.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:he's right. they have 1 attack a piece a pea shooter gun and an armor save that is consistently cancelled out by the opponent's shooting. at 16 points a piece these guys are horrible.

Why do you rely on them so much? Are you maxing out on troops choices for some reason? All units have strengths and weaknesses, you're just looking at the weaknesses.

His point isnt that it should be a super weapon. his point is that it ought to be worth fielding. which it is not.

Why should every unit work in the exact same way? There are different types of troops units that perform in different ways. If you want another type of army, play another type of army.

yes. the wrath of flamers. In fact flamers are pretty much all around better. which was my original point.

Flamers are better than bolters? I didn't even know you could compare them like that. Flamers have a limited range, and serve a different role. What army allows every single model in a troops unit to take a special weapon? I would really like to know. You're both acting like the codices are directly comparable, they simply aren't. Some codices are weaker than others overall, it is just part of the game, though not a part I am jumping in joy over. Regardless, it doesn't make tacs worthless, it makes you a player that is more inclined to play another codex.

Read the codex a few times and just review what options are available to tacs, and in what ways they can be used with other units in the codex. You stick the unit in a vacuum (ignoring several aspects of the unit at the same time) and laugh at it, which I do not feel adds all that much to a discussion.

look if I can get a 4+ cover for 5-6 points a man why would I want a guy for 16 points whose main selling point is his 3+ armor?

I dunno, read the thread and the codex, reviewing what options are available to those tacs. You focus an awful lot on the weapons those guys are carrying, but you ignore other features entirely. I have never seen any gun in WH40k shoot itself, unless it is being fired by a unit. When it comes to something like plasma, the gun can do a pretty good job of shooting itself, but that still involves hurting the operator.

In short this is what's wrong with tac marines:

Hmm...

they cost too much

No they don't, at least not by a large amount. Perhaps they should be 80 points for the base squad, 15 for each extra model. I am not even sure it is that bad.

they're at best marginal in close combat

Play a different army, or recognize that you are telling the unit what it HAS to be, instead of using it in a way that works.

they're at best marginal at shooting.

Use a different army. Smurfs are general purpose overall, it is what they do. If you want shooty, play shooty.

their mobility sucks.

Use those cheap transports I mentioned earlier, they are neat!

there's pretty much nothing good about them except for their stat line, which is worth 10 points a man *tops*

There is the problem. You're joking.

http://instantrimshot.com/

Wow. Abaddon you're living in a fantasy land.

Ok you can get orders, I can get orbital bondbaramentaments or psychic powers.

I can say oh look my marines get a razorback with a HB with them. Cheaper. Taking orders into account changes the situation completely, and does nothing to help the conversation.

Plus, that is AT LEAST another five guardsmen. Which feths with the debate even more.

Is operating in a vacuum fair for debate? Alot more helpful then bringing orders or tanks into account.

As for the sign off... why? We can look at the person who posted it, if we don't have the willpower to look up at the poster, we shouldn't be on the internet anyway. Who are you and why should I care? You're a dakkite who constantly debates with ALOT of people...

Tactical marines are fine troops. Outclassed by the other codices? Yup. gakky? Hell no.

I use three full squads, and it is either them, or scouts... so i'll stick to my marines.

Sanguinary
better than pulse rifles?
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wrex
I'll just hit your 3 points. if you keep your posts to a reasonable length I'll read the whole thing but at that length no.

why do you rely on them so much?
I don't. I don't use them at all. because they suck. for the reasons we've been discussing.

flamers are better than bolters?
absolutely. flamers hit automatically and allow you to roll wounds against potentially the whole squad. bolters hit 2/3 of the time and let you roll wounds against 2 guys max. for 5 points flamers are an awesome upgrade.

you should read the codex.
I have read the codex. do you have something specific about the codex to talk about or are we just throwing insults?

AF



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor
your posts are a pretty consistent mixture of common knowledge and insults. ignore.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I have read the codex. do you have something specific about the codex to talk about or are we just throwing insults?

I am not trying to insult you, it just really seems like you're not familiar with the codex.

I don't. I don't use them at all. because they suck. for the reasons we've been discussing.

So, you're perfectly fine using scouts and I would insist that you continue to do so, if it suits your needs. You have basically said they suck because you don't like them, along with doing no less than ignoring points that others have brought up in their defense. 'They suck', is not a valid argument. You said you aren't interested in responding to my points, let alone the numerous points that are strewn throughout this thread.

absolutely. flamers hit automatically and allow you to roll wounds against potentially the whole squad. bolters hit 2/3 of the time and let you roll wounds against 2 guys max. for 5 points flamers are an awesome upgrade.

Dude... Flamers are free for tacs, they are template weapons, and besides the fact that both bolters and flamers are S4/AP5, it doesn't get much larger in terms of differences within anti-infantry weapons. I would love to see a flamer figure out how to hit 3 models every time you use it. Every time. If your opponent clumps, you are going to have a lot of opportunities to make their day uncomfortable, but that is not going to happen very often. Anyway, which codex allows every model in a troops squad to take a special weapon?

Oranges and tangerines... not quite apples and oranges, but making tangerine juice is awfully hard work.

better than pulse rifles?

Play Tau.

I think Sanguinary is pointing out that it could be worse...IE, you could have fire warriors....

IMO, Tactical squads have a clean-up back field support roles...hence their jack of all, master of none look.

As for flamers: They are great if you can get them into good positions where the enemy is not spread out (which there are situations that come up).

But I don't think the money shot occurs that often.
________________
Personally, those that have extensively used units with dual Special weapons are gonna look down on tacticals no matter what.
Spoiled is the word...(this includes me). Though I do like the Tactical in how it fits in with the rest of the Codex, but is somewhat over priced....but only maybe 10-20 points.
________________

/shrug, I guess I have no explanation...I frankly like my 37 twin-linked bolters...they pour out shots at a respectable amount...they are not 'drop kick' good, but they get the job done in my experience. Liking them doesn't really come into question because you just get them standard, so I can't complain......I mean.... I could have had something worse...on the flip side something better would be awesome but it would reek of balance issues (prob. a points increase or something undesirable).

Is the problem with the Bolter, or with Tactical Marines in general?

If you want to fix Tactical Marines, give them greater access to special weapons. How, in the name of sweet fluff, does it make any sense that a Guard Veteran squad can have access to 3 Special Weapons, and a Marine squad can only take one?

I would have to agree with Nuggz here somewhat, that does make a good deal of sense. It would be nice if the squad could just choose 2 of either type of weapon, special or heavy.

There isn't a huge problem there because you can just take two full squads for the same effect, even though it kind of sucks that you can't just take 2 specials for the whole squad.

Marines are not specialist units, they are versatile units, so the idea that a veteran IG squad would be better at bringing nasty weapons makes a lot of sense as well. I still think that allowing for two special weapons or two heavies would be pretty cool, and not really OP.

I think we have ourselves a level 10 troll here guys. Get out the flamers.

Who the hell shoots bolters are wraith guard? Charge them with any MEQ unit and they are tarpitted for the rest of the game, and use bolters to shred guardians.

Bolters are fine, they do great against light infantry.

I'm not a fan of the flamer doctrine, every MEQ flamer is 1 less melta gun on the field.

If the enemy spreads out a bit on cover it's only going to nail 6 models.

Against Genestealers 6 hits=3 dead. That's not enough to wipe a squad, so they are just going to jump out and eat whoever lite 3 of them on fire.

Against Orks 6 hits=3dead. Whooopie that's 18 points of boyz. That's not going to make or break the CC when the MEQ charge the orks.

Against Gaunts 6 hits=4 dead. Whoopie that's 20 points of gaunts. That's not going to make or break the CC when MEQ charge the gaunts.

Against IG, Tau, and guardians who F cares. If they are close enough to flame they are close enough to charge and slaughter in CC.

Against pretty much all light infantry except genestealers the MEQ are going to be better off charging than rapid firing. The only time MEQ won't get the charge is in a Rhino ass attack where everybody jumps out and rapid fires. If the rapid firing bolters are not enough to drop something nasty like genestealers then 3 dead genestealers from 6 flamerthrower hits is just going to get the MEQ eaten by bugs.

MEQ players forget how deadly bolters are because MEQ are so resistant against small arms fire that they forget everybody else isn't so.

Bolters control where the enemy moves. MEQ players have no idea how much their bolters effect the battle plans of light infantry.

2/3 games are objective based. MEQ players should always place objectives out in the open and as far from cover as possible when fighting light infantry.

SuperNiceGuy wrote:I think we have ourselves a level 10 troll here guys. Get out the flamers.

+1 cause AF can't hear me.

Wrex
ok. about the codex. what is it about the codex you believe I'm missing? I've been wrong before.

I use bikes terminators or assault marines, never scouts or tac marines. every one of these basic troop choices available to a marine player (if your a codex whore, which I am ) is waayyy better than a tac marine. I guess you missed my earlier point about why marines suck. here's what I said:
1. they cost too much
2. they have only 1 attack
3. they have a pea shooter dinky gun
4. their 3+ armor doesnt protect them and anyway 4+ cover is so easy to get that there's no reason to pay out the yin yang for something you can usually get for free.

yes sometimes the flamer doesnt shoot. delivering the flamer is a tactical problem though not a defect of the weapon itself. you're right marines take flamers for free sorry Im used to bikes and chaos marines who pay 5 points a piece. your right. No codex lets you take all special weapons but bikes can come pretty close: 4 bikes 2 meltas 1 combi melta + attack bike with multi melta = 1 troop choice if your captain is on a bike. the combination of special weapons cost efficiency mobility and scoring is awesome. it's what I advocate in that book.

AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nugz

I agree with you. to me the bolter is part of a bigger problem with tac guys in general but w/e. tac marines are supposed to be a jack of all trades master of none like sanct says. as it stands they're just masters of none. if they could carry 2 heavy weapons or 3 specials it would be true. as it stands you have to park a 200+ point unit to shoot 1 las/plasma cannon or whatever. considering how unlikely a single lascannon shot is to hurt even the weakest target in cover it makes no sense to do this.

So yeah I guess it's just a general dissatisfaction with tac marines. they're the only thing in the game that's gotten worse and more expensive as the game has evolved. in 3rd edition they were good.

AF

Well, so hang on here.

Yes, bolters DID get worse in 5th ed. And one could imagine being disappointed in their performance compared to editions of old. The problem though, is that times change, and you can't expect things to be the same, including small arms.

I mean, let's look at this comprehensively for a moment:

4th ed. was all about which units could put out the most damage possible. Cover was worse, and everyone's stuff was more expensive compared to the price of unupgraded squads. Also, close combat was something you never wanted to get into as it was a slow and ineffective way to kill off your opponent, generally speaking.

In this rules edition, running up, parking your butts, and firing bolters at 12" made more sense.

But now we're living in a 5th ed world. Instead of 5+ cover, lots of stuff can EASILY get 3+ cover (with go to ground). Furthermore close combat absolutely rocks in this edition. This means if you want to kill your opponent's stuff faster, you don't shoot them in 5+ cover, because it's now 3+, but instead you charge in and wipe them off as they fail morale with a huge penalty.

As well, back in 4th ed the only value that a tac squad had was how much damage they put out. Now the damage they put out is immaterial compared to their ability to hold objectives and deny KP. As such, the shift went away from "how much damage can my bolters do?" to "how long can I keep a tac squad alive?" Having high-damage small arms is crucial to the first, now moot, question, but it actually doesn't necessarily help all that much with regard to the new, relevant question.

This is less a case of bolters becoming the ultrasuck, and more a case of the metagame changing and leaving bolters (along with ALL small arms), behind. If you yearn for the days of short-ranged firefights with short ranged weapons, then take lots of drop pods and transports, or play sisters or guard (as a guard player, I can attest to just how many plasma guns et. al. they can take). That or play 4th ed.

Relative to your ability to win games, yeah, bolters actually aren't all that great. Relative to your ability to win games, space marines are still a competitive army, and tac squads are still great for a variety of purposes.

Oh, and...

Jihallah wrote:No, in a perfect world, your troops shoot demolisher shells out of a 72" range assault 6 gun.

They would also cause pinning

But it's not all sunshine and lollipops for the bikers.
__________
Right, tactical squads suck...it doesn't support the topic you proposed at the beginning.

Bolters suck on tacticals....then lets expand it to other MEQ's that use it. SW/BA/Sisters/'Essentially' GK's, etc.

As for the tactical hate:
They cost just right if you factor in the 'free' vet, special, heavy. Their one attack does suck, but in the transition gained a bolt pistol, so it's not 100% gakky. The bolter has alot going for it though ... it's like a jack of all trades, master of none (ie, long, medium ranges, it can double output, it has enough str too threaten light tanks and does average against MEQ and better at GEQs).

It is apparent they don't fit you playstyle so that you get bikers...it doesn't make them unable to win games or perform exceedingly well. They have a specific role/usage/expectation that just might not mesh with you and hence look worse than they could be. Not saying they are all-stars but they hold the line well enough as the standard to which the rest of the 40K universe measures against..........

schaden

about shooting wraithguard with bolters.
well it was a mistake no doubt. I believed I could kill even the toughest units if I just shot them with enough bolters. while mathematically true within the context of the game its pretty much impossible to put enough bolters on a target like that in order to get rid of it. learned by doing. my point is that if weight of fire cant kill even 1 wraithguard in that situation then weight of fire isnt the answer. which is the only logic I can conceive of for massing up on bolters as opposed to special weapons.

about flamer doctrine
I see your point about bolters vs flamers. I think you make a good point. to be clear I'm running vulkan and I would never endanger a unit of mine in order to delvier just 1 flamer attack. I put flamers on my command squad for instance so we're talking about 4 twin liked flamers + a captain or vulkan who will also carry a flamer. so let's say against a 30 boy ork squad lets say each flamer covers 8 guys (pretty much typical in my experience against masses) and 3/4 of those wll wound with no cover or armor saves allowed thats 6x5 dead orks. all of them. except maye the nob. even if the dice rebel against me the squad will be devastated. The other situation is with land speeders with heavy flamers of which I am also a big fan. the land speeders do good damage and are more or less immune from light infantry in assaults.

I agree with you 100% it's never woth it to endanger a whole squad just to deliver 1 flame thrower.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ailiros
I agree w you about bolters and close combats.
I just think its a good idea to minimize the number of them in the force as opposed to flamers and meltas which right now rock for marines.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sanct

yeah we got a little off topic. bolter hate is a subset of tac hate lol

if the guy who carried it cost less I could see. but 16 points just to deliver 2 str 4 ap 5 shots? idk I just dont like it. 26 points for a guy who delivers 1 str 8 ap 1 shot is more feasable to me. MEQ is everywhere and guard are in cover I want stuff that kills MEQ.

if nothing else the wraitguard/thunderwolf examples show that they cant be relied upon to do the hardcore killing. no matter how many of them you throw at the badguys.

Play Thousand Sons, ap3 bolters, you can move and shoot 24" and you can rapid fire and assault.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:So yeah I guess it's just a general dissatisfaction with tac marines.

I just think its a good idea to minimize the number of them in the force as opposed to flamers and meltas which right now rock for marines.

This portrays an entirely different opinion than what you were stating earlier. I have not seen anyone call tacs completely awesome, but you certainly called them crap.

If you don't like them, don't use them, but try to be honest when you discuss your opinions. I am not going to respond to all of the points that you brought up, because they were addressed earlier by a combination of my replies and others. Ailaros had some great points on this, as well as schadenfreude and Sanctjud, and you responded to them in an honest fashion.

I appreciate it.

I'm not even sure if we are OT here, it really seems like this is what the discussion was about in the first place, concerning bolters for tacs that is.

Marines are not the close combat monsters or shooting experts that other races are. It makes sense that the bolter would go with marines because it does ever thing just well enough. If you have Rhinos just drive up, jump out and rapid fire this will take care of your cover save issues for the most part.

cheapbuster wrote:I like a bitta plohzma

same, but theres no reason to say that bolters aren't good, if you dont want to rapid fire, use the bolt pistol they have, and they can still assault, if Space Marines had a weapon with the str equivalent to tau they would be way overpowered, hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s against most normal infantry and topped with all their other stats it would just make them way to much for 16 points. yes they have the heavy bolter but thats not for every man in the squad.

I really don't think the boltgun is that bad. Same for tacs. I agree that you can take a minimum amount, but they are a solid choice. I think you are looking at the armor and cover save backward, you see, they pack the 3+ with them. They don't have to find something to hide behind. And for as much as there is to pen 3+ armor, there is also just as much that denies cover. I think they are a solid anchor for an army, not a complete plan.

Wrex....
the problem with ok units is the opportunity cost, not the unit itself. for instance a chaos tactical marine is a bad unit bc for 8 points more he could have been a plague marine, who for 23 points is a much better buy than the tac marine at 15. ok units make armies that are just...you know...ok....not great. unless there's some really clever way to use that unit because it has a unique ability...

yes....I try to keep things honest....
AF

I need to eat more than rice. I often eat beans AND rice. Sometimes I add corn, and even meat. Occasionally I wrap that stuff up in a tortilla, slap it around with some guacamole, sour cream, and salsa, then call it a burrito. Smurfs can make a mean burrito and tac marines are just the rice and beans.

If a list I make requires the supplement of tac marines, I will take them in numbers that my cap limits. My tac marines (my rice and beans), bring a whole lot more than bolters to the table, and they do it quite well.

I don't even play Smurfs, I play Eldar. If I want Dire Avengers, I use them because they serve a purpose. I can use Guardians instead if I like, and Wraithguard as troops if I am feeling extra crazy. What my guardians can do, my avengers can't.

Tac marines ignore that. They don't care. They walk onto the field and act like tac marines. They are so bland they are unique. It is actually quite funny when you think about it. They can do what you need them to, but you will often have other units that can perform certain roles in a more efficient way. There is no reason to consider tacs a waste just because you have something in your army that specializes in a certain role.

In 3rd ed, Tactical Marines could take 2 special weapons. We could easily solve the problem with Tactical Marines by making the following changes:

Squad size: 5-10 models.

Cost: 80, 16 pts ea. No longer comes with Vet. Sgt

For every 5 Tactical Marines, 1 may be equipped with a Special or Heavy weapon. If the squad is a full 10 Marines, one may be upgraded to Vet. Sgt for 10 points (w/ current profile).


This would cheapen up the objective holders (do you really need a vet sgt to babysit the missile launcher all the way in the backfield?), and give you a little bit more versatility. Furthermore, kitting out your Tactical squads would finally be worth something: you could run 10x Tactical Marines, 2x Meltaguns, 1x Vet Sgt w/ Combimelta and PF in a Rhino. Now THAT is something I'd pay points for.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Wrex....
the problem with ok units is the opportunity cost, not the unit itself. for instance a chaos tactical marine is a bad unit bc for 8 points more he could have been a plague marine, who for 23 points is a much better buy than the tac marine at 15.

AF

Whoa, whoa, whoa. We need to start a new topic on this if that is how you really feel about CSMs.
Chaos Space Marines (as they are not tactical marines) are the best buys of their time. Certainly codex creep skews things, but within their own codex, they are the cost effective unit choice.

It is an over-generlization to think that plague marines are more cost effective than CSM in all areas and situations. <----------------This is coming from a player that backs plague marines from the beginning of time itself.
____________________________

As an aside... if you want every unit in an army to be 'great', then I suggest going for Warmachine/Hordes... 40K is known for a major element of 'fluff'...which screws with unit choices alot.
____________________________
@Wrex:
Yea it's funny...their specilization is to be a general line-unit. In addition, the Fluff could also skew the expected results of bolters in-game due to game balance...

@Nuggz:
Well, if you want that then you'd just simply play SW or BA.
SMurfs follow the Little Blue Book... and it apparantly says 'no u' to the double specials these days...

Sanctjud wrote:
@Nuggz:
Well, if you want that then you'd just simply play SW or BA.
SMurfs follow the Little Blue Book... and it apparantly says 'no u' to the double specials these days...

Believe me, I've seen the de-evolution of Smurfs. I've been playing since Rogue Trader, and I have to say that post-4+ save Tactical Marines really got kicked in the nuts in 5th edition. There's a reason I play CSM and BA now.


A buddy of mine who's been playing for nearly as long made a comment to me recently, "It's a good thing we don't have save modifiers anymore, because I hated spending the points for Power Armor and ending up with a 4+ save 99% of the time". 5th Edition is an even greater blow: Tac Marines are tougher than they were, but nearly everything else gets a 4+ cover save. This is worse!

Well...I guess hating bolters sub-consciously represents hating GW...

Sanctjud wrote:Well...I guess hating bolters sub-consciously represents hating GW...

Hate is a pretty strong word, but their philosophy to me seems flawed, at least a bit. They achieve game balance via "the big picture", ie: Codices. EX: Tac Marines suck, but Vanilla Marines get cheap Assault Terminators, so it's "balanced". Unfortunately, this leads to most Codices having a very small number of competitive builds. Better points management and rules balance would allow for more competitive builds by all Codices at all points levels: things would just scale better. As it is, you see only the newest Codices producing multiple distinct competitive builds.