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.

 bullyboy wrote:
what's funny is that there were a multitude of posts prior to the codex being dropped asking how to make tactical marines worthwhile. I had actually suggested that free transport upgrades would be good (but paying for weapon upgrades) but my suggestion was that the transport was free only if a full 10 man sqd was taken. This could be the balancing factor. As of right now, taking multiple 5 man sqds with razorbacks is getting an added 78% bonus to each sqd for free.

The problem with their solution being that tac marines still aren't worthwhile or good. Free razorbacks with ObSec are... Just giving them relentless would have actually addressed their issues.

destrucifier wrote:
Very sad. I can't imagine what they were thinking when they wrote that "free transports" rule. You were essentially fielding 2400 points of stuff in a 1750 point game. The difference between this and other broken lists is that this is supposed to be the "standard" way to build a marine army now. You have to choose between playing in groups/tournaments that ban everything that isn't a CA detachment, or you just have to accept that marines get an advantage of hundreds of points in every game by default as long as the player has cash for the tank models. Even free rhinos or pods would be enough to wreck the game.

What they were they thinking? Seriously? They were thinking they wanted to sell Rhinos and tac marines. They just needed rules good enough to get you to buy. Mission accomplished.

ender502

 ender502 wrote:


What they were they thinking? Seriously? They were thinking they wanted to sell Rhinos and tac marines. They just needed rules good enough to get you to buy. Mission accomplished.

ender502

You already had to buy those things. That's why GW invented the force organization chart in 3rd edition. The only difference is you use two demi companies with three tac squads each instead of two CA detachments with two tac squads each. I guess elite competitive players go for the minimum possible number of tac marines and don't bother with transports, but I think the average player tends to use them as a "core" like the fluff would suggest. So basically GW just sold one extra marine box to every hardcore tournament player, big whoop.

I see a lot of people arguing that the gladius with full battle company isn't overpowered because tac marines and razorbacks are no good anyway, or that the free transports are a necessary improvement because tac marines were so weak before. But many tournaments have enacted rules that would suggest otherwise. Why would this be necessary if the free transports and other perks weren't overpowered to the extent that this formation needed to be denied any additional allies?

In any case, simply allowing the player to barter for more points is uncreative and stupid. A special rule requires imagination and it requires the player to read and understand the rules to derive any benefit. Giving the player free units and points is not an acceptable method of making up for an underpowered unit. Why not simply adjust the rules for the underpowered unit?

I think it's time to own up to the reality that your precious Space Marines got a badly written codex. It happens to every faction now and again. No need to get defensive about it.

Tourney players always took transports. But often didn't bother with tactical marines as Scouts are by a distance the better troops choice. Cutting points cost has been the standard way to make a unit better the entire time I've been collecting GW models, this is no difference, you're force to get a whole load of bad units but get them significantly cheaper in points. I quite like this as a mechanic particularly with anything like Tac Marines where they can't shift the points meaningfully as too many codexes have equivalents and for similar reasons can't change the core rules too much (like giving better profiles). However they went a little far and rather than make Tac marines good they made Razorbacks good. Where as something simple like relentless actually allows a Tac marine to fight like a Tac marine it also singles them out as they are supposed to be the best marines outside of the 1st company (who I'd have given PE to so they are better shots/fighters than normal marines).

 FlingitNow wrote:
Tourney players always took transports. But often didn't bother with tactical marines as Scouts are by a distance the better troops choice. Cutting points cost has been the standard way to make a unit better the entire time I've been collecting GW models, this is no difference, you're force to get a whole load of bad units but get them significantly cheaper in points. I quite like this as a mechanic particularly with anything like Tac Marines where they can't shift the points meaningfully as too many codexes have equivalents and for similar reasons can't change the core rules too much (like giving better profiles). However they went a little far and rather than make Tac marines good they made Razorbacks good. Where as something simple like relentless actually allows a Tac marine to fight like a Tac marine it also singles them out as they are supposed to be the best marines outside of the 1st company (who I'd have given PE to so they are better shots/fighters than normal marines).

No doubt giving relentless would have been a great fix to tac marines.