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:
I wasn't worried about him so much as which models to purchases. Are cents a C:SM only thing? What about storm talons?

Again, all speculation:

I think if Wolves or BA were going to get the Talon it would have happened in Death from the Skies. The Cents is a good question, but here's my thoughts. With DA and SM already out, and BT folded into Vanilla, we have a good glimpse into the design vision of Imperial Marines. I think they're trying to make the four remaining books distinct. Not just "my TAC Marines are better" as we've seen. So I think BA and SW will both get a new kit of their own (just like DA and Vanilla did, DA getting many). For SW you can almost guarantee it will be a MC. That's just the direction the game is going, and it's the direction GW has been going with the Wolves for a long time now, less Viking and more Werewolf. I'm also hoping the Wolves get Leman Russ tanks back, because the kits already exist (so it costs GW nothing in development), it distinguishes the books (if that is the goal), and it's CALLED A LEMAN RUSS.

For BA I have no guesses at all. lol.

I can't find any flaws to your logic. You took the safe route with the BA

Martel732 wrote:
Title pretty much says it all. This is a spawn of the "how to CC" thread. Of course, there are the magic exceptions to this, like seer council and screamerstar. But for your grunt space marine of even striking scorpion, they are being charged a lot for gear they will likely never be able to use. Because they will get shot to death.

Spacemarines aren't overcosted. How many units have BS4, T4, ATSKNF grenades, 3+ armor, str4 shooting weapons, and a free CT rule for 14 points?

Assault marines are probably overcosted
Wyches come to mind as more overcosted though
Hellions too
and Mandrakes

Striking scorpions and Howling banshees suffer more from a lack of assault transports rather than being overpriced.

"Spacemarines aren't overcosted. How many units have BS4, T4, ATSKNF grenades, 3+ armor, str4 shooting weapons, and a free CT rule for 14 points? "

I don't know, but none of that stuff seems to mean much in my games. Well, the BS.

Why do I get the feeling that the real issue is more likely that games, (tournaments especially), simply aren't being played with the proper amounts & types of terrain on the table?
2-4 LoS blocking pieces of terrain, and proper placement, as in 'put it in fething play and not uselessly in the corners so you can abuse your gunline like crazy' goes a helluva long way to 'fixing' the supposed suckiness of MEQ's in general.

Have Tau/Eldar likely got a bit too much ap3/2 shooting going? Probably. But it's still not game wrecking if you play on a properly set-up table that's at least 30% covered and includes more beyond just tiny little hills and some itty-bitty trees.

Hell, I routinely see the Fantasy tables set-up with more terrain than the 40k tables! No wonder the shooty armies are having a field day.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Why do I get the feeling that the real issue is more likely that games, (tournaments especially), simply aren't being played with the proper amounts & types of terrain on the table?
2-4 LoS blocking pieces of terrain, and proper placement, as in 'put it in fething play and not uselessly in the corners so you can abuse your gunline like crazy' goes a helluva long way to 'fixing' the supposed suckiness of MEQ's in general.

Have Tau/Eldar likely got a bit too much ap3/2 shooting going? Probably. But it's still not game wrecking if you play on a properly set-up table that's at least 30% covered and includes more beyond just tiny little hills and some itty-bitty trees.

Hell, I routinely see the Fantasy tables set-up with more terrain than the 40k tables! No wonder the shooty armies are having a field day.

This has been discussed quite a bit. There are compelling arguments for how terrain actually hinders assaulting armies. I don't think the answer is this simple. Meqs have a lot of problems in this edition that go beyond terrain.

You clearly don't quite understand the problem because Eldar/Tau aren't getting it done with AP 2/3. They are getting it done with wound spam. No amount of cover other than 2+ will help meqs against this approach. I think meq's lack of effective counter fire is a bigger problem. Hence, the call for Tiggy enhanced cents and the like.

Let me preface this point by saying I actually think Assault is fine in 6ED. Just like shooting, it has been cranked up to the extreme and that only ridiculous shooting or assault lists can win a GT

That said, I at least somewhat agree with him in regards to the TAC Marine. I may do some math on this later (got a work function I'm about to leave for so this is a rushed post)

Let's briefly compare the "generalist" Troop choice of a TAC Marine to two common specialists (as in, you will see on the table at a tourney), the Fire Warrior and the Daemonnette. In theory, the generalist troop should be able to sometimes beat the specialist by "Dakka the Choppa, Choppa the Dakka"

Martel's issue is that the TAC Marine will get shot to death by the Fire Warrior, and won't have enough strength left to win the combat by the time he hits assault. Conversely, he will not do enough damage in shooting to the Daemonette to win the combat once the Daemonnete hits him. I feel there is some truth to this statement.

Where as, arguably, a Grey Hunter can do enough damage with the remnants of his squad to murder Fire Warriors, and stand tall to the Daemonnettes once they hit him. Again, the Generalist should not always win Troop show downs, but he should at least sometimes win by engaging in areas the specialists are weak to. TAC Marines this is arguably not the case.

"Martel's issue is that the TAC Marine will get shot to death by the Fire Warrior, and won't have enough strength left to win the combat by the time he hits assault. Conversely, he will not do enough damage in shooting to the Daemonette to win the combat once the Daemonnete hits him. I feel there is some truth to this statement. "

Yup. Tac marines have *always* had this problem.

And why I *hated* the Grey Hunter in 5th ed, because that's what I felt all marines should be like. So they can be, you know, marines.

Well if marine players want those pistol+ccw , then they can play space sharks . FW has chapter tactics that lets tacticals buy ccw for 1 point.

Makumba wrote:
Well if marine players want those pistol+ccw , then they can play space sharks . FW has chapter tactics that lets tacticals buy ccw for 1 point.

It's more than that. It's counter attack. It's double special instead of special/heavy. Plus, not everyone is allowed to use FW, so that can't be a general solution.

So the general solution is to make static gunlines like IG suck , because marines who don't want to play shoty armies or bike armies or pod using armies are getting beaten in an edition that clearly tells them to do just that ?
Well then I want guardsman to be able to out melee zerkers , if taniths can do it , then cadians should too.Specialy with their extra insight about chaos tactics.

And the option to detonate your own crack or las carabine in melee range of a meq , just like it is done in the fluff.

No, the general solution is to make models perform in *real games* as their points would indicate. And if the published points are found to be inaccurate, change them.

The increased volume of fire and the quality of it is what makes assault units over costed, unless they can reach combat in 1/2 turns without losing too many.

There's simply no way to cost units vs assault when so many armies have fire power enough to destroy many units completely in a single turn.

If shooting was less accurate, less deadly and costly enough you could have assault units that survive walking across the board (like Banshees).

It's not that Banshees suck at their task (although the AP3 power weapon nerf in 6th was a blow), it's that all armies can destroy them without effort in a single turn and still have fire power left to kill other units.

Even with enough terrain, 5+/4+ cover saves don't protect against torrents of shooting.

Makumba wrote:
So the general solution is to make static gunlines like IG suck , because marines who don't want to play shoty armies or bike armies or pod using armies are getting beaten in an edition that clearly tells them to do just that ?
Well then I want guardsman to be able to out melee zerkers , if taniths can do it , then cadians should too.Specialy with their extra insight about chaos tactics.

And the option to detonate your own crack or las carabine in melee range of a meq , just like it is done in the fluff.

I actually like that solution. Gunlines are no fun to play with and even less fun to play against.

Yeah, give them options to sacrifice something to gain a one turn awesome attack. Like their lasgun. Why not!
Or make shooting much weaker, but make overwatch much more powerful.
atleast that lets the assaulters get to actually assault!
If they die a bloody death doing it, atleast you got to try! Footslogging only to go "whelp, no units left." is not a whole load of fun.

I wouldn't say that, I had a unit of banshees kill a dreadknight in my last tourney. lol
I would say that bringing the gun back into the game and making it worthwhile to take guns has made you be more tactical and strategic in the use of assault.
yes, some of the old no brainers are no long that and are now overcosted but others have stepped up to replace them.
I find that now, I have to THINk more during the game (regardless of which side am on) than ever before.

I think the biggest problem is that the game has limited turns

Most shooty units are effective turn 1, 2 at the latest. The rapid fire changes essentially doubled the range of most shooting (well...18" to 30", but you get the idea) which means this is true for practically every troop choice in the game. Unit count wise, troops tend to make up a lions share of the army.

Compared that to assault units. These are effective at turn 2 at the earliest, with 3-4 being a much more common number. Often they only get 1-2 rounds to be effective at most, while shooting units get 5. This used to be balanced by the fact they wiped entire units at a time and got to go in both players turns, but now wiping a unit isn't as great as it used to be.

Perhaps the best change would be that if you were in combat in your turn, that unit receives a 5+ cover save until your next turn. Give them the option to go to ground, consolidate their initiative in inches, or pursue.

IMO. If you want to assault, you NEED LOTS of assault units. Orks do this very well in that, no matter what you shoot at, they will most likely get into combat with you. now, fast vehicles with open topped goodness (really, these things make orks work "DECENTLY") imo if you allowed marines to assault from rhinos again this "problem" would be solved.

but to the original point, if you have an even threat spread of assault units, its harder for them to focus them down. This is one of the very, very, VERY few things BA have. Torrent fire is -slightly- less effective vs them thanks to them having 3+/5+ FnP. (counter acted by there ppm cost) but since they can take these ASM as troops they can "spam" them. and with on avg 14-15" moves a turn gunlines will get caught T2 or T3. with that many ASM wave serpants have little room to maneuver.


now, for Tacs. TBH I HATE THEM, I wish we had better troop choices. not only do we lose shooting vs 2 IG units (if they are in a measly 5+ cover) half the time due to lack luster shooting, but the 1 SW 1 HW hurts. I am starting to never take any HWs on my tacs as then I don't feel bad about actually moving them and using them "tactically" the HW is, imo a trap option. It looks nice but fails its function. if you take one take a HB IMO. as then you can at least snap shoot (ML -can- work) The reason is, if you take that MM, LC. then if want to use it against vehicles rendering the squads fire wasted. (SW don't have this problem....) but if you use the LC,ML,MM vs infantry where you can "maxmize" your already wanting firepower that 1 shot has a 1/3 chance to miss, then at the least a 1/5 chance to be "dodged) and a 1/6 chance to not wound at all.

While I will say T4 really hasn't helped much. the 3+ armor IS nice. semi good dice rolls (which is really what this game is) can cripple a VoF armies turn of shooting.

Or with bad die rolls, the game is over on turn 1. Been there, done that.

Also, mass ASM lists die like slime to MC circuses.

Martel732 wrote:
Or with bad die rolls, the game is over on turn 1. Been there, done that.

Also, mass ASM lists die like slime to MC circuses.

well most things DO (like, what doesn't?). I am not saying that its the most effective build, and every army has its weakness. (even deamons and eldar). but plopping power fists on the sang priests can actually help vs those MCs. (power axe/ maul on the sgt as well).

but dice, are dice. some armies do have more to throw, and at a certain point more dice thrown will beat less dice. BUT I find that going second as a assault armies actually helps me over first turn. 1, I can counter place my units to nullify as much firepower as possible. 2 I can steal the int every 6th game XD. 3. I can place my units where I want them based on the enemy list/positioning. the 3rd one is the biggest thing for me. I also find that most volume of fire armies cannot effectively deal with mephiston. (specially with LoS blocked from half the army and a 5+ FnP.)

but BA aside marines are not meant to be a CC army. even in the fluff the CC is done as a last resort/ by the "hero" marines. but it takes BAD dice rolls to lose T 2, decent Die rolls to make a game, and good die rolls to reliably win. where as eldar/tau can reliably win with decent die rolls on the average.

I find Sm does CC relatively well, but only with the biker champ death star. Th/SS termies are alright, but not great. If I ran them I'd want to put them in a raider and use them with the bikers to give a pronged attack up the flanks.

The only counter to MCs I have found are Dark eldar (poison), and even they are just alright. Not really relevant to the discussion anyway.

I agree that Assault is functionally a dead end ATM, save for demons as an army design. Hopefully the nid and orkndex will change this. I haven't used my nids much since this codex dropped

 raiden wrote:
I
now, for Tacs. TBH I HATE THEM, I wish we had better troop choices. not only do we lose shooting vs 2 IG units (if they are in a measly 5+ cover) half the time due to lack luster shooting, but the 1 SW 1 HW hurts. I am starting to never take any HWs on my tacs as then I don't feel bad about actually moving them and using them "tactically" the HW is, imo a trap option. It looks nice but fails its function. if you take one take a HB IMO. as then you can at least snap shoot (ML -can- work) The reason is, if you take that MM, LC. then if want to use it against vehicles rendering the squads fire wasted. (SW don't have this problem....) but if you use the LC,ML,MM vs infantry where you can "maxmize" your already wanting firepower that 1 shot has a 1/3 chance to miss, then at the least a 1/5 chance to be "dodged) and a 1/6 chance to not wound at all.

While I will say T4 really hasn't helped much. the 3+ armor IS nice. semi good dice rolls (which is really what this game is) can cripple a VoF armies turn of shooting.

They're "tactical" marines, you are paying points to be active in every phase of the game, assault grenades, AT grenades, pistols for charging fire, solid S,T,WS, BS, I and save. They are unsweepable, auto rally, can split into combat squads, deep strike with pods (on the first turn no less), take transports, chapter tactics.
The flexibility afforded by tactical marines is astounding compared to other races basic troopers. The number of situations where a Tac marine has a fighting chance instead of being totally incapable compared to Avengers, Guard, Gaunts or Fire Warriors is substantial.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 raiden wrote:
I
now, for Tacs. TBH I HATE THEM, I wish we had better troop choices. not only do we lose shooting vs 2 IG units (if they are in a measly 5+ cover) half the time due to lack luster shooting, but the 1 SW 1 HW hurts. I am starting to never take any HWs on my tacs as then I don't feel bad about actually moving them and using them "tactically" the HW is, imo a trap option. It looks nice but fails its function. if you take one take a HB IMO. as then you can at least snap shoot (ML -can- work) The reason is, if you take that MM, LC. then if want to use it against vehicles rendering the squads fire wasted. (SW don't have this problem....) but if you use the LC,ML,MM vs infantry where you can "maxmize" your already wanting firepower that 1 shot has a 1/3 chance to miss, then at the least a 1/5 chance to be "dodged) and a 1/6 chance to not wound at all.

While I will say T4 really hasn't helped much. the 3+ armor IS nice. semi good dice rolls (which is really what this game is) can cripple a VoF armies turn of shooting.

They're "tactical" marines, you are paying points to be active in every phase of the game, assault grenades, AT grenades, pistols for charging fire, solid S,T,WS, BS, I and save. They are unsweepable, auto rally, can split into combat squads, deep strike with pods (on the first turn no less), take transports, chapter tactics.
The flexibility afforded by tactical marines is astounding compared to other races basic troopers. The number of situations where a Tac marine has a fighting chance instead of being totally incapable compared to Avengers, Guard, Gaunts or Fire Warriors is substantial.

I disagree, but I guess GW agrees with you. 6th edition is an edition of specialists. 75% of what you just listed off is a non-factor in most of the games I both play in and *read about* from battle reports. Remember that unsweepable is a disadvantage a good deal of the time now. That's how good shooting is; you WANT your own troops to die so you can shoot more. The game itself is too imbalanced for tactical marines to really have these advantages you describe.

I can also tell you that when I army swap, or borrow my buddy's lists, I don't miss most of these "advantages", either. They are simply too corner-case now.

Basic space marines havnt changed since 3rd edition. The stats are all the same. Eldar gaurdians are way better than they ever were and chapter tactics are just silly little band aids. No matter how random they make demons there still new and improved compared to marines. I dont want to see them get cheaper. I want them to be better. Back in the day Dark Reapers wiping half a squad of SM was an accomplishment. Now a days it would be considered poor shooting. SMs need a serious overhaul to be what they were always intended to be: elite. Thier basic 3rd Ed stats, armor, and weapons need to be changed to deal with the current edition. I dont want them changed to be "correctly priced", i want them to be worth thier points. Making them cheaper and keeping the current rules means i just pull them off the board by the bucket full. At which point im just playing IG with crappy tanks.

Whole heartedly agree.
While I'm still new to the game, I quickly reduced the number of TACs to the absolute minimum required by the FoC. Getting a HQ which enables other troop choices is obligatory... In my case Belial, Sammael or Azrael. Removes a big fat weakness from your army.