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.

 wtwlf123 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Scouts do the special weapons thing cheaper.

Except they don't. You can only take one special weapon per 5 guys instead of 2, which keeps you from being able to do ...everything I described using Tac Squads for.

You need the Rhino at minimum to deliver the Special Weapons. That's 150ish points.

Instead, you take the two scout squads with Combi-Weapons and you get that for less.

They are better because this edition is all about running MSU. Tacs allow for cheaper MSU then the primaris marines.

I'd rather have the Twin Assault Cannon Razorback and both my special weapons in 1 squad than another min squad of Scouts.

The Razor is a better unit than the Scouts, and it gives me mobility, screening, tarpitting, and the ability to deliver my pair of specials (and the accompanying Captain/Lieutenant with the 3rd matching special) where they need to go.

There's more advantages to a Razor + double-special Tac Squad than just points. I can use them to perform tasks for me on the battlefield that the Scots just can't do.

 wtwlf123 wrote:
I'd rather have the Twin Assault Cannon Razorback and both my special weapons in 1 squad than another min squad of Scouts.

The Razor is a better unit than the Scouts, and it gives me mobility, screening, tarpitting, and the ability to deliver my pair of specials (and the accompanying Captain/Lieutenant with the 3rd matching special) where they need to go.

There's more advantages to a Razor + double-special Tac Squad than just points. I can use them to perform tasks for me on the battlefield that the Scots just can't do.

Except with the Scouts you don't have to run the Razorback up the field. It still gets unlocked, and you don't have to bother using it as a transport and instead you focus on the shooting aspect of it. Two Scout squads with the Combi Weapons and a R azorback actually isn't much more expensive than what you want to do, and I'm getting significantly more bodies to boot.

But they're significantly worse at what I'm asking them to do, and they lack in mobility, survivability and firepower... Not to mention that they simply aren't doing what I want my Tac Squads to be doing either. They're cheaper, but that doesn't matter if they're not any good.

I like taking a single squad of Sniper Scouts to camp a backfield objective, target characters, make pot-shots to deliver mortal wounds, and using the one heavy weapon that they can take to deliver extra firepower to whatever target you want extra guns to shoot at. But they simply can't replace Tac Squads in Razors as survivable, mobile, midfield delivery mechanisms for multiple special weapons (w/ ObSec) in MSUs. The only thing in the codex that does that Tac Squads, and there really isn't an alternative that can do that for you.

 wtwlf123 wrote:
But they're significantly worse at what I'm asking them to do, and they lack in mobility, survivability and firepower... Not to mention that they simply aren't doing what I want my Tac Squads to be doing either. They're cheaper, but that doesn't matter if they're not any good.

I like taking a single squad of Sniper Scouts to camp a backfield objective, target characters, make pot-shots to deliver mortal wounds, and using the one heavy weapon that they can take to deliver extra firepower to whatever target you want extra guns to shoot at. But they simply can't replace Tac Squads in Razors as survivable, mobile, midfield delivery mechanisms for multiple special weapons (w/ ObSec) in MSUs. The only thing in the codex that does that Tac Squads, and there really isn't an alternative that can do that for you.

1. They can Infiltrate. They ARE mobile. You don't want to do that? Buy a Storm I guess. Except you don't need to...
2. They're 2 or 3 points cheaper for a 4+ instead of a 3+. That's honestly not much less survivability for the points and you know it.
3. They carry the same firepower! I just showed that! Plus instead of gak Bolters you can get Shotguns or extra melee weapons instead.

So yeah they are doing what you want Tactical Marines to do. You're just in denial about it. That's a unit that hasn't been good for years upon years, and I've been playing since mid 4th edition. They haven't changed, but Scouts always got better.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I dont think youd listen to any argument Id put forth, so I wont bother. But Imo, youre not seeing them in the right perspective. Tacs take part of a larger picture, but the larger picture has to fit them. If youre limiting youself to just comparing units to units without the bigger picture, youre going to pass them over.

I GAVE the bigger picture.

And you cant see past it to a different one. See? I knew you wouldn't be willing to look at it from a different perspective.

But if what you're depending on is myopic stat-to-stat comparisons, Scouts to Tacs. A Lascannon is objectively better at anti-heavy than a Missile Launcher, and 3+ saves are objectively better than 4+ saves. Therefore, Tacticals are objectively better at anti-heavy, and objectively better in a firefight or CC because they have better saves.

The Tac-inclusive bigger picture recognizes those advantages and uses them accordingly.

Scouts are less survivable than tacticals per point. That's their drawback, and it's a fairly big one. Even with hiding in cover with camo cloaks, they're as survivable as a tac squad in cover, but cost more.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wtwlf123 wrote:
But they're significantly worse at what I'm asking them to do, and they lack in mobility, survivability and firepower... Not to mention that they simply aren't doing what I want my Tac Squads to be doing either. They're cheaper, but that doesn't matter if they're not any good.

I like taking a single squad of Sniper Scouts to camp a backfield objective, target characters, make pot-shots to deliver mortal wounds, and using the one heavy weapon that they can take to deliver extra firepower to whatever target you want extra guns to shoot at. But they simply can't replace Tac Squads in Razors as survivable, mobile, midfield delivery mechanisms for multiple special weapons (w/ ObSec) in MSUs. The only thing in the codex that does that Tac Squads, and there really isn't an alternative that can do that for you.

1. They can Infiltrate. They ARE mobile. You don't want to do that? Buy a Storm I guess. Except you don't need to...
2. They're 2 or 3 points cheaper for a 4+ instead of a 3+. That's honestly not much less survivability for the points and you know it.
3. They carry the same firepower! I just showed that! Plus instead of gak Bolters you can get Shotguns or extra melee weapons instead.

So yeah they are doing what you want Tactical Marines to do. You're just in denial about it. That's a unit that hasn't been good for years upon years, and I've been playing since mid 4th edition. They haven't changed, but Scouts always got better.

1. After deployment, they're slogging. Tacs in Razors can move towards their targets, and afterwards, can move across the field to secure objectives.
2. Survivability is more than just the armor save. Being inside a Razorback instead of being exposed dudes with a 4+ save makes them far more survivable, and you know it.
3. They don't carry the same firepower when you factor in the Twin Assault Cannon on the Razorback.

And you continue to ignore all the advantages that come with the Razor. Including allowing you to deliver the cheap HQ that works with the squad, and providing a mechanism for keeping that HQ with the squad and moving around the battlefield.

So no, they can't do what I'm asking my Tac Marines to do. Perhaps you're just in denial about it? Using Tac Marines in transports was the correct troops choice in 4th and 5th, and they're still the only viable option for troops IF you're using them as mobile, survivable, midfield special weapon delivery systems.

Scouts have their battlefield role, but replacing Tac Squads as a delivery system for special weapons isn't one of 'em. Same goes for Intercessors. There are things they do well, but they're absolutely not a straight-up replacement for what Tac Squads can provide for you. They're different, not better. And they're played differently. So no, I can't just replace Tacticals with Scouts and get the same effect for cheaper. Not even remotely close.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I dont think youd listen to any argument Id put forth, so I wont bother. But Imo, youre not seeing them in the right perspective. Tacs take part of a larger picture, but the larger picture has to fit them. If youre limiting youself to just comparing units to units without the bigger picture, youre going to pass them over.

I GAVE the bigger picture.

And you cant see past it to a different one. See? I knew you wouldn't be willing to look at it from a different perspective.

But if what you're depending on is myopic stat-to-stat comparisons, Scouts to Tacs. A Lascannon is objectively better at anti-heavy than a Missile Launcher, and 3+ saves are objectively better than 4+ saves. Therefore, Tacticals are objectively better at anti-heavy, and objectively better in a firefight or CC because they have better saves.

The Tac-inclusive bigger picture recognizes those advantages and uses them accordingly.

1. Those things are better until you look at the price for them. I'm getting the job you want done by Tacticals, but by Scouts for MUCH cheaper and about the same effectiveness. Points is key here. A Space Marine could have 10's across the board but nobody will use the unit if they're like 400 points each. Tactical Marines have the stats of a 13-14 point model, but they get none of the applications because of how the unit's loadout can be done. That's why Scouts and Intercessors and Devastators actually work without needing free transports. That, or you use Scouts to get your minimum troop tax for pretty cheap.
2. You aren't winning CC in your scenario if the Scouts have CCW equipped. Or even just a few of them equipped with the CCW.
3. Those are non-advantages. Scouts have been used competitively for the reasons I gave. Devastators (though significantly less so) have been used competitively for the reasons I gave. It literally took FREE Razorbacks to get anybody to use the Tactical Marine in that setting. So unless you're suggesting simply nobody is enlightened besides a VERY few people in this forum, and that Tactical Marines were good the entire time, you're wrong plain and simple.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Scouts are less survivable than tacticals per point. That's their drawback, and it's a fairly big one. Even with hiding in cover with camo cloaks, they're as survivable as a tac squad in cover, but cost more.

Not really? I wouldn't even bother with the camo even on Sniper loadouts, as GW definitely got the price wrong on those. That or they need to change the benefit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wtwlf123 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 wtwlf123 wrote:
But they're significantly worse at what I'm asking them to do, and they lack in mobility, survivability and firepower... Not to mention that they simply aren't doing what I want my Tac Squads to be doing either. They're cheaper, but that doesn't matter if they're not any good.

I like taking a single squad of Sniper Scouts to camp a backfield objective, target characters, make pot-shots to deliver mortal wounds, and using the one heavy weapon that they can take to deliver extra firepower to whatever target you want extra guns to shoot at. But they simply can't replace Tac Squads in Razors as survivable, mobile, midfield delivery mechanisms for multiple special weapons (w/ ObSec) in MSUs. The only thing in the codex that does that Tac Squads, and there really isn't an alternative that can do that for you.

1. They can Infiltrate. They ARE mobile. You don't want to do that? Buy a Storm I guess. Except you don't need to...
2. They're 2 or 3 points cheaper for a 4+ instead of a 3+. That's honestly not much less survivability for the points and you know it.
3. They carry the same firepower! I just showed that! Plus instead of gak Bolters you can get Shotguns or extra melee weapons instead.

So yeah they are doing what you want Tactical Marines to do. You're just in denial about it. That's a unit that hasn't been good for years upon years, and I've been playing since mid 4th edition. They haven't changed, but Scouts always got better.

1. After deployment, they're slogging. Tacs in Razors can move towards their targets, and afterwards, can move across the field to secure objectives.
2. Survivability is more than just the armor save. Being inside a Razorback instead of being exposed dudes with a 4+ save makes them far more survivable, and you know it.
3. They don't carry the same firepower when you factor in the Twin Assault Cannon on the Razorback.

And you continue to ignore all the advantages that come with the Razor. Including allowing you to deliver the cheap HQ that works with the squad, and providing a mechanism for keeping that HQ with the squad and moving around the battlefield.

So no, they can't do what I'm asking my Tac Marines to do. Perhaps you're just in denial about it? Using Tac Marines in transports was the correct troops choice in 4th and 5th, and they're still the only viable option for troops IF you're using them as mobile, survivable, midfield special weapon delivery systems.

Scouts have their battlefield role, but replacing Tac Squads as a delivery system for special weapons isn't one of 'em. Same goes for Intercessors. There are things they do well, but they're absolutely not a straight-up replacement for what Tac Squads can provide for you. They're different, not better. And they're played differently. So no, I can't just replace Tacticals with Scouts and get the same effect for cheaper. Not even remotely close.

1. Who cares if they footslog? They're already where they need to be! Neither Scouts or Tactical Marines are going to live long enough anyway to get back in a Transport so I don't know what's the argument you're really proposing here. Next.
2. A Razorback that needs a turn minimum to get those Marines there, and therefore already exposed to AT ready to go? They're being used as firing platforms for a reason, not a transport.
I'd maybe buy the argument for a Rhino, but why bother when the Razorback and Scouts already exist as is?
3. Anything unlocks a Razorback now. Hell, I just get a Razorback fix from Scouts and then Infiltrated Sternguard with Lias or Raven Guard stuff.

I wouldn't ever want to use the Razorback as a transport. That's ignoring its best selling point. The transport capacity might as well not exist at all! I'm not in denial of anything.

It's not worth my time and effort to create a giant wall of text restating the same things I've already mentioned several times now. I've illustrated my points, and you've done literally nothing to refute them, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. All the best.

Yes, really. Scouts aren't frontline units.

Equipped with boltguns, they're worse tacticals. Only one special weapon (via sarge combiweapon), and a worse armor save meaning they're going to die faster.

Equipped with shotguns, they might be manageable as a cheap shooty assault unit... but even then, they're kinda chaff, and expensive chaff at that.

Equipped with combat knives and bolt pistols they're worse footslogging assault marines. Never actually seen anyone equip scouts this way... IDK, maybe it could work as a way to have the scouts absorb overwatch for your dedicated assault units? Buuuut you're better off using a rhino for that..

Equipped with sniper rifles and maybe a heavy weapon, they actually have a unique purpose, but in that case they're best kept in the back pinging away at targets, which means they fulfill a very different role than tacticals.

Don't get me wrong, I actually like scouts, and currently use them in my list. But what I'm saying is, be realistic about what they can accomplish, and be realistic about the trade-off you make in picking them over tacticals.

 wtwlf123 wrote:
It's not worth my time and effort to create a giant wall of text restating the same things I've already mentioned several times now. I've illustrated my points, and you've done literally nothing to refute them, so we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on. All the best.

Agreed. Not much of a point continuing here.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


3. Anything unlocks a Razorback now. Hell, I just get a Razorback fix from Scouts and then Infiltrated Sternguard with Lias or Raven Guard stuff.

But this way you'll end with more drops. Tac squads in a razorback are single drops, deep striking scouts and a razorback are two drops. I think razorbacks with twin assault cannons are among the most overpowered SM stuff, behind guilliman and stormravens which are the cheesiest units.

You don't even need to worry about the AT since you're not playing a single razorback but 3 at least, tipycally with a stormraven and maybe with other vehicles. With SW I have pretty much everything on the board that is an ideal target for anti tank weapons so fielding tanks that may soak the AT that can cripple other valuable units is very helpful. If you field footslogging scouts you offer an appopriate target for enemy anti infantry weapons, which are wasted in the first turns if you go with mass T7+ bodies or other armored multiwounds units with T5 or 2+ save that can use storm shields..

I like Ravenguard/Raptor tactical marines. I can't speak competitively, but I take a couple of 10 men squads with a heavy, special and combi weapon pseudo infiltrated or deep striking (via Lias Issodon).

No transport cost and gets them where they need to go. I also bring bare bone Scouts every game as they are very useful.

They do fine for me so far in your average game.

These threads are always an interesting read. Coming from someone who just plays casually against a limited choice of armies, my Tacticals have always served me just fine, but the points raised here are always helpful to consider.

However, I have to ask the people that find Tacticals underperforming, or rather just not serving any particular use on the battlefield, how would you suggest fixing them? Honest question, I would like to hear your thoughts and perhaps consider some house-ruling if, in time, I find that Tacticals in 8th edition are leaving a lot to be desired.

 Bubbles wrote:
These threads are always an interesting read. Coming from someone who just plays casually against a limited choice of armies, my Tacticals have always served me just fine, but the points raised here are always helpful to consider.

However, I have to ask the people that find Tacticals underperforming, or rather just not serving any particular use on the battlefield, how would you suggest fixing them? Honest question, I would like to hear your thoughts and perhaps consider some house-ruling if, in time, I find that Tacticals in 8th edition are leaving a lot to be desired.

Tacticals better? Givem 2 wounds and call them intersessors.

Intercessors can't wield plasmaguns. Or melta... or flamer... or grav... or... anything other than their basic three choices, which are all very generalist and limited in comparison to the specialist equipment of a tactical squad.

Or ride in transports cheaper htan a land raider.

Right. Intercessors could give Tacticals a run for their money if they could take good weapons and ride in good transports. But as it stands, they're pretty niche, and I wouldn't really ever be interested in running more than 1 squad of 'em. They're solid midfield objective campers, but they don't fill any specific battlefield role, and thus aren't of much use to me.

First...their weapons are good - vs infantry.

Second - marines cost more than intersessors once you start gearing them. I'd much rather have additional wounds than 1 turn of good fire power.

I can get super plasma guns on hellblasters and they also have 2 wounds. Why wouldn't I just put plasma there?

Because they don't count as troops. And can't ride in transports, so you can't deliver the firepower where it needs to be. And they're really expensive.

And Tacticals are cheaper than Intercessors, even with two special weapons. And again, it's those weapons that give them a specific function. 5 dudes footslogging around with Bolt Rifles are only so useful. But a Tac Squad kitted out with the right weapons can actually perform a specific role you need them to do.

Like Scouts, Intercessors have their uses, and they can be good in the right quantities in the right lists. But also like Scouts, they're not a replacement for Tac Squads if you're using Tac Squads for what they're good at. They're only a replacement option for Tacticals if you were planning on taking 100 points of bare Marines and having them walk around. Which nobody was doing...

Edit: I'm not suggesting that Intercessors (or Scouts) are bad. In fact, they're both solid options. I just don't think either of them are straight replacements for Tac Squads, and the way I use my Tac Squads, they can't effectively be swapped out for either of those options without losing too much of their critical function.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I can get super plasma guns on hellblasters and they also have 2 wounds. Why wouldn't I just put plasma there?

They strike me as very expensive targets. Tacticals require the enemy to dig through a few guys to get at the Special Weapon meat. Devastators have the same advantage. Hellblaster squads seem like a liability to me, armed like Sternguard with Combi's in previous editions, except they can't even get into a Drop Pod.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I can get super plasma guns on hellblasters and they also have 2 wounds. Why wouldn't I just put plasma there?

They strike me as very expensive targets. Tacticals require the enemy to dig through a few guys to get at the Special Weapon meat. Devastators have the same advantage. Hellblaster squads seem like a liability to me, armed like Sternguard with Combi's in previous editions, except they can't even get into a Drop Pod.

They are harder to kill per point than tactical marines. Plus taking an odd number of wounds leaves you with another soldier standing. They aren't spectacular - but they are much better than tacticals. Once close combat is factored in it seems like a no brainer too me. I took tacticals in my first game of 8th edition and a 5 man squad lost assault to tau steath suits - which are actually more impressive than tacticals in cc it seem. never looked back since.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wtwlf123 wrote:
Because they don't count as troops. And can't ride in transports, so you can't deliver the firepower where it needs to be. And they're really expensive.

And Tacticals are cheaper than Intercessors, even with two special weapons. And again, it's those weapons that give them a specific function. 5 dudes footslogging around with Bolt Rifles are only so useful. But a Tac Squad kitted out with the right weapons can actually perform a specific role you need them to do.

Like Scouts, Intercessors have their uses, and they can be good in the right quantities in the right lists. But also like Scouts, they're not a replacement for Tac Squads if you're using Tac Squads for what they're good at. They're only a replacement option for Tacticals if you were planning on taking 100 points of bare Marines and having them walk around. Which nobody was doing...

Edit: I'm not suggesting that Intercessors (or Scouts) are bad. In fact, they're both solid options. I just don't think either of them are straight replacements for Tac Squads, and the way I use my Tac Squads, they can't effectively be swapped out for either of those options without losing too much of their critical function.

okay so a 5 man with 2 specials comes in just under 100 points. It a negligible difference. Now you have a 5 man power armor unit...you not taking a rhino? If not - youre shooting 2 plasma shots at 24 inch range - sorry - that's a waste. You have to give them a transport or they will just be killed before they get in rapid fire range. Interssesors will likely live and are often ignored because they have 2 wounds. The 2 CC attacks makes a big difference too. Points saved not taking a transport means more good stuff on the field. Plus you are really getting a better unit too...I don't understand why tactical defenders don't see this. Also it's like you are ignoring the aux grenade launcher - it's better than a plasma gun in a lot of situations + its free. So your spending roughly the same points to get 2 specials instead of one - at the cost of 5 wounds and 5 cc attacks. Is this not ringing in yet?

 Melissia wrote:
Yes, really. Scouts aren't frontline units.

Equipped with boltguns, they're worse tacticals. Only one special weapon (via sarge combiweapon), and a worse armor save meaning they're going to die faster.

Equipped with shotguns, they might be manageable as a cheap shooty assault unit... but even then, they're kinda chaff, and expensive chaff at that.

Equipped with combat knives and bolt pistols they're worse footslogging assault marines. Never actually seen anyone equip scouts this way... IDK, maybe it could work as a way to have the scouts absorb overwatch for your dedicated assault units? Buuuut you're better off using a rhino for that..

Equipped with sniper rifles and maybe a heavy weapon, they actually have a unique purpose, but in that case they're best kept in the back pinging away at targets, which means they fulfill a very different role than tacticals.

Don't get me wrong, I actually like scouts, and currently use them in my list. But what I'm saying is, be realistic about what they can accomplish, and be realistic about the trade-off you make in picking them over tacticals.

I already agree that Scouts shouldn't be equipped with Bolters, because that ultimately makes them a worse Tactical. In other lineups they do the Tactical Job better, though. You can argue that is a point in favor for Tactical Marines, but I already can get a better source of Bolters if I want them via Sternguard (they're maybe 5 more points for more range and defeating armor of 5+ units. They also got that one Strategems, but I won't mention it for this scenario), Assault Centurions (now more attractive thanks to the point decrease, but then you need a Spartan or Raider so that's definitely not in their favor. I do like the Spartan model model a lot though, even if expensive in game and out game. Entirely off topic), and slightly related is the Heavy Bolter Turret (which I'm using a lot of just for Conscripts and Genestealers). Let's observe the loadouts in more detail.
1. Sniper Rifles + ML is the equivalent for sitting on an objective with a Lascannon. Now, the main advantage for the Lascannon is that it's a better weapon overall for a specific task. However, you only ever get one on a Tactical Squad, which limits use in the same manner as it does with the ML on Scouts. That's not part of the conversation though so we won't consider that.
Now, the other primary issue is that the Bolters don't have near the same range as the Lascannon, nor do they want similar targets. Sniper Rifles have the better range, which helps, but with potential mortal wounds you can plunk maybe a wound off a vehicle or monster (plus there's the whole character targeting thing, but that's causing so few wounds I won't even bother considering it as a positive, but I'll allow you to) That's better synergy, though mostly due to range alone.
Now the sniper rifles will be worse in <12", but when you were packing the Lascannon you weren't going to be thinking about moving much forward anyway, the ML has slight infantry targeting (though it's an average of 3 Bolter shots you gotta hit, so it isn't terribly great for It unless spammed via Devastators), and therefore both the Scouts and Tactical Marines are, well, dead. The slightly lower durability (3+ vs 4+) isn't mattering here.

Hence why , for camping a home objective, I would pick Scouts every single time. However, I would rather just use Devastators anyway. I'm planning to build a single squad like that though for completionism.

2. Next one we will talk about is taking objectives on the opponents side of the field. The recommended for Tactical Marines here is a special weapon, a Combi-Weapon, and a Razorback or Rhino to transport them. I don't like that for several reasons:
A. The Razorback isn't durable for the points to be transporting things, and therefore taking a hit on its accuracy
B. The Razorback has no firing points as far as I know. If it does I'll concede on Point B
C. I cannot expect the squad to live in this situation, so how much am I really willing to spend on them?
D. A Rhino isn't too much cheaper than the Razorback so you almost just want to spring for it.

Transportation is nice for getting around, but if I have natural mobility why would I ever spring for the transport? So for the sake of the conversation in this first part, we will assume you're choosing the Rhino because it is cheaper. This will run you 140 points-ish. I'm not at a computer and I sure as hell haven't memorized all the new prices (because I can't grab my own copy of the codex until tomorrow, borrowing be damned).
Now, for a little less than that, we can instead have two Scout squads with two Combi-Weapons instead. The real advantage for the Tactical Marines in This scenario is that the Rhino can protect them. However, look at the prime advantages for the Scouts:
A. They're where you want them to be T1. This allows the weapons to go off ASAP, instead of waiting a turn to rush the Rhino up the board to do it.
B. It's two separate targets to kill off the special weapons. They're the damage dealers and have always been.
C. They don't have to use Bolters!
Now, the last point you might always disagree on. However, when you're close and want to take an objective, Shotguns or just extra CCW will be better. How so?
A. Shotguns can be used to advance to that objective and still get shots off. That's the real important part. The S5 bonus won't happen so often that I consider it important, but it isn't like Bolters perform that well outside Rapid Fire range, and they're the same performance at the 6.01"-12". Your mileage will vary on that one.
Now, the new edition definitely made this option less attractive thanks to anyone being able to charge after firing any weapon, which made them my favorite choice before.
B. The bonus attack is great when you're close in. Varying bonuses will make this more worth while (Asterion giving rerolls for charges, Black Templars giving rerolls and their special character buffs, Tyberos granting +1S), so with charging you're about even with the Bolters, BUT with two attacks you're likely going to perform better at counter charges than Tactical Marines. An extra attack is worth much more than a 13% better chance to live.
So I would rather do Scouts than a Rhino and Tactical Marines.

So where does the Razorback come into play when it comes to transporting Marines? It doesn't! Instead, you buy it as a Battle Tank instead and use it for that role. Park it within the effective range (so in the case of Assault Cannons, <24" and never move it so you always have full effectiveness. The transport capacity for it might as well not exist. Use your weapons for max efficiency instead of wasting it transporting Marines that wouldn't get anywhere in the first place without it, and therefore clear objectives to be captured, or make your points back on the Razorback. You simply can't do that if you want to use them as a transport.

So I suppose with a Tactical Marine squad you can attempt these things haphazardly, or just use Scouts to get the job done just like it's been for quite a long time. I want to like the Tactical Marine because I like them thematically, but crunch wise they're pretty fething awful.

Plus there's the matter they don't look very good put together due to them not looking very...uniform.

Xenomancers wrote:Is this not ringing in yet?

Again, you haven't addressed a single point I've made. Intercessors CAN'T do the things I use Tac Squads to accomplish. They can't take specials that I use to handle specific battlefield tasks. And they can't go in transports to increase their mobility to put them in better positions and be able to secure objectives and go after tactical objectives. Whatever argument you want to make about their extra wound or their extra close combat attack is IRRELEVANT, because they cannot perform the roles I'm asking my Tac Squads to perform. Period.

Is this not ringing in yet?

Again, I didn't say Intercessors were bad. I didn't say Scouts were bad. I said they can't do the job I assign Tactical Marines to do, because they can't take 2 special weapons and can't be mounted in Razorbacks.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So where does the Razorback come into play when it comes to transporting Marines? It doesn't! Instead, you buy it as a Battle Tank instead and use it for that role.

That's what YOU use it for. I use it for both. It can protect my Tac Squad + HQ until they're in position, it can deliver/move them to different areas of the board, AND it can function as a tank. When the opponent has good shooting, it's important to protect 5-man Troop squads from gunfire, and a transport is a fine way to do that.

I don't mind spending the extra points on Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, because it's a great unit. And it performs double duty. It's both good midfield firepower and a solid transport.

You don't have to like using Tac Squads, but they perform their jobs just fine, and there aren't any equivalent replacement troops available to replace them that can perform the same job they do.

It doesn't do both very well at all. If you want a transport, just go cheaper and get the Rhino. The fire power cut back by the -1 after moving is pretty frickin critical.

 wtwlf123 wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:Is this not ringing in yet?

Again, you haven't addressed a single point I've made. Intercessors CAN'T do the things I use Tac Squads to accomplish. They can't take specials that I use to handle specific battlefield tasks. And they can't go in transports to increase their mobility to put them in better positions and be able to secure objectives and go after tactical objectives. Whatever argument you want to make about their extra wound or their extra close combat attack is IRRELEVANT, because they cannot perform the roles I'm asking my Tac Squads to perform. Period.

Is this not ringing in yet?

Again, I didn't say Intercessors were bad. I didn't say Scouts were bad. I said they can't do the job I assign Tactical Marines to do, because they can't take 2 special weapons and can't be mounted in Razorbacks.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So where does the Razorback come into play when it comes to transporting Marines? It doesn't! Instead, you buy it as a Battle Tank instead and use it for that role.

That's what YOU use it for. I use it for both. It can protect my Tac Squad + HQ until they're in position, it can deliver/move them to different areas of the board, AND it can function as a tank. When the opponent has good shooting, it's important to protect 5-man Troop squads from gunfire, and a transport is a fine way to do that.

I don't mind spending the extra points on Twin Assault Cannon Razorbacks, because it's a great unit. And it performs double duty. It's both good midfield firepower and a solid transport.

You don't have to like using Tac Squads, but they perform their jobs just fine, and there aren't any equivalent replacement troops available to replace them that can perform the same job they do.

First I did address your points. Second - the job you want tacticals to do is done better by practically every other unit in the marine codex. Want las cannons? Devs or Preds are way better. Want specials? Vets and sterngaurd do this better. Want to hold or take objectives? Intercessors and devs do this better. Tacticals are trash. They always have been. They are easy to destroy - their damage per point is low - and they require transports to function in any roll other than sitting back with a single heavy weapon (which is wildly inefficient). Can't deal damage from inside a transport ether so all this "damage" they do is wildly overstated. If you want to fill troop allocations intercessors do it cheaper (when you factor in transports and specials) and they are harder to kill to boot. Also - when you do the math with intercessors vs MEQ, TEQ, and QEQ in terms of damage - you'd be surprised to see how similar they are. Yet, Intercessors have better range.

What i think people are not understanding is, is the tac marines ability to hide in a transport until the time is right, and then jump out and rapid fire something. Then, in order to reduce its fire power, you have to kill over 60% of it.

You can say "just take devs" or sternguard, or vanguard vets, but although these units do more damage, they cost a lot more, and die just as easily.

And the thing is, I'm probably already taking devs, and other expensive units in my army. Units that do a lot of damage but aren't super durable. So i need something cheap and fairly durable to get between them and the enemy.

So i want something that can damage anything, is cheap, fairly durable, and has the mobility of being in a transport.

Intercessors are durable, but can't hurt tanks, can barely hurt infantry (10 shots kills 1.6 marines...woop de freaking do), and are slow. If the enemy wants to kill them, they can do it without much trouble.

Scouts are good at keeping things of your other units, are cheap, but agent as durable, and can't do as much damage.

I see tacs as a good unit that can hide in a transport, shoot plasma at things, be dangerous enough that it might attract enemy fire power, be durable unough to not be useless after losing 3 models, and cheap enough to sacrifice in order to keep enemy units off things like predators, razorbacks, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It probably should also be mentioned that how good tacs are can depend on the list. If you have a list with razorbacks, taking tacs makes more sense than intercessors, because they can hide inside and only become targetable after they start doing damage, unlike intercessors, who can be targeted right away.

A vehicle isn't a tax if you are taking it anyway. The squad inside is like a synergistic bonus.

Also if you take equal points of tacs and intercessots and compare the damage, the tacs win quite handedly.

If you just want to footslogging marines, then maybe intercessors have a place IMO.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I can get super plasma guns on hellblasters and they also have 2 wounds. Why wouldn't I just put plasma there?

They strike me as very expensive targets. Tacticals require the enemy to dig through a few guys to get at the Special Weapon meat. Devastators have the same advantage. Hellblaster squads seem like a liability to me, armed like Sternguard with Combi's in previous editions, except they can't even get into a Drop Pod.

They are harder to kill per point than tactical marines.

Are you sure about that? I dont have the codex, but Im fairly certain their cost didnt drop that dramatically, and two Tac marines is 26.

2 wounds for 20 or 2 wounds for 26. its pretty easy to see they are harder to kill. plus - you aren't factoring in the costs of their specials. Which I'm sure they are taking.