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.

That's a weak argument. The Marine statline is flatout better than Dark Reapers, and you wouldn't say Marines are better than Reapers. Statline only means so much.

As for wargear:
Doesn't the LasCannon seem reasonable compared to the Bright or Dark lances?

Plasma Gun vs Plasma Rifle?

Melta Gun vs Fusion Gun/Blaster/Fusion Blaster?

Flamer vs Flamer?

IoM ML vs CWE ML?

Powersword vs Powersword?

Where are you seeing the wargear discrepencies?

It's not a weak argument. The tac marine statline has to take on basically everything in the game.

Right, the lack of special rules for marine elites, heavy support, etc compared to Xenos and even IG is crippling.

I'm talking about the COST of the wargear. Lascannons and missile launchers just aren't worth 25 pts for marines. They have no special rules making these weapons worth the exorbitant cost. And then they are easy to kill on top of it.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Tacs as-is still compare reasonably to most of the troop options in the rules - they only "suck" compared to the best few troops.

Stop comparing them to just troops. For marines, tacs are troops, fast attack, elite, and heavy support. At least the statline is. Also, marine wargear is costed too high. The other problem.

In my opinion, every special weapon besides Plasma guns, Lascannons, and Heavy Bolters could use a nice 10-15% point drop. Even Plasma guns I'd consider slightly overcosted right now, but I'd rather see other options brought in line before Plasma Guns get a buff.

 SputnikDX wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Tacs as-is still compare reasonably to most of the troop options in the rules - they only "suck" compared to the best few troops.

Stop comparing them to just troops. For marines, tacs are troops, fast attack, elite, and heavy support. At least the statline is. Also, marine wargear is costed too high. The other problem.

In my opinion, every special weapon besides Plasma guns, Lascannons, and Heavy Bolters could use a nice 10-15% point drop. Even Plasma guns I'd consider slightly overcosted right now, but I'd rather see other options brought in line before Plasma Guns get a buff.

Plasma guns need a magnificent nerf if anything.

No, scions need a nerf. Another one. That's the only squad I'm having problems with that's armed with plasma anything. Scions should be around 25 ppm. They aren't.

Martel732 wrote:
No, scions need a nerf. Another one. That's the only squad I'm having problems with that's armed with plasma anything. Scions should be around 25 ppm. They aren't.

Is that before or after plasma?

After the plasma gun. That makes them a little cheaper than assault marines with plasma guns.

"The Tac Marine staline has to take on everything in the game" in the same way that an Aspect Warrior statline needs to too. Sure, CWE has Wraiths and vehicles. If only Marines had Termies and Primaris and vehicles. I'm not saying they're all viable, only that Marines aren't the only ones with a consistent statline across slots.

How many more special rules to Orkz have for their Heavy Supports and Elites and such?

Perhaps an IoM ML isn't worth 25pts. But why is the CWE ML worth 30? The Lascannon might seem like not a great option for a squad to camp cover, but then does the Brightlance - shorter range, lower strength, and +1 ap - so much better even for slightly fewer points?

The Guardian or Pathfinder that equips these weapons don't have special rules that make these weapons better than IOM counterparts any more than Marines do. And, per point, Guardians and Pathfinders are typically much easier to remove than Marines - especially in cover, which these weapons tend to camp out in.

And that's your cherry-picked weapons. What about others? Even Sarges have much better rules for use of powerswords than Guardians or Kalabites.

There are a lot of tradeoffs in this game, and on some of the options there seem to be blinders.

I could see a points drop on many of the heavies in the game. MM, Heavy Bolter, and CWE ML definitely. Probably Scatter Lasers, IoM ML, and Grav Cannons too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My ASM can't take plasma guns.

So scions are 100% better than your ASM, not just 75%.

I don't know what Eldar look like without Reapers. So everything I post about them is going to be colored by Dark Reapers.

What I do now is that my marines and others' marines are getting bulldozed by Nids and IG and Eldar. The games aren't even close. I'm thinking the 13 ppm tac marine not being worth 13 ppm is a serious contributing factor.

It's almost like we've had this conversation before.

There are far more than 7 armies in the game. So wouldn't buffing one up so that it beats the top 3 hurt more armies than it helps?

It's not that big of a buff. Drukhari, Necrons, and Tau will also be smashing marines to bits. Start with marines at 11 ppm. That's 14 ppm assault marines, who would still suck. A marine dev with a lascannon is still a massive 36 ppm. The fragility of 3+ armor for the cost and the insane durability of 5+ for the cost (on guardsmen) is making things very difficult.

Don't bother arguing with Bharring. He wouldn't even admit that one of his most mediocre units in 7th, the Dire Avenger, was better than Chaos Marines and the Loyalist Scum counterparts.

Because Dire Avenger spam won so many tournies in 7th, whereas Obsec Spam early in 7th or Gladius late in 7th won so few?

You've never been able to accept that not everything in this game is better than Marines.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not that big of a buff. Drukhari, Necrons, and Tau will also be smashing marines to bits. Start with marines at 11 ppm. That's 14 ppm assault marines, who would still suck. A marine dev with a lascannon is still a massive 36 ppm. The fragility of 3+ armor for the cost and the insane durability of 5+ for the cost (on guardsmen) is making things very difficult.

The funny thing is I feel like even at 11ppm I'd still rather take scouts and Intercessors. Which is fine by me since Intercessors are cool as gak and Scouts are very Raven Guard.
Though while we're talking, Snipers need to be 3ppm not 4 (even for Rangers), and Camo Cloaks need to be 2ppm not 3.

Bharring wrote:
"The Tac Marine staline has to take on everything in the game" in the same way that an Aspect Warrior statline needs to too. Sure, CWE has Wraiths and vehicles. If only Marines had Termies and Primaris and vehicles. I'm not saying they're all viable, only that Marines aren't the only ones with a consistent statline across slots.

How many more special rules to Orkz have for their Heavy Supports and Elites and such?

Perhaps an IoM ML isn't worth 25pts. But why is the CWE ML worth 30? The Lascannon might seem like not a great option for a squad to camp cover, but then does the Brightlance - shorter range, lower strength, and +1 ap - so much better even for slightly fewer points?

The Guardian or Pathfinder that equips these weapons don't have special rules that make these weapons better than IOM counterparts any more than Marines do. And, per point, Guardians and Pathfinders are typically much easier to remove than Marines - especially in cover, which these weapons tend to camp out in.

And that's your cherry-picked weapons. What about others? Even Sarges have much better rules for use of powerswords than Guardians or Kalabites.

There are a lot of tradeoffs in this game, and on some of the options there seem to be blinders.

I could see a points drop on many of the heavies in the game. MM, Heavy Bolter, and CWE ML definitely. Probably Scatter Lasers, IoM ML, and Grav Cannons too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My ASM can't take plasma guns.

Who cares if Tactical Sergeants use the Power Swords better? It isn't an upgrade you take because it's bad!

Sniper rifles & camo cloaks could certainly use a points decrease.

Bharring wrote:
Because Dire Avenger spam won so many tournies in 7th, whereas Obsec Spam early in 7th or Gladius late in 7th won so few?

You've never been able to accept that not everything in this game is better than Marines.

It with Wave Serpent Spam won 6th. Gladius won because it had 300-500 extra points.

That's like saying AdMech did well in 7th because Convocation and who cares if their Elite choices weren't good? I'd like you to tell that to the AdMech players out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SputnikDX wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not that big of a buff. Drukhari, Necrons, and Tau will also be smashing marines to bits. Start with marines at 11 ppm. That's 14 ppm assault marines, who would still suck. A marine dev with a lascannon is still a massive 36 ppm. The fragility of 3+ armor for the cost and the insane durability of 5+ for the cost (on guardsmen) is making things very difficult.

The funny thing is I feel like even at 11ppm I'd still rather take scouts and Intercessors. Which is fine by me since Intercessors are cool as gak and Scouts are very Raven Guard.
Though while we're talking, Snipers need to be 3ppm not 4 (even for Rangers), and Camo Cloaks need to be 2ppm not 3.

Camo Cloaks are worth 1 point and that's it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
"The Tac Marine staline has to take on everything in the game" in the same way that an Aspect Warrior statline needs to too. Sure, CWE has Wraiths and vehicles. If only Marines had Termies and Primaris and vehicles. I'm not saying they're all viable, only that Marines aren't the only ones with a consistent statline across slots.

How many more special rules to Orkz have for their Heavy Supports and Elites and such?

Perhaps an IoM ML isn't worth 25pts. But why is the CWE ML worth 30? The Lascannon might seem like not a great option for a squad to camp cover, but then does the Brightlance - shorter range, lower strength, and +1 ap - so much better even for slightly fewer points?

The Guardian or Pathfinder that equips these weapons don't have special rules that make these weapons better than IOM counterparts any more than Marines do. And, per point, Guardians and Pathfinders are typically much easier to remove than Marines - especially in cover, which these weapons tend to camp out in.

And that's your cherry-picked weapons. What about others? Even Sarges have much better rules for use of powerswords than Guardians or Kalabites.

There are a lot of tradeoffs in this game, and on some of the options there seem to be blinders.

I could see a points drop on many of the heavies in the game. MM, Heavy Bolter, and CWE ML definitely. Probably Scatter Lasers, IoM ML, and Grav Cannons too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My ASM can't take plasma guns.

Who cares if Tactical Sergeants use the Power Swords better? It isn't an upgrade you take because it's bad!

Melee weapons on Tac Sergeants is like a "don't feth with me" stick. It keeps people from wanting to get in melee with you.

Which is useless because they'll just shoot you instead :/

So DAs are good because in 6th E they unlocked Serpents which were good. But Marines in 7th were bad because all they did was unlock Razorbacks in Gladius? Kinda inconsistent there. And ignores the MEQ-spam lists that didn't take Razorbacks.

DAVU was OP, but that was the Serpents, not the DAs. All DAs did was be the cheapest option to take Serpents - at 1ppm below Tac Marines. The end of DAVU didn't make DAs powerhouses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If two MEQ squads were to face eachother, one has a powersword and the other not, the powersword squad gets to dictate the flow of the engagement. But that's 4 points you spent to do that. And isn't terribly common.

Putting a powersword on a kalabite or a ranged Exarch will typically still put you behind naked Tacs in CC.

Not for the points. Double the kalabites win will.

Marine kills (2/3)(2/3)(2/3), or 8/27
Kalabite kills (2/3)(1/3)(1/3), or 2/27

If you ignore morale, then yeah a powersword could turn the fight, depending on numbers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear, I'm talking about 1 powersword in the squad.

So 10 kalabites w/1 sword kill:
Normal guys:
9x1x(2/27) = 18/27
Sarge:
1x2x(2/3)(1/3)(5/6) = 10/27

Total: 28/27 Marines die.

5 naked Tacs kill:
6x(8/27) = 48/27 Kalabites die

Marines will chew through the Kalabites slower than Kalabites chew through Marines in this matchup.

So 20 kalabites w/1 sword kill:
Normal guys:
19x1x(2/27) = 38/27
Sarge:
1x2x(2/3)(1/3)(5/6) = 10/27

Total: 48/27 Marines die.

5 naked Tacs kill:
11x(8/27) = 88/27 Kalabites die

Kalabites still edge out Marines, but by an even smaller margin.

So I was wrong.

Bharring wrote:
So DAs are good because in 6th E they unlocked Serpents which were good. But Marines in 7th were bad because all they did was unlock Razorbacks in Gladius? Kinda inconsistent there. And ignores the MEQ-spam lists that didn't take Razorbacks.

DAVU was OP, but that was the Serpents, not the DAs. All DAs did was be the cheapest option to take Serpents - at 1ppm below Tac Marines. The end of DAVU didn't make DAs powerhouses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If two MEQ squads were to face eachother, one has a powersword and the other not, the powersword squad gets to dictate the flow of the engagement. But that's 4 points you spent to do that. And isn't terribly common.

Putting a powersword on a kalabite or a ranged Exarch will typically still put you behind naked Tacs in CC.

Dire Avengers were still better on top of unlocking Serpents. On top of having an Assault Weapon (which was very clutch at the time) that ignored the main problem with basic infantry weapons (had the important part of Rending), they WERE a very cheap investment.

They didn't need to try and tackle vehicles. They shot infantry and held objectives. That's all they needed to do. No fancy upgrades to make them even more expensive or anything.

kabalites excell at killing hi T models. Tacticals excell at nothing. Also - marines can't shoot out of their transports - and even if they could - they could never reroll 1's to hit from inside. Kabalites can do both. Hence - they are better than marines. They are also a cheaper tax if needed. However - they seem to be more of a core unit now. Imagine if marines were a core unit for space marines...instead of something to skip over. How cool would that be?

They were a full 0 ppm less than CSMs at the time... (although the CSM Sarge cost +10 pts)

The Assault profile was important to Marines, but not Dire Avengers. Or do you imagine Storm Troopers to be excellent CC units?

They shot infantry about as well as Plasma/CombiPlasma tacs per point (the old 7DAs vs 5Tacs we've discussed adnausium). Better in some ways, worse than others. It was the big MCs with good armor but poor invlun saves that they did better against per point shooting-wise.

As for holding objectives, they died twice as fast as Marines to small arms, for just 1ppm less. Space Marine Scouts did it for cheaper while more surviable, naked Space Marine Tacs did it more durably per point, and HW SM Tacs or Sniper Scouts did it better while also putting potshots downrange. DAs were expensive for just objective grabbing, having the defensive statline of a Storm Trooper or Fire Warrior for the pricetag of a Marine.

DAs were only marginally worse than Tacs. Now, they're marginally better (mostly it's the free Exarch that makes them better).

Bottom line that sisters are great and tacs are miserable. That 4 ppm makes a huge difference. Assault proflies are a joke thanks to super firepower and fall back.

Oh boy - who cares about 7th at this point. Plus yeah - DA were better than tactical then too. Synergy with doom is makes every eldar unit with bladestorm viable - it always has. They were great at killing things that mattered...like wraithknights - tactical as always - great against nothing - requiring free transports to even see the battlefield. Plus - every eldar aspect warrior was sporting 2+ to hit in 7th edition. The comparison is laughable.

This whole "But Marines have always been terrible" meme is kinda sidetracking the thread.

The core point is that Marines are not currently the worst troop in the game. With Genestealers and DAs and Rangers now being better than Tacs, Tacs have certainly dropped some. But what about PAGK? Gaunts? Guardians? Kroot? And will Wyches and Kalabites be better?

In other words, of this list, are Tacs really near the bottom?

Conscripts
Guardsmen
Genestealers
Dire Avengers
SM Scouts
Rangers
Ork Boyz
Tac Marines
Necron Warriors
Immortals
Guardian Defenders
Storm Guardians
Hormigaunts
Termigaunts
Crusader Squads
Fire Warriors
Tau Breachers
Kroot
Kalabites
Wyches
Wracks
Harlequin Troopers

Don't know about wracks yet - haven't seen their rules.
Of the others?
Crusader squads are just tactical squads that can take scouts in them - they suck - but they are just tacticals squads basically.

Hormagaunts - bad unit - 5 points 6+ save 2x str 3 CC attacks. Lose to equal numbers of gaurdsmen even when they charge them. (they do have a nice special rule for 6 in pile in that makes them usable though)

Conscripts might as well not exist as a unit after being gutted with 3 nerfs at the same time. They literally cost the same as an infantry man which it is just a worse version of. (not a big deal because IG just take infantry again - which next to firewarriors - are the best infantry in the game)

Storm gardians - maybe the only troop unit in the game that sucks worse than a tac squad.

Do you even remember 7th beyond WK and Spiders destroying everything?

The 2+ to hit was *only* for a formation, so *could* not apply to any DAs taken as Troops. So it's even less true than saying every Tac squad gets a Razorback.

Tacs were great at taking objectives. When 7th hit, before new codexes, one of the top builds was actually Obsec Spam With Tacs and Pods. It wouldn't table the opponent, but it would claim objectives.

DAs put *slightly* more wounds on the big stuff. A 10-man DA squad might do one more wound to a Riptide than a Tac squad. Useful, but like Marines, the CWE lists needed to rely on other tools to remove the big guns. The big difference was that CWE *had* the other tools.

I'm *not* saying CWE wasn't OP. I'm just saying DAs weren't better than Marines. Or rather was saying. Now they're slightly better than Marines.

I really don't understand the "Tacs don't need a buff because other units are worse" argument, especially in a thread titled "Codex Space Marines March FAQ changes"

If you want your trash troop choices to get buffed maybe you should mention it in a thread dedicated to that codex?