Making Tactical Marines suck less

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.

**Talizvar**

As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.

Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.

**McNinja**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Furyou Miko wrote:
Paying to be durable?!

You pay what, two points for ATSKNF and T4 compared to Sisters? Or, heck, one point for a 3+ save compared to Necron Warriors.

A single freaking point.

How much more durable to you want to be?!

Heavy flamers and dual special weapons are the Sisters' stick, anyway, and they pay for it by losing access to plasma and rocket.

Sorry, I forgot about the Sisters, who are just as hosed overpaying for a 3+ save. Ideally, IMO, Sisters ought to be around a Fire Warrior in cost, trading worse firepower and range for better armour. The melee power difference (armour aside) between the two is more or less irrelevant anyway, neither of them is going to hold for long against anything remotely serious in combat anyway.

Still, when every single Xenos Codex released in an edition adds more ways to completely fart all over armour saves, and when no MEQ book manages to consistently score high in any tournaments (feel free to prove me wrong here BTW, I just haven't seen any where they do) it's pretty damn obvious that there's something up with the MEQ Codices. The obvious conclusion is that while Tactical Marines got cheaper, the firepower of everyone else increased by a bigger factor, especially when taking low-AP weapons into account.

The Necron Warriors have Reanimation Protocols, which makes them more durable than Tacticals. ATSKNF doesn't really matter that much in an edition where the only viable melee units are nitro-powered nuclear sledgehammers murderizing anything they come in contact with.

Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them. The Boyz are 77% as durable against bolters out of cover, but have more than 100% the durability against AP3 or lower. When you move the Boyz into cover, they're more durable against anything that doesn't have Ignores Cover and is AP4 or higher. This is with the oldest Codex in the game, who are quite likely to have a points reduction to their units when they get a new one, which will only make everything worse.

While we're on the subject of shootas: for the record, Shoota boyz outshoot Tactical Marines at ranges between 18-12", and if the Marines move in to rapid fire they'll be in the charge range of a band of angry Orks. In short, Shoota boyz are better at being Tactical Marines than Tactical Marines. The Tactical Marines are better at anti-tank due to special and heavy weapons being available, but "better" here is a relative term. You don't take a Tactical Squad because it's awesome at hunting tanks, you take it because you need scoring and then plop it down on a backfield objective because you have to, not because it's an amazing unit. Shoota Boyz, Grey Hunters, Necron Warriors, Guardsman Squads, Daemonettes, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and Tervigons all contribute more than Tactical Marines do while being Troops when played properly. Scouts, Cultists, Guardsman Squads, Nurglings, and Kroot all fill the "token backfield unit" better because they're not paying 14PPM for a 3+ save, they're paying at most 10PPM and getting their 3+ cover from hiding in terrain. While that means that they're vulnerable to Ignores Cover weapons, most weapons with Ignores Cover these days, at least in my experience, is stuff like Baleflamers, anything Tau, Serpent Shields, and TFCs. Most of these are extreme overkill to fire at a cheap throwaway unit, and if you're hiding behind a wall and/or below an upper floor some of them won't even be able to shoot you at all. All we want is to feel as though Tactical Marines are actually useful for something other than standing around and taking potshots all game.

Thank you.

The point that I'm trying to make is that Marines shouldn't just be bodies on the field. If that's all they're good for then you're wasting points when other armies have more survivable (usually due to larger numbers of troops or cover saves) and better armed troops (whether it's just more guns or better weapons in general). Tactical Marines have one thing going for them, and that's ATSKNF. They don't have the speed of Dire Avengers, the power or range of Firewarriors, or the murder-ness of Daemonettes. An then, compared to Eldar Jetbikes, they look even worse, because for only three points more, WRJBs get +6" movement, the ability to move in the assault phase, a twin-linked kind-of rending weapon, a 3+ save and T4.

Tactical Marines need both a slightly power boost (very slight, they are indeed a jack of all trades unit) and a slight survivability boost.

**CalgarsPimpHand**

McNinja wrote:

Tactical Marines need both a slightly power boost (very slight, they are indeed a jack of all trades unit) and a slight survivability boost.

I really don't think tactical marines are that bad off (especially when you consider that chaos marines are only slightly cheaper and significantly worse). But I agree that a slight boost to them wouldn't be bad, as they don't really live up to their fluff.

Instead of messing with any stats or core rules though, I propose two things:

1) Let sergeants take auspexes (and maybe even boost the role of the auspex slightly, grants Interceptor to the squad against units arriving from reserves within 12"?) I can't conceive of why they'd leave this option off when it's been a bit in the tactical squad box since 3rd edition.

2) Make apothecaries 1-3 per Elites slot like in the 30k rules, or a 1 per HQ choice, filling no slot, instead of automatically stuck in the command squad. Then you can potentially spread FnP to a tactical squad by attaching an apothecary.

I think both of these are pretty mild. They give ways of boosting marine firepower and durability without changing the marines themselves, just by giving players options they should already have.

**Dat Guy**

AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.

This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.

Anpu42 wrote:
So it looks like it keeps coming down to Durability more than a Weapons Package.
Yes I have felt the sting of AP3, I had two games back to back were I was never allowed to make my save do to AP3 and No-Cover Save Attacks.
That happens, it sucked big time to have a Brood of 5 Genestealers assault my Tactical Squad and I take 11 rending hits from 20 attacks. I also field enough Plasma that that game the Tyranid Player only got to make his Invulnerable Saves. His Orks unless they are facing my Guard never get to make saves most of the time too.

The other thing is everything seems to look at Tactical squads in a Vacuum. When that Hell-Turkey Shows up who is it going to go after my Tactical Squad or the Devastator Squad that is putting out 4 Plasma Cannon Shots a Turn? Are the Fire Dragons going to go after the Tactical Squad or the Predator Dakka Tank?

Any Unit if you decide it going to die is going to die if you put your mind to it.

This is true, I think people just want an elite troop choice. The thing is though barring bgnt or pta tactical squads are the main scoring unit, so yeah the hell turkey should roast them first. But yeah I like tactical marines and I feel one of the reasons they die more and early is they are so resilient in end game that if they are still alive they will win it. As well why it seems fire warriors or dire avengers are better is because they live longer since people are focused on trying to kill off a riptide or wraithknight. Where with space marines our tactical squads are that good since they are multi versatile. With a 4 stat line across they are better then other troops, they have ok basic close combat skill, they have str 6 grenades for assaulting light vehicles. They are able to take a special weapon to deal with hordes, tanks, and heavy infantry and a heavy weapon choice to do similar tasks. In 6th edition with allies makes it hard for any singular army list to do well barring eldar.

I believe at the Da Boyz GT the other month a space marine army came in 2nd or 3rd place. I am pretty sure he allied something though.

Also you guys realize this for so long armor save 3+ had little AP against it, when all those armor 5+ and higher and sometimes 4+ saves never got to roll to see if they lived, so instead of outweighing the awesomeness of 3+ armor saves they made stuff AP 3 so it makes it more even for 4+ save and higher to die with armor save 3+ also dieing.
Also cover cover saves became way OP that's why there is all this ignore cover now.

**Mahtamori**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Furyou Miko wrote:
Paying to be durable?!

You pay what, two points for ATSKNF and T4 compared to Sisters? Or, heck, one point for a 3+ save compared to Necron Warriors.

A single freaking point.

How much more durable to you want to be?!

Heavy flamers and dual special weapons are the Sisters' stick, anyway, and they pay for it by losing access to plasma and rocket.

Sorry, I forgot about the Sisters, who are just as hosed overpaying for a 3+ save. Ideally, IMO, Sisters ought to be around a Fire Warrior in cost, trading worse firepower and range for better armour. The melee power difference (armour aside) between the two is more or less irrelevant anyway, neither of them is going to hold for long against anything remotely serious in combat anyway.

Still, when every single Xenos Codex released in an edition adds more ways to completely fart all over armour saves, and when no MEQ book manages to consistently score high in any tournaments (feel free to prove me wrong here BTW, I just haven't seen any where they do) it's pretty damn obvious that there's something up with the MEQ Codices. The obvious conclusion is that while Tactical Marines got cheaper, the firepower of everyone else increased by a bigger factor, especially when taking low-AP weapons into account.

The Necron Warriors have Reanimation Protocols, which makes them more durable than Tacticals. ATSKNF doesn't really matter that much in an edition where the only viable melee units are nitro-powered nuclear sledgehammers murderizing anything they come in contact with.

Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them. The Boyz are 77% as durable against bolters out of cover, but have more than 100% the durability against AP3 or lower. When you move the Boyz into cover, they're more durable against anything that doesn't have Ignores Cover and is AP4 or higher. This is with the oldest Codex in the game, who are quite likely to have a points reduction to their units when they get a new one, which will only make everything worse.

While we're on the subject of shootas: for the record, Shoota boyz outshoot Tactical Marines at ranges between 18-12", and if the Marines move in to rapid fire they'll be in the charge range of a band of angry Orks. In short, Shoota boyz are better at being Tactical Marines than Tactical Marines. The Tactical Marines are better at anti-tank due to special and heavy weapons being available, but "better" here is a relative term. You don't take a Tactical Squad because it's awesome at hunting tanks, you take it because you need scoring and then plop it down on a backfield objective because you have to, not because it's an amazing unit. Shoota Boyz, Grey Hunters, Necron Warriors, Guardsman Squads, Daemonettes, Fire Warriors, Dire Avengers, and Tervigons all contribute more than Tactical Marines do while being Troops when played properly. Scouts, Cultists, Guardsman Squads, Nurglings, and Kroot all fill the "token backfield unit" better because they're not paying 14PPM for a 3+ save, they're paying at most 10PPM and getting their 3+ cover from hiding in terrain. While that means that they're vulnerable to Ignores Cover weapons, most weapons with Ignores Cover these days, at least in my experience, is stuff like Baleflamers, anything Tau, Serpent Shields, and TFCs. Most of these are extreme overkill to fire at a cheap throwaway unit, and if you're hiding behind a wall and/or below an upper floor some of them won't even be able to shoot you at all. All we want is to feel as though Tactical Marines are actually useful for something other than standing around and taking potshots all game.

How would you rate these:
* Fearless Orks.
* WAAAAAGH! Orks.
* ATSKNF Marines
* Krak Grenades Marines
* Frag Grenades Marines
* Combat Tactics Marines
* Higher initiative Marines
* Melee
* Close combat model stacking weirdness
* Swamping down and stacking odds

I'll explain the latter two. Orks are large and plentiful, once you get into close combat it is easy to get into a situation where not all will reach combat range. Also, with Marines they tend to survive pretty damned well even when outnumbered, at least well enough that you're able to stack the odds a turn or two later, or by tying up enemy forces long enough to get to the stuff they are meant to be protecting. You're using Ork Boyz as an example of how bad Tacticals are, but you don't actually look at the rules that drive a Marine's price up.

Are those Orks actually going to outshoot Bolter Drilling Marines? What about if the Marines get close enough and they are Salamanders? Them Boyz aren't going to perform quite so well at killing Iron Hands, you know. Oh my oh my, your Boyz ran straight into a couple of Wraithlords. I bet Boyz love eating grenades. And so on.

Tacticals are jacks of all trades, you can't just pick a select couple of situations and ignore a bunch of others that actually make the Tacticals worth while when combined. Yeah, that means that Tacticals are probably not going to be more efficient in nearly any situation you come up with, but regardless of situation they aren't going to utterly fail. Except against stuff that are designed to make Tacticals, specifically, utterly fail. Or stuff that needs taken down a peg or two.

**McNinja**

Mahtamori wrote:

How would you rate these:
* Fearless Orks.
* WAAAAAGH! Orks.
* ATSKNF Marines
* Krak Grenades Marines
* Frag Grenades Marines
* Combat Tactics Marines
* Higher initiative Marines
* Melee
* Close combat model stacking weirdness
* Swamping down and stacking odds

I'll explain the latter two. Orks are large and plentiful, once you get into close combat it is easy to get into a situation where not all will reach combat range. Also, with Marines they tend to survive pretty damned well even when outnumbered, at least well enough that you're able to stack the odds a turn or two later, or by tying up enemy forces long enough to get to the stuff they are meant to be protecting. You're using Ork Boyz as an example of how bad Tacticals are, but you don't actually look at the rules that drive a Marine's price up.

Are those Orks actually going to outshoot Bolter Drilling Marines? What about if the Marines get close enough and they are Salamanders? Them Boyz aren't going to perform quite so well at killing Iron Hands, you know. Oh my oh my, your Boyz ran straight into a couple of Wraithlords. I bet Boyz love eating grenades. And so on.

Tacticals are jacks of all trades, you can't just pick a select couple of situations and ignore a bunch of others that actually make the Tacticals worth while when combined. Yeah, that means that Tacticals are probably not going to be more efficient in nearly any situation you come up with, but regardless of situation they aren't going to utterly fail. Except against stuff that are designed to make Tacticals, specifically, utterly fail. Or stuff that needs taken down a peg or two.

Tacticals fail against nearly everything they go against. Even blobs of guardsmen. 50 IG shooting 10 marines, even with cover, will wreck those marines, because unless the cover save is better than 3+, they'll never use cover. IG, Orks, and even nids put out too many shots. Of course, the 3+ armor helps a lot. I'm not saying you'll fail every roll you make (I've gotten lucky more than once saving around a dozen wounds with squad of 5 Marines).

Tacticals also fail in CC against hordes. Sure, flamers, overwatch, salamanders, and bolter drill exist, but against other troops those are only marginally effective. Dire Avengers have a 4+ armor save and the capacity to take a 5+ invulnerable save. Orks and guard simply have too many bodies, even if not all can reach combat. Guardian Defenders will simply avoid CC with Battle Focus.

Also, both Krak and Frag grenades are only adequate. Kraks are ok against tanks, but if you know you're going to be using marines to assault tanks, why not just bring melta bombs and ensure their destruction?

**Rumbleguts**

I really don't think Tac marines suck. They are pretty good for their point value. They don't deliver massive firepower, but they aren't supposed to. There isn't much you are going to do without stepping on the toes of one of the other unit types.

I would like it if they came standard with chainswords in addition to their bolters, since they are supposed to be generalist they should be equipped to fight well in any situation. Chainswords plus the standard bolt pistol they come with would represent that well (Chainsword for clearing out brus!, Chainsword for cutting holes in prefab buildings! Chainswords first in battle, first in VICTORY!) and since it doesn't give them increased Str, AP, or any funky rule like rending it would only help them kill cheap troops more effectively, which I think they should be good at.

While I am wishing I would like to see apothecaries become like blood angel sanguinary priests in that they are Independent Characters and purchased in a unit of 1 to 3.

**McNinja**

Rumbleguts wrote:
I really don't think Tac marines suck. They are pretty good for their point value. They don't deliver massive firepower, but they aren't supposed to. There isn't much you are going to do without stepping on the toes of one of the other unit types.

I would like it if they came standard with chainswords in addition to their bolters, since they are supposed to be generalist they should be equipped to fight well in any situation. Chainswords plus the standard bolt pistol they come with would represent that well (Chainsword for clearing out brus!, Chainsword for cutting holes in prefab buildings! Chainswords first in battle, first in VICTORY!) and since it doesn't give them increased Str, AP, or any funky rule like rending it would only help them kill cheap troops more effectively, which I think they should be good at.

While I am wishing I would like to see apothecaries become like blood angel sanguinary priests in that they are Independent Characters and purchased in a unit of 1 to 3.

That's the problem though; as a generalist unit, the only thing they're kind of good at is existing, and even that is debatable. Their firepower is too low, their CC abilities are too weak (though that seems to be a general C: SM problem). Even Assault Marines suck in CC to the point where they're only taken if you have leftover points and want a couple flamers. They're not bad units, but for their cost, especially when compared to similarly priced units from other 6th ed codices, they don't rate well at all.

- Giving them a chainsword would work.
- Giving them some sort of bonus to their firepower - not including Bolter Drill, because that's only marginally helpful when using a rather bad weapon. I still think allowing Tactical units, or even Devastators to take Slow and Purposeful would be a great benefit for +1(Tacticals) or +2(Devs) points per model.

As for apothecaries, currently the Red Scorpions FW Chapter Tactics allows you to make each Tactical squad sergeant and apothecary.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Dat Guy wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.

This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.

For every BS4 boltgun the Orks field more than two BS2 Shootas. 7 Ork Boyz have a higher amount of average hits (and a much higher max potential!) than 3 Marines at the discussed range intervals. I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The Orks are slightly less survivable in the open but much more so in cover, and have both a better melee and shooting prowess than Tactical Marines, while being from a Codex from two editions ago.

Talizvar wrote:
As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.

Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.

Going from "woefully incomptetent" to "almost competent" is hardly enough to call Crusader Squads "butchers", especially when you have to give up what little shooting you have to do it...

**SoloFalcon1138**

I really wasn't aware that tactical marines needed help.?

ok, so ten or more models? sounds awful Chaosy to me.

Slow and.Purposeful? in otherwords Obilterators?

**McNinja**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I really wasn't aware that tactical marines needed help.?

ok, so ten or more models? sounds awful Chaosy to me.

Slow and.Purposeful? in otherwords Obilterators?

In what way would a squad of tactical Marines with slow and purposeful be anything like obliterators? Because of SnP? The rules that both thousand sons and centurions have? Are they also obliterators? No, they are not. SnP is just a rule and that rule does not make everything that has it exactly the same.

We aren't suggesting adding more models to a unit. We're bringing up the point that Orks, who can field twice as many Ork Boyz for 14 points than Space Marines can, have better potential and greater survivability than Space Marines, despite being the oldest codex in the game.

**Durandal**

As far as troops choices go, Tac squads are the most durable and can be kitted for any role.

Dire Avengers have great firepower, but the cost is a lower range, and a weak platform.

An IG squad with humble lasrifles will kill them 1/8 of the time per shot. They kill Tac squads at 1/18 times.

Sure, 1/9 of the time the Dire Avengers shots will ignore armor saves. Overall however, your marines humble bolters will kill 1/4.5 of the time vs. 1/5 of the Avengers. If you upgrade to a plasma gun, you will be ignoring almost as many saves per turn as the Avengers as well, and you have that option. The avengers don't. You also have better range, so the Avengers have to move towards you or sit at >18 and take potshots.

I won't argue the game is perfectly balanced, but Tac squads are far more forgiving then using Avengers or DE warriors. Properly kitted, they can sit back and still contribute to the fight, they can take a round of fire far better then D/Eldar or fire warriors.

**Big Blind Bill**

Tac squads are fine as they are. They have quite a lot going for them:

Good choice of special/heavy weapons
Combat squads
ATSKNF
T4 3+ save
possible chapter tactics
1 point cheaper this edition

If you want to feel sorry for tac marines, then consider chaos. For 1 point less they do not have ATSKNF, combat squads or chapter tactics.

Eldar infantry struggle with their low range, even with their move-shoot-run and are not particularly durable. Personally I have no problem with guardians, if you want to moan about eldar then consider their cheap 48 move scoring jetbikes.

Tau firewarriors are great for their points, and are one of the best infantry troop choices available. They can do more heavy lifting than tac squads when supported by ethereals, fireblades or markerlights (although they are not as versatile). However this doesn't make tacticals bad, just a little less competitive than one of the best troop choices in the game. They still match up pretty well against troop choices from all other chodices.

**McNinja**

Durandal wrote:
As far as troops choices go, Tac squads are the most durable and can be kitted for any role.

Dire Avengers have great firepower, but the cost is a lower range, and a weak platform.

An IG squad with humble lasrifles will kill them 1/8 of the time per shot. They kill Tac squads at 1/18 times.

Sure, 1/9 of the time the Dire Avengers shots will ignore armor saves. Overall however, your marines humble bolters will kill 1/4.5 of the time vs. 1/5 of the Avengers. If you upgrade to a plasma gun, you will be ignoring almost as many saves per turn as the Avengers as well, and you have that option. The avengers don't. You also have better range, so the Avengers have to move towards you or sit at >18 and take potshots.

I won't argue the game is perfectly balanced, but Tac squads are far more forgiving then using Avengers or DE warriors. Properly kitted, they can sit back and still contribute to the fight, they can take a round of fire far better then D/Eldar or fire warriors.

Avengers are faster: they can move within 24", then move back via battle focus. They also have double the shots at 13+ inches that Tac squads do. Dire Avengers also have the ability to take AP3 melee weapons, invuln saves, and thanks to fleet will usually get the charge.

And Plague Marines are far more durable. Plaguebearers of Nurgle are also very durable thanks to shrouded and the Daemon save. WRjetbikes are far more durable and much faster for only 2 points more.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about the following rule? Nevermind two heavy or special weapons, just this:

With Purpose: Marines may choose one of the following options before deployment:
- Steady Aim - The unit gains Slow and Purposeful
- Bring the fight to Them - Each model in the unit gains a Chainsword or combat blade
- Bolter Barrage - Declare you are using this rule before shooting. The unit may fire their boltguns twice this shooting phase, but may not shoot at all next turn. This may be used at any point in the game and can be used more than once.

**Big Blind Bill**

McNinja wrote:
Durandal wrote:
As far as troops choices go, Tac squads are the most durable and can be kitted for any role.

Dire Avengers have great firepower, but the cost is a lower range, and a weak platform.

An IG squad with humble lasrifles will kill them 1/8 of the time per shot. They kill Tac squads at 1/18 times.

Sure, 1/9 of the time the Dire Avengers shots will ignore armor saves. Overall however, your marines humble bolters will kill 1/4.5 of the time vs. 1/5 of the Avengers. If you upgrade to a plasma gun, you will be ignoring almost as many saves per turn as the Avengers as well, and you have that option. The avengers don't. You also have better range, so the Avengers have to move towards you or sit at >18 and take potshots.

I won't argue the game is perfectly balanced, but Tac squads are far more forgiving then using Avengers or DE warriors. Properly kitted, they can sit back and still contribute to the fight, they can take a round of fire far better then D/Eldar or fire warriors.
Avengers are faster: they can move within 24", then move back via battle focus. They also have double the shots at 13+ inches that Tac squads do. Dire Avengers also have the ability to take AP3 melee weapons, invuln saves, and thanks to fleet will usually get the charge.

Lets not make it look too one sided here,

Tac squad
1 point more expensive
ATSKNF
Krak grenades
Special weapons
+1T, 3+ save
range 24

Avengers
Shuriken rending
range 18 (is remedied by battle focus, but a bum roll will leave you out of cover)
T3, 4+ save
Counter attack
fleet

Seems pretty fair to me, in fact probably more in favour of the marines. Avengers' best asset is the fact that they can get a waveserpent on the table at the cheapest cost possible.

**StarTrotter**

McNinja wrote:
So, out of the most recent armies, Space Marines (and Dark Angels) have the most... oddly balanced of the new codices. Now, I'm not saying that Space Marines suck, just that Tactical Marines only kinda suck. Think about it. Eldar troops are fast, have the capacity for JSJ tactics, and have a sort of rending ability on their weapons. Tau have a much longer range with higher strength, plus the capacity to unleash more shots with a Fireblade Cadre or Ethereal and then increase their BS using Markerlights. Daemons have tough troops, swift troops with rending and tons of attacks, and troops with AP3 weapons all over.

What do Tactical Marines have going for them? A 3+ armor save and a decent statline? Even Chaos Marines are better simply because they start out cheaper and can take marks, which makes them a fair bit better, though slightly more expensive. Add their banner things, and they become even better, and non-marked CSM can become fearless.

So I propose that Tactical Marines become slightly more useful, bringing them up to the level of Dire Avengers or Firewarriors in their usefulness. They're supposed to be a jack of all trades, master of none sort of deal, so why are they a jack of all trades but they suck at most of them? They need firepower. I can't begin to say how many times I've had Tacticals drop in and do nothing to a unit of Firewarriors, maybe killing two models at best in a single phase. My proposal:
- Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list.
- Tactical squads may gain the Slow and Purposeful rule for +1 point per model.

Wait wait wait CSM are worse than SM!? How? To start with, CSM don't start cheaper. Due to an invisible cost for the sergeant, 5 csm actually costs more than 5 SM. Along with that, the only time they cost the same is when both are in units of 10. The only time that they cost even is when you take more than 10 per unit. Hurray! So we cost 13? Nice! How much do those tac marines cost? 14 you say!? Well what do they get for 1 extra point. The ability to split into 2 units, And they Shall Know no Fear, and then they get several own rules! Let us look at Salamanders.... Re-roll pen for flamers (meh), re-roll flamers to wound, every character gets free master crafted! Is that all worth 1 point? 1 point? How is it losing all of this and gaining champions of chaos? Champion Chaos forces your champion to declare a challenge no matter what. You can't be tactical, you can't avoid it, you simply MUST. To make matters worse the boon table is unreliable with most of the buffs being worthless and the iconic daemon prince actually is worse for your hq and in killpoint games can give an extra killpoint! The only advantage CSM get is that they can get 2 specialist weapons in a unit of 10 unlike tacticals. Granted, that isn't cure all, Grey wolves went from one of the best to meh. Also the marks aren't reliable. Slaanesh's +1 initiative has limited effectiveness as it really only makes them better in CC and only versus SM and a few Eldar, it is almost worthles on anything that has a powerfist, etc. The mark of nurgle is pretty decent but at that point you'd rather just pay a bit extra for Plague Marines, Mark of Khorne is yet again rather specialized although if memory serves me it is better than Berzerkers but that isn't saying much, and the mark of Tzeentch is a costly 6++ save which is not worth it in the slightest. The flags you can carry really only have 2 good ones one being giving them fearless but that means they can't go to ground, can't retreat from CC like sm can at least attempt to, and any precision shots can easily pick him out whilst the other is a costly but good Slaanesh icon to give them all fnp really only held back by CSM already being mediocre, noise marines being better in MSU, and more. Simply put, CSM are actually worse than tacticals. Oh yeah, and we get 2 transport options, (discounting deep striking for winged daemon prince, jump pack units, and terminators) a single variant of a Land Raider and a single rhino variant.

That being said, I do agree with you that tacticals might need something. I wouldn't say slow and purposeful. You can't run, you can't overwatch... it's really not that great of a rule. Heck, I'd rather have relentless making them a bit more everyman. Unload rapid fire and then chaaarge! I agree with your 2 basic weapons like why not? Why does the Codex Astartes limit a plasma and melta gun in a unit? So yeah I'd nod my head to that. Admittedly I don't think they would need SaP nor Relentless if it weren't for things like waveserpents, riptides, and the heavy dosages of pseudo-rending everywhere. Also you mentioned ap3 weapons being pretty bad. To be honest though, ap3 weapons are usually rare and honestly tend to be bad or sub par. The main problem is the rise of an ap2 environment and moar dakka! Plasma, riptide guns, etc. all have come in to make it harder.

**Johnnytorrance**

BoomWolf wrote:
FLUFFWISE why would they have SnP? its not making any sense for them.

And as said-they don't ahve the same killpower, they got durability. and for troops that's the important thing. they are fine with that.
The difference between 4+ and 5+ IS huge, but so is 4+ to 3+. AP3 AoE weapons or high RoF guns are less common. unlike AP4 where you got large blasts everywhere and cheap heavy bolters spitting them. and even if you dont get by the save, a 1/2 chance to kill is still better then 2/3.

Grey hunters are also more expensive from the get-go (rendering the cheaper first special and free second matter less), got no option to get a heavy weapon AT ALL and got Counter Attack where tacticals got much superior Chapter Tactics, and the ability to split up (the hunters cant do it. at all.)

Grey hunters were amazing back when they costed the same as tactical and did everything better and cheaper, these days its not so. they are a less flexible tactical squad that's better only specifically at advancing towards the enemy and pellet him with guns-and worse at objective camping.

Maybe he meant give them relentless? Regardless it would also require a huge shift to change some chapter tactics.

**Dat Guy**

[spoiler]

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dat Guy wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.

This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.

For every BS4 boltgun the Orks field more than two BS2 Shootas. 7 Ork Boyz have a higher amount of average hits (and a much higher max potential!) than 3 Marines at the discussed range intervals. I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The Orks are slightly less survivable in the open but much more so in cover, and have both a better melee and shooting prowess than Tactical Marines, while being from a Codex from two editions ago.

Talizvar wrote:
As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.

Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.

Going from "woefully incomptetent" to "almost competent" is hardly enough to call Crusader Squads "butchers", especially when you have to give up what little shooting you have to do it...

Tactical marines are better then orks in cc barring special weapons, we look at it on the second round of an assault so no bonus for either charging. Marines strike first and have a better save, hit and wound on 4+. Orks strike at I 2 and hit on 4+ wound on 5+ with a 6+ save.

My dire avengers have out melee orks on occasion. You have to look at it as a whole.

**SRSFACE**

The biggest thing going against Tactical Marines is how woefully inefficient and dangerous attempting to get into Assault is this edition. Because everyone can sit back and simply shoot you to death now without fear of being murdered in gruesome, bloody hand to hand combat, Marines as a whole are in an awkward place.

ATSKNF used to be borderline overpowered. Now it's just dead weight. What codex is actively trying to get into hand to hand anymore to force those failed morale checks and sweeping advance to obliterate large groups anymore? No one, partly because MEQ armies are still the most popular in terms of the models and fluff to the 40k universe. After The Defiler of Ink and Paper got his hands to create ATSKNF in the first place, it actually hurt Marines in the long run by forcing every other codex into giant, unkillable monstrocities like the Heldrake or Riptide.

If assault armies outside of Daemonette spam were still viable, Tactical Marines would be fine. They sit on objectives point for point better than any other troop in the game. The fact you rarely if ever have to fear assault gave rise to the shooty massive AP giant unkillable monster spam that is the current state of 40k.

**Mahtamori**

McNinja wrote:
Durandal wrote:
As far as troops choices go, Tac squads are the most durable and can be kitted for any role.

Dire Avengers have great firepower, but the cost is a lower range, and a weak platform.

An IG squad with humble lasrifles will kill them 1/8 of the time per shot. They kill Tac squads at 1/18 times.

Sure, 1/9 of the time the Dire Avengers shots will ignore armor saves. Overall however, your marines humble bolters will kill 1/4.5 of the time vs. 1/5 of the Avengers. If you upgrade to a plasma gun, you will be ignoring almost as many saves per turn as the Avengers as well, and you have that option. The avengers don't. You also have better range, so the Avengers have to move towards you or sit at >18 and take potshots.

I won't argue the game is perfectly balanced, but Tac squads are far more forgiving then using Avengers or DE warriors. Properly kitted, they can sit back and still contribute to the fight, they can take a round of fire far better then D/Eldar or fire warriors.
Avengers are faster: they can move within 24", then move back via battle focus. They also have double the shots at 13+ inches that Tac squads do. Dire Avengers also have the ability to take AP3 melee weapons, invuln saves, and thanks to fleet will usually get the charge.

Weapon. Weapon. Singular. Only the Exarch can change his armament. And the Exarch can NOT take any AP3 weapons. He can take a twin-linked Shuriken Catapult, but that's the only way he can ever improve his ranged attack. Otherwise he can take a Power Weapon or a Dire Sword (Ap2). The invulnerable can NOT be combined with a ranged weapon, it can only be combined with a Power Weapon.

If the Shimmershield causes you problems, then start making use of tactical movement or precision shots to kill him. He's got 3+ save, but is still weaker than your average Space Marine (at roughly 3x the cost to boot!)

Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about the following rule? Nevermind two heavy or special weapons, just this:

With Purpose: Marines may choose one of the following options before deployment:
- Steady Aim - The unit gains Slow and Purposeful
- Bring the fight to Them - Each model in the unit gains a Chainsword or combat blade
- Bolter Barrage - Declare you are using this rule before shooting. The unit may fire their boltguns twice this shooting phase, but may not shoot at all next turn. This may be used at any point in the game and can be used more than once.

That's old school Bladestorm. It was removed from Eldar for a reason. Don't bring it back. (The reason? It was just bad. Too powerful one turn, difficult to track next and plain bad)

Chainsword, Bolter, Bolt Pistol is actually a very good basic equipment to tweak Tactical Marine's performance without changing their role or tacking on weird unnecessary special rules. Make them all Grey Hunters. I'm fine with that. Naturally the rules for replacing weapons would be "replace the bolter with ranged weapon X, the chainsword with melee weapon Y or the bolt pistol with pistol Z" so you don't get people sticking weird configurations on their Marines.

**Jimsolo**

Personal opinion? Tactical marines don't need to be fixed. They didn't need to be fixed before we got our new codex, and I was a little surprised when they shaved some points off of them here and there.

I play Marines, and between their transports, equipment flexibility, ATSKNF, and 3+ armor, they are doing just fine.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Dat Guy wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dat Guy wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.

This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.

For every BS4 boltgun the Orks field more than two BS2 Shootas. 7 Ork Boyz have a higher amount of average hits (and a much higher max potential!) than 3 Marines at the discussed range intervals. I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The Orks are slightly less survivable in the open but much more so in cover, and have both a better melee and shooting prowess than Tactical Marines, while being from a Codex from two editions ago.

Talizvar wrote:
As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.

Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.

Going from "woefully incomptetent" to "almost competent" is hardly enough to call Crusader Squads "butchers", especially when you have to give up what little shooting you have to do it...

Tactical marines are better then orks in cc barring special weapons, we look at it on the second round of an assault so no bonus for either charging. Marines strike first and have a better save, hit and wound on 4+. Orks strike at I 2 and hit on 4+ wound on 5+ with a 6+ save.

My dire avengers have out melee orks on occasion. You have to look at it as a whole.

3 Marines put out 3 attacks at S4 I4. 7 Orks put out 14 attacks at S3 I2. Even with the worse stats, the Orks are putting out an average of 2.333... wounds against T4 units, while the Tacticals are doing .75. Even taking the Power Armour into account, that's still .777... wounds dealt to the Marines, against only 0.625 from the Marines. Even worse, if we take the lost Ork into account (being generous and rounding up by quite a bit) it's still 12 attacks, which is 0.666... unsaved wounds. On average, even turn 2 in an assault an equal number of Ork (Shoota!) Boyz kill more Tactical Marines than the Tactical Marines kill Boyz, meaning you're at best incorrect and at worst lying.

I'm not going to respond to the next person who hasn't bothered to take 2 minutes to see if their claim is actually true or not. If we start including Power Weapons it only gets worse for the Marines.

As a final note, please don't try to counter with "but Orks are supposed to be good in combat!". Shoota Boyz are, as their name implies, a shooting unit. They shoot stuff. They're decent in combat because they're Orks, but they're not supposed to be both more durable and better offensively than a troops choice that is, supposedly, durable, especially not seeing as they're two editions out of date. If all it takes to turn Ork Boyz more durable to S4 AP- (aka small-arms stats) is a measly 6+ t-shirt save then there's pretty obviously something wrong with the marines.

**Rav1rn**

As a final note, please don't try to counter with "but Orks are supposed to be good in combat!". Shoota Boyz are, as their name implies, a shooting unit. They shoot stuff. They're decent in combat because they're Orks, but they're not supposed to be both more durable and better offensively than a troops choice that is, supposedly, durable, especially not seeing as they're two editions out of date. If all it takes to turn Ork Boyz more durable to S4 AP- (aka small-arms stats) is a measly 6+ t-shirt save then there's pretty obviously something wrong with the marines.

Firstly, the ork boy Statline has always been pretty nuts for its point cost. I would very much like to see them have rage rather than 2 attacks base, making them even more ferocious chargers, as it helps avoid the situation you just described. Plus why do they have two attacks to begin with? They're no more skilled in Melee than a Marine, and it's clearly not their natural speed (Initiative 2) or extra limbs. I guess you could say its something to do with their culture, but I would think WS 4 would take that into account. Beyond this, trying to create balance by comparing two poorly balanced units is painful at best, pointless at worst.

I'm not going to respond to the next person who hasn't bothered to take 2 minutes to see if their claim is actually true or not. If we start including Power Weapons it only gets worse for the Marines.

Might want to tone down the aggression, i highly doubt he is responsible for the poor balance work. Beyond this, yes it gets worse with power weapons, but not only are power weapons meant to kill armored units, they're also rarely available to basic troops en masse, so it's significantly less of a problem. However this brings up a good point, in that the current AP system is completely bonkers. It significantly overvalues AP 3 and 2, almost completely ignores 5+ and 6+ saves, and is generally a bit of a mess. I'd say the best way to fix tactical marines is to fix the AP system so AP 3 and 2 arent so necessary to break power armor. If many weapons have some ability to crack armor rather than the current all or nothing approach, then it's no longer "lets just pick the marine killer and call it a day since it'll do at least as well vs almost everything else". Their ranged and Melee capabilities are alright, especially with chapter tactics, so durability is where the patch is needed.

**brother marcus**

All I want is a goddamn KNIFE !!! I opened up the new codex full of hope and went striaght to tacitcal squads but NOPE! I mean seriously chaos have them and there a bunch of scavengers!! But do loyalists have one NO !!! You would think with all the machine worlds pumping out equipment on a huge scale they might make a knife or two or have they "forgotten" how to make them, either that or the master of the forge is being selfish with them. Anyway the point is give them a F#%^*€$G KNIFE !!!

**Dat Guy**

[spoiler=open at own risk]

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dat Guy wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dat Guy wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.

This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.

For every BS4 boltgun the Orks field more than two BS2 Shootas. 7 Ork Boyz have a higher amount of average hits (and a much higher max potential!) than 3 Marines at the discussed range intervals. I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The Orks are slightly less survivable in the open but much more so in cover, and have both a better melee and shooting prowess than Tactical Marines, while being from a Codex from two editions ago.

Talizvar wrote:
As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.

Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.

Going from "woefully incomptetent" to "almost competent" is hardly enough to call Crusader Squads "butchers", especially when you have to give up what little shooting you have to do it...

Tactical marines are better then orks in cc barring special weapons, we look at it on the second round of an assault so no bonus for either charging. Marines strike first and have a better save, hit and wound on 4+. Orks strike at I 2 and hit on 4+ wound on 5+ with a 6+ save.

My dire avengers have out melee orks on occasion. You have to look at it as a whole.

3 Marines put out 3 attacks at S4 I4. 7 Orks put out 14 attacks at S3 I2. Even with the worse stats, the Orks are putting out an average of 2.333... wounds against T4 units, while the Tacticals are doing .75. Even taking the Power Armour into account, that's still .777... wounds dealt to the Marines, against only 0.625 from the Marines. Even worse, if we take the lost Ork into account (being generous and rounding up by quite a bit) it's still 12 attacks, which is 0.666... unsaved wounds. On average, even turn 2 in an assault an equal number of Ork (Shoota!) Boyz kill more Tactical Marines than the Tactical Marines kill Boyz, meaning you're at best incorrect and at worst lying.

I'm not going to respond to the next person who hasn't bothered to take 2 minutes to see if their claim is actually true or not. If we start including Power Weapons it only gets worse for the Marines.

As a final note, please don't try to counter with "but Orks are supposed to be good in combat!". Shoota Boyz are, as their name implies, a shooting unit. They shoot stuff. They're decent in combat because they're Orks, but they're not supposed to be both more durable and better offensively than a troops choice that is, supposedly, durable, especially not seeing as they're two editions out of date. If all it takes to turn Ork Boyz more durable to S4 AP- (aka small-arms stats) is a measly 6+ t-shirt save then there's pretty obviously something wrong with the marines.

[/spoiler] I take it you don't play many games and spend to much time doing math hammer. Alright that is just wound statistics that's not survivability. I have rolled 23 3+ saves before and made them all (which is not hard) has anyone rolled 23 6+ saves and made them all? If so I want to shake his/her hand. In this edition space marines over power orks minus their lootas. Orks will have a hard chance to make it into assault and if they do its going to take a lot of above average statistical dice rolls to help.

FYI the difference in your math hammer is a matter of .1 yeah point one is a game breaker.

**Poly Ranger**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Paying to be durable?!

You pay what, two points for ATSKNF and T4 compared to Sisters? Or, heck, one point for a 3+ save compared to Necron Warriors.

A single freaking point.

How much more durable to you want to be?!

Heavy flamers and dual special weapons are the Sisters' stick, anyway, and they pay for it by losing access to plasma and rocket.

Necron warriors glance even Landraiders to death with 6's meaning you don't have to invest in in much AT. They can go in units upto 20 and also have re-animation protocals which can be boosted with orbs and ghost arks. Also coming from a dex which has mass st7 saturation it means they have their weaknesses covered for cheaper far more efficiently than the marine dex does. Ld10 almost makes up for ATSKNF. So no its not just 1pt for a slightly better armour save. That is why silver tide is WAY more effective than tac spam!

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dat guy - the chances of making 23 3+ saves is 0.0089% chance. That IS hard to do!

**AlmightyWalrus**

Dat Guy wrote:
[spoiler=open at own risk]
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dat Guy wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Dat Guy wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Just as an example, to kill 3 Tactical Marines (42 points), you need an average of 27 BS4 bolter shots. To kill 7 Ork Boyz (42 points) you need an average of 21 BS4 bolter shots. If we add cover to the Boyz, which is trivially easy to come across, it's 28 BS4 bolter shots to kill them.

This may be true but an unfair comparison, you are comparing 2 different races with 2 different stat lines and using bs4 boltguns to compare. Orks are not bs4 they are bs2 and they don't use bolt guns. So you can't say orks vs space marines and say they both die in this way to the same bs4 bolt gun. Now if you would have stated space marine vs space marine with bs4 bolt guns that's an even comparison.

For every BS4 boltgun the Orks field more than two BS2 Shootas. 7 Ork Boyz have a higher amount of average hits (and a much higher max potential!) than 3 Marines at the discussed range intervals. I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The Orks are slightly less survivable in the open but much more so in cover, and have both a better melee and shooting prowess than Tactical Marines, while being from a Codex from two editions ago.

Talizvar wrote:
As Anpu42 has indicated, these units that kill marines are usually elite units or something designed to get units off the objectives.

Marines are a jack of all trades but master of none; they do OK at a bit of everything. Half the fun is making target priority difficult and the marine list is spoiled for choice. I like that I was able to field some BT squads armed with CS and BP's where in melee they suddenly became butchers.

Going from "woefully incomptetent" to "almost competent" is hardly enough to call Crusader Squads "butchers", especially when you have to give up what little shooting you have to do it...

Tactical marines are better then orks in cc barring special weapons, we look at it on the second round of an assault so no bonus for either charging. Marines strike first and have a better save, hit and wound on 4+. Orks strike at I 2 and hit on 4+ wound on 5+ with a 6+ save.

My dire avengers have out melee orks on occasion. You have to look at it as a whole.

3 Marines put out 3 attacks at S4 I4. 7 Orks put out 14 attacks at S3 I2. Even with the worse stats, the Orks are putting out an average of 2.333... wounds against T4 units, while the Tacticals are doing .75. Even taking the Power Armour into account, that's still .777... wounds dealt to the Marines, against only 0.625 from the Marines. Even worse, if we take the lost Ork into account (being generous and rounding up by quite a bit) it's still 12 attacks, which is 0.666... unsaved wounds. On average, even turn 2 in an assault an equal number of Ork (Shoota!) Boyz kill more Tactical Marines than the Tactical Marines kill Boyz, meaning you're at best incorrect and at worst lying.

I'm not going to respond to the next person who hasn't bothered to take 2 minutes to see if their claim is actually true or not. If we start including Power Weapons it only gets worse for the Marines.

As a final note, please don't try to counter with "but Orks are supposed to be good in combat!". Shoota Boyz are, as their name implies, a shooting unit. They shoot stuff. They're decent in combat because they're Orks, but they're not supposed to be both more durable and better offensively than a troops choice that is, supposedly, durable, especially not seeing as they're two editions out of date. If all it takes to turn Ork Boyz more durable to S4 AP- (aka small-arms stats) is a measly 6+ t-shirt save then there's pretty obviously something wrong with the marines.
[/spoiler] I take it you don't play many games and spend to much time doing math hammer. Alright that is just wound statistics that's not survivability. I have rolled 23 3+ saves before and made them all (which is not hard) has anyone rolled 23 6+ saves and made them all? If so I want to shake his/her hand. In this edition space marines over power orks minus their lootas. Orks will have a hard chance to make it into assault and if they do its going to take a lot of above average statistical dice rolls to help.

FYI the difference in your math hammer is a matter of .1 yeah point one is a game breaker.

That .1 is more than a 10% difference. Over the course of a game, a 10% difference is pretty substantial. Moving on from that, where have I argued that Space Marines are worse off than Orks? All I've said (and proven, unlike you) is that Ork Boyz are, generally, more survivable and more damaging than Tactical Marines per point. You've tried to disprove this with assertions that have turned out to be blatantly untrue. I've had a mate take 67 2+ armour saves on the last Terminator in a squad the last turn on top of an objective, but does that mean Terminators are always completely unkillable if they're down to their last model?

This is going to sound harsh, and I'm not going to be polite about it, but if you don't understand how probability interacts with the game I suggest you stop arguing, because it'll be a waste of both your and my time.

**Poly Ranger**

Tbf if I saw 23 out of 23 3+ saves made I would want to shake that persons hand, as it is an 89 out of a million chance, put into words...

**Blackskull**

People are moaning about drakes and loads of other low ap weapons making tactical marines redundant but realy a marine is gonna last just as long as any other troop against that kind of firepower and with a 3+ save they can also survive better against Small arms then any other troop. I'm sorry marines can't crack a land raider with their bare hands but that's not what they are for. We tactical marines will cap points and when we run away we will instead turn around and shoot those who made us run away. Marines will not let you down so long as you don't ask them to do anything more than their purpose requires. FW and tau army in general need other units to have any impact at all. Without markerlights tau stink due to poor accuracy with their guns and they unlike orks and IG cannot make up for that with volume of fire as their squad size is not that large. A marine will always fight as well on turn 1 as on turn 6 where tau come unstuck if you target key elements. Dire avengers have better maneuverability and guns but lower saves and toughness and cost about the same so no real advantage. Orks are broken their statline is a bargain and rightly are the best troops in the game but as an army in all other areas every codex beats them ork armor is bad and so is their heavy weapons so it balance s out overall.

**Furyou Miko**

brother marcus wrote:
All I want is a goddamn KNIFE !!! I opened up the new codex full of hope and went striaght to tacitcal squads but NOPE! I mean seriously chaos have them and there a bunch of scavengers!! But do loyalists have one NO !!! You would think with all the machine worlds pumping out equipment on a huge scale they might make a knife or two or have they "forgotten" how to make them, either that or the master of the forge is being selfish with them. Anyway the point is give them a F#%^*€$G KNIFE !!!

Seconded, lol. The astartes combat knife is still one of the coolest looking close combat weapons in the game. When I scratch-built my Inquisitor, I gave her one and painted it blue and it's a freaking force sword (and has never been questioned as such).

The sad truth is that Marines aren't trained to dual wield at the Tactical level, so while they have knives and pistols, they only know how to use one at a time - and since the gun butt has the same stats as the knife, they don't bother listing the knife.