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.

Yep, they get that for 1 ppm. Dire Avengers still utterly outclass tacticals even with that, since they unlock Wave Serpents.

You need to look at everything a unit does.

Plus, battle focus + 2 shots at 18" is very very very powerful.

I payed 18pts per marine which both my opponents where happy with.

One of my friends I played is an avid marine hater and even he agreed that they needed something extra and then we were both impressed how much of a difference that extra shot made

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Yep, they get that for 1 ppm. Dire Avengers still utterly outclass tacticals even with that, since they unlock Wave Serpents.

You need to look at everything a unit does.

Plus, battle focus + 2 shots at 18" is very very very powerful.

So now your balancing tacticals around Wave Serpents not Avengers and one of those 1-2 undercosted spammed tourney units I mentioned earlier. Compared to the Avenger they are fine. Remember the Serpent has a 100+pt buy in cost whereas the marines can be mobile for less than 40, swings and roundabouts. I'd love to be able to mount up 3 squads of Ulthwe Black Guard for the same cost as a Wave Serpent personally.
Eldar players weren't complaining that Guardians stacked up badly to Riptides.

As for 2 shots at 18:

Marines produce identical firepower at 12 or less, 1 less shot at 12-18 and 1 more shot at 18-24. Bladestorm means Avengers hit harder against good saves but they are hit harder by everyone in the S2-5 bracket with a huge drop in survivability against AP4.

18pts a marine, maybe, making them better but boosting cost is viable but it's not going to appease all the people who feel they aren't survivable enough (which as someone who plays armies with limited 3+ saves boggles my mind but hey) in fact it is going to make them worse in their eyes.
The other thing is we already have "elite marines" in Grey Knights and making bolters 2 shot is stepping on the Knights stormbolter toes at long range and making it better up close.

Now you raise all kinds of new balance issues: Do Stormbolters need to get cheaper or better? What effect does this have on Chaos or Sisters?

The bolter is so ubiquitous a weapon that changing it's stats creates an avalanche of potential balance issues.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

brother marcus wrote:
I tested out giving bolters 2 shots and it works really well.

I played a 1v1v1 against tau AND eldar which are marines biggest problems and a squad of tactical marines actually won a toe to toe fire fight against dire avengers.

So over the Dire Avengers the Tactical's have the ability to deal with MC's/vehicles with krak grenades, practical immunity to morale thanks to ATSKNF, greater durability due to T and save and chapter tactics for a single point per model and now you are happy? Add in the fact you gave them melee weapons as well so they can out-fight, out-shoot, out-survive and out-versatile the unit you hold up as being really good for a *single point per model* and you aren't asking for a balanced marine anymore at that point.

The existence of power build tourney meta lists that revolve around 1-2 undercosted units is no an excuse to expect your own army to get OP toys across the board.

The tactical marine's strength is in his versatility, there is no threat they cannot engage with the right loadout. Balancing them in a world where no-one plays anything but Triptide, Screamerstar, Jetseers when there are like 10 other dexes out there stacks the deck and is worse than what people claim GW do with balance. Tac's are already way better against units like Orks and Gaunts than Avengers, lets be reasonable in our expectations.

I'd love for every unit in the game to be in absolute balance, I really would, but what you guys are talking here isn't balance, it's favouritism.

I didn't make the suggestions you speak of. But to address your point, krak grandes are awful, ATSKNF has been neutered by the lethality of 6th edition. Most chapter tactics don't accomplish much in the scheme of things either. Some do, but they still aren't making tacticals great.

Tactical marines can out-shoot precious few models indeed. That is their biggest liability in general. The way 6th edition runs, I'd rather have Kroot troops for the sniper rifles. Sniper rifles have their niche targets they excel against, so at least the Kroot can contribute. You can point to scouts, but scouts cost way too much per shot taken compared to Kroot.

", there is no threat they cannot engage with the right loadout. "

That's the problem. They have no loadout that allows them to engage anything. I don't know if you own marines, but try them sometime. Tactical marines are awful and basically a tax on a list that can't afford one.

"So now your balancing tacticals around Wave Serpents"

Since Wave Serpents exist, they are the standard because I can't avoid them. If there was a way to get people to shun them like FW, I'd agree with you. But the Wave Serpent is the new bar. GW set it. I didn't. If ALL units were balanced around the BEST unit, then the game would be fair.

Melta: AV
Plasma: High toughness
Bolters: Horde infantry.

Used correctly, then can do the job.

Yes, they aren't perfect and they're certainly very killable but I often run marines, and they function pretty well!

It's obvious that you're of the opinion that they are destinctly below par, and your reasoning is relatively solid. But there are enough of us who disagree, because at the end of the day... it's an opinion.

 smithy12262 wrote:
Melta: AV
Plasma: High toughness
Bolters: Horde infantry.

Used correctly, then can do the job.

Yes, they aren't perfect and they're certainly very killable but I often run marines, and they function pretty well!

It's obvious that you're of the opinion that they are destinctly below par, and your reasoning is relatively solid. But there are enough of us who disagree, because at the end of the day... it's an opinion.

They don't have enough shots of plasma or melta to even be considered as having those weapons. They are easily ignorable, which is unacceptable for even their new reduced cost. Compare to Kroot snipers who can strip out multiple MCs out of a list over the course of a game. Or Dire Avengers, who can also engage any target with a T value. Then run after they shoot to boot. Bolters don't do good damage until the horde is on top of you, and then its too late because tac marines fold like wussies in assault.

The bottom line is this: they take zero pressure of any of the killy elements of a marine list. They are ONLY a consideration in how many you have to ROFL stomp off objectives.

I mean, as a BA player, I should be the ultimate litmus test. BA are the weakest list in the game right now, but BA still aren't threatened in any way by tactical squads. That's not good. Not at all.

Martel732 wrote:

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What should we compare to then? Aren't NFL quarterbacks compared to Brady/Manning? Why shouldn't lists be compared to the best available competition.

Tac marines are terrible enough that they can be largely ignored in a real game, even by weaker codices. That's pretty damn bad.

Do they have some flaws.Yes. Are they so weak that they need a but ton of special rules to fix them? Definitely not. They need a few changes (putting in a variation of fury of the Legion rule would be nice) but I don't think that they are the paper thin weaklings everyones been making them seem like.

Defensively, they are fine. They are offensive weaklings. Other, cheaper, troops are not. That's a massive problem.

If your up against triptide maybe but I do not find an issue with them. Chapter tactics (FW has great ones) fixes a lot of their problems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 smithy12262 wrote:
Melta: AV
Plasma: High toughness
Bolters: Horde infantry.

Used correctly, then can do the job.

Yes, they aren't perfect and they're certainly very killable but I often run marines, and they function pretty well!

It's obvious that you're of the opinion that they are destinctly below par, and your reasoning is relatively solid. But there are enough of us who disagree, because at the end of the day... it's an opinion.

They don't have enough shots of plasma or melta to even be considered as having those weapons. They are easily ignorable, which is unacceptable for even their new reduced cost. Compare to Kroot snipers who can strip out multiple MCs out of a list over the course of a game. Or Dire Avengers, who can also engage any target with a T value. Then run after they shoot to boot. Bolters don't do good damage until the horde is on top of you, and then its too late because tac marines fold like wussies in assault.

The bottom line is this: they take zero pressure of any of the killy elements of a marine list. They are ONLY a consideration in how many you have to ROFL stomp off objectives.

I mean, as a BA player, I should be the ultimate litmus test. BA are the weakest list in the game right now, but BA still aren't threatened in any way by tactical squads. That's not good. Not at all.

Orks are a barely functional mono list right now. not sure what is worse than that...

Martel732 wrote:

Since Wave Serpents exist, they are the standard because I can't avoid them. If there was a way to get people to shun them like FW, I'd agree with you. But the Wave Serpent is the new bar. GW set it. I didn't. If ALL units were balanced around the BEST unit, then the game would be fair.

This way lies madness where every unit has to punch at the weight class of Riptides and Wave Serpents. If that is the litmus then even Eldar and Tau players have the right to stand up and say hey 95% of my army is underpowered I need the buffs now.

The tourney meta is not dominated by Eldar, Tau and Daemons they are dominated by a small selection of units from those dexes. Suggesting everything in a codex punched at that weight class as a solution simply does not work as it means 99% of units in the *game* must be rebalanced not simply tac marines.

Tac marines punch at an Avengers level, a solid troop choice. Are there undercosted units that fry all basic units? Yeah, but if that's what we're balancing around then marines need to get in line behind everyone else in need to damage buffs and price cuts and we will be here a *long* time.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Since Wave Serpents exist, they are the standard because I can't avoid them. If there was a way to get people to shun them like FW, I'd agree with you. But the Wave Serpent is the new bar. GW set it. I didn't. If ALL units were balanced around the BEST unit, then the game would be fair.

This way lies madness where every unit has to punch at the weight class of Riptides and Wave Serpents. If that is the litmus then even Eldar and Tau players have the right to stand up and say hey 95% of my army is underpowered I need the buffs now.

The tourney meta is not dominated by Eldar, Tau and Daemons they are dominated by a small selection of units from those dexes. Suggesting everything in a codex punched at that weight class as a solution simply does not work as it means 99% of units in the *game* must be rebalanced not simply tac marines.

Tac marines punch at an Avengers level, a solid troop choice. Are there undercosted units that fry all basic units? Yeah, but if that's what we're balancing around then marines need to get in line behind everyone else in need to damage buffs and price cuts and we will be here a *long* time.

IF IT'S NOT RIPTIDES IT'S NOT WORTH IT!!!

"Suggesting everything in a codex punched at that weight class as a solution simply does not work as it means 99% of units in the *game* must be rebalanced not simply tac marines. "

Quoted for truth. I think that all units, in every list, need to be rebalanced against the best units in the game in order to balance out the game.

For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in the game. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.

"This way lies madness"

It's too late for that. We already have madness. 2++ rerollable should never have been allowed, nor made necessary.

"The other thing is we already have "elite marines" in Grey Knights and making bolters 2 shot is stepping on the Knights stormbolter toes at long range and making it better up close."

I really don't care how much Grey Knights get stepped on. Their codex is practically Xeno anyway. Also, compared to the capabilities of tac marines, Grey Knight troops are incredibly undercosted. Even compared to the new marine codex.

Martel732 wrote:
For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.

This should be what was said.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.

This should be what was said.

No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.

This should be what was said.

No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.

Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.

This should be what was said.

No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.

Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?

I like them the way they are. Chapter tactics opened up the way for a lot of meaningful buffs. I understand why people think Tac marines are weaklings but the games I've played have not supported these claims.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.

This should be what was said.

No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.

Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?

Define "work". How much are they actually killing? Survival is not in question more than any other troop that gets mercilessly gunned down. Yeah, I win with C:SM sometimes and the lists have tac marines in them, but I'd rather not have them at all.

My first guess is that people might be conflating their army winning matches with tactical marines actually contributing.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.

This should be what was said.

No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.

Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?

Define "work". How much are they actually killing? Survival is not in question more than any other troop that gets mercilessly gunned down. Yeah, I win with C:SM sometimes and the lists have tac marines in them, but I'd rather not have them at all.

?
I mean their not the best units ever but I mean they are really solid scoring units. It doesn't matter how much you "Kill" it's how much you accomplish in a game. It doesn't matter if they killed a carnifex if those Gaunts still have objective.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.

This should be what was said.

No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.

Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?

Define "work". How much are they actually killing? Survival is not in question more than any other troop that gets mercilessly gunned down. Yeah, I win with C:SM sometimes and the lists have tac marines in them, but I'd rather not have them at all.

My first guess is that people might be conflating their army winning matches with tactical marines actually contributing.

Work as in they do there jobs. Hold Objectives, Take Obejecyives and kill off enemy Units. What more do they need to do?

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
For all those claiming tacs are "solid", I would just say that I find them to be one of the if the *the* least efficient troops in MY META. This is primarily due to their lack of offensive punch. I find it infinitely amusing that GW's flagship army has consistently had some of the worst troops in the game for some time now.

This should be what was said.

No. Mathematical inferiority of throw weight is independent of meta. There is no meta where a Kroot sniper is not more capable of dealing meaningful damage on a per point basis. "Meta" is an excuse people use to hand-wave away horrible units. I won't have it.

Then how come there is a bunch of us who are making them work and survive?

Define "work". How much are they actually killing? Survival is not in question more than any other troop that gets mercilessly gunned down. Yeah, I win with C:SM sometimes and the lists have tac marines in them, but I'd rather not have them at all.

My first guess is that people might be conflating their army winning matches with tactical marines actually contributing.

Work as in they do there jobs. Hold Objectives, Take Obejecyives and kill off enemy Units. What more do they need to do?

Fire strength 10 blasts every other turn and re roll to hit

I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.

What do you mean by "solid"? They have become pretty easy to take off the board via Xeno firepower. They don't shoot well. They aren't cheap. They aren't good in HTH. So what are the "solid" at? Standing there? Costing you points with no return other than "scoring"? CSM at least can get cultists if that's your criteria.

Please give examples of them being "solid". As in, specific contributions. Because I can tell you exactly how Kroot and DA and fire warriors contribute against my marine lists, but I can't tell you how my tac marines are contributing in the reverse.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.

What do you mean by "solid"? They have become pretty easy to take off the board via Xeno firepower. They don't shoot well. They aren't cheap. They aren't good in HTH. So what are the "solid" at? Standing there? Costing you points with no return other than "scoring"? CSM at least can get cultists if that's your criteria.

Please give examples of them being "solid". As in, specific contributions. Because I can tell you exactly how Kroot and DA and fire warriors contribute against my marine lists, but I can't tell you how my tac marines are contributing in the reverse.

Do marines die fairly quickly. Yeah. But you seem to be obsessed with how many things marines can kill. Their mid range troops their job IS to stand their and occasionally kill some other midrange stuff. They are pricey but Kroot are terrible example.Their a T3 assault unit with no armor. That's not very helpful.

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.

What do you mean by "solid"? They have become pretty easy to take off the board via Xeno firepower. They don't shoot well. They aren't cheap. They aren't good in HTH. So what are the "solid" at? Standing there? Costing you points with no return other than "scoring"? CSM at least can get cultists if that's your criteria.

Please give examples of them being "solid". As in, specific contributions. Because I can tell you exactly how Kroot and DA and fire warriors contribute against my marine lists, but I can't tell you how my tac marines are contributing in the reverse.

Do marines die fairly quickly. Yeah. But you seem to be obsessed with how many things marines can kill. Their mid range troops their job IS to stand their and occasionally kill some other midrange stuff. They are pricey but Kroot are terrible example.Their a T3 assault unit with no armor. That's not very helpful.

I just like Kroot a lot because they can bring the hurt on MCs (very important now as MCs are way tougher than vehicles).

I'm obsessed with killing power because marines can't weather a Xeno list for 5-6 turns without killing a lot in return to reduce incoming fire. Ie, the best defense in 6th ed is a good offense. I realize that many tournament games end early. Maybe that's a difference in perception.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.

For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.

For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.

Same here. Not everyones a tourney-power-lookatmyriptides-TAUDAR player.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.

For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.

Yeah, unfortunately, tac marines can't do much to the Battlewagons I usually face when I play against Orks. Or do much to the biker Nobz. Did I mention that tacticals don't have much firepower? I wish I could play against lists with 3-4 tactical squads.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.

For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.

Yeah, unfortunately, tac marines can't do much to the Battlewagons I usually face when I play against Orks. Or do much to the biker Nobz. Did I mention that tacticals don't have much firepower? I wish I could play against lists with 3-4 tactical squads.

You said in an earlier post that you wish you couldn't take tac marines. Also give them lascannons and meltas. And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.

For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.

Yeah, unfortunately, tac marines can't do much to the Battlewagons I usually face when I play against Orks. Or do much to the biker Nobz. Did I mention that tacticals don't have much firepower? I wish I could play against lists with 3-4 tactical squads.

First Play 3-4 Tactical Suqads a few time ans see what happens.

Ork Trucks and Bikers, Why are you not taking them out with something other than your Tactical Squads. Cover also helps alot. You would be supried how a couple of Multi-Melta Land Speeders or Las Cannons into the sides of those truck can shut them down quickly.

I said AGAINST tactical marines. Marine players who use a lot of them are usually much easier to beat than biker lists. I personally don't want anything to do with them, but scouts aren't really any better for the points.

A single lascannon does squat in 6th ed. A single special weapon does squat. That's why tacs are bad. And imperial weapons are kinda crappy to begin with. That doesn't help in this whole mess. If tac marines could get scatter lasers, or poison DE weapons, that would be something.

" And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?"

If you don't know the answer to this, then I suspect that may be why you think tacs are "solid". Or did the other guy say that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm asserting that they don't actively pull their weight in killing enemy units for what you are forced to invest in them.

For our local group they do all the time. This is also with 3-4 Tactical Squads deealing with usaly 2-4 30 model Guat Broods/Ork Mobs on average. I have even had the same 2-3 Tactical Squads take down a 120 model Grot mob Lists.

Yeah, unfortunately, tac marines can't do much to the Battlewagons I usually face when I play against Orks. Or do much to the biker Nobz. Did I mention that tacticals don't have much firepower? I wish I could play against lists with 3-4 tactical squads.

First Play 3-4 Tactical Suqads a few time ans see what happens.

Ork Trucks and Bikers, Why are you not taking them out with something other than your Tactical Squads. Cover also helps alot. You would be supried how a couple of Multi-Melta Land Speeders or Las Cannons into the sides of those truck can shut them down quickly.

I have played marines since 1994. I have literally 15K of BA. I have fielded any number of combinations in 5th and 6th deducing the meta. I know what to do with Battlewagons and bikers. But shooting tactical squads at them isn't one of them.

Martel732 wrote:
I said AGAINST tactical marines. Marine players who use a lot of them are usually much easier to beat than biker lists. I personally don't want anything to do with them, but scouts aren't really any better for the points.

A single lascannon does squat in 6th ed. A single special weapon does squat. That's why tacs are bad. And imperial weapons are kinda crappy to begin with. That doesn't help in this whole mess. If tac marines could get scatter lasers, or poison DE weapons, that would be something.

" And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?"

If you don't know the answer to this, then I suspect that may be why you think tacs are "solid". Or did the other guy say that?

...
I don't like these kind of arguments because eventually i just leads back to "BUT TAUDAR CAN..." or "BUT BIKE LISTS CAN..." ultimately how good Tac marines are depend entirely on your own play style and not how many units it has the potential to kill. Also I've done more than just fight Battlewagons and Nob bikers with Tac marines, I've played against tac marines with Nob bikers and Battlewagons. It's all really just a matter of play style not what it is compared to X and how it isn't as good as Y.

Martel732 wrote:
I said AGAINST tactical marines. Marine players who use a lot of them are usually much easier to beat than biker lists. I personally don't want anything to do with them, but scouts aren't really any better for the points.

A single lascannon does squat in 6th ed. A single special weapon does squat. That's why tacs are bad. And imperial weapons are kinda crappy to begin with. That doesn't help in this whole mess. If tac marines could get scatter lasers, or poison DE weapons, that would be something.

" And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?"

If you don't know the answer to this, then I suspect that may be why you think tacs are "solid". Or did the other guy say that?

No a single Las-Cannon will not do alot, but 2 Plasma Gun Shots, 2 Combi-Plasma Shots and a Plasma Cannon will for a Tactical Squad.
or
Twin Linked Assualt Cannons from the Razorback
or
Multible Las-Cannons from Razorback/Preadtors/Devistators/Centriuns
or
The Terminator Squad

 Bronzefists42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I said AGAINST tactical marines. Marine players who use a lot of them are usually much easier to beat than biker lists. I personally don't want anything to do with them, but scouts aren't really any better for the points.

A single lascannon does squat in 6th ed. A single special weapon does squat. That's why tacs are bad. And imperial weapons are kinda crappy to begin with. That doesn't help in this whole mess. If tac marines could get scatter lasers, or poison DE weapons, that would be something.

" And how can 10+ strength 4 hits not at least scratch biker Nobs?"

If you don't know the answer to this, then I suspect that may be why you think tacs are "solid". Or did the other guy say that?

...
I don't like these kind of arguments because eventually i just leads back to "BUT TAUDAR CAN..." or "BUT BIKE LISTS CAN..." ultimately how good Tac marines are depend entirely on your own play style and not how many units it has the potential to kill. Also I've done more than just fight Battlewagons and Nob bikers with Tac marines, I've played against tac marines with Nob bikers and Battlewagons. It's all really just a matter of play style not what it is compared to X and how it isn't as good as Y.

Play style doesn't alter the math behind shooting phases. You don't like it when someone compares a unit that can do something (bikers) to the unit that I'm asserting really can't do anything (tacticals)?

Everything in this game is a comparison. Looking at a unit in a vacuum is useless because it is always up against something else on the board. If your play style does not involve minimizing the fire you take from the enemy by killing the enemy, I'm not sure what to say.

"No a single Las-Cannon will not do alot, but 2 Plasma Gun Shots, 2 Combi-Plasma Shots and a Plasma Cannon will for a Tactical Squad. "

How is your tactical squad getting this many weapons?

Assault cannons are awful for the points you pay. And tactical squads don't have them. RAZORBACKS do. That's different. Because that opens the door for the Dire Avengers having the Wave Serpent, and you don't want to go there.