Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Martel732 wrote: I 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?
I'm mostly just annoyed with the constant stream of "TAC MARINES SUCK BECAUSE (insert unrelated unit here)".
Does it change the math? Of course not but if the game was all just math than what fun would that be.
In all honesty I hate bikes and have trouble with doing anything remotely useful with them. Tac marines may not be as "good" but at least I'll enjoy playing with them/
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/16 20:54:07
Ok, I have been playing Space Marines since 1989. That has nothing to do with it.
You are not going to convince those of us who have been using Tactical Squads for Decades that they can’t do their job. I also build my list around the Tactical Squads.
First I take one scoring unit per 500 point of the game. This is usually 3 Tactical Squads [Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma Cannon] and a Sternguard Squad [Plasma Guns and Combi-Plasmas] with Pedro [in the Storm Raven] giving me my 4 Scoring units. Then I add some Fast Attack usually 3 Land Speeders [HB Typhoons]. For my Heavy it is usually a Storm Raven and Devastators [4x Plasma Cannons]. My second HQ is usually a Libby. Then with whatever points I have leftover I buy thing like fortifications or Dreads.
The Tactical Squads are sitting on or near the objectives on my side usually supporting the Devastators. Pedro and his Sternguard then go after the objective on the far side of the board. I also have a 2 in six chance to have a second Scoring unit. The Speeders act as long range fire support or as late game Objective stealers if I get the right Mission.
They all work as a team. My Tactical Squads are being used for their job, Holding Objectives. My Sternguard are doing there job, Taking and holding an Objective or making an Assassination. The Speeders/Devastators are doing their Job, taking down threats that might threaten my Tactical Squads and Devastators at range. The Storm Raven job is three fold, taking the Sternguard to the Objective, Fire Support or Anti-Flyer.
It is about Synergy. Each unit has a job and most can do a second job. My Tactical Squads can do light Anti-Armor/MC Work or if I need to claim a mid field objective. The only thing my Devastators can’t do is Anti-Aircraft, but a Quad Gun can do that and usually I have a Tactical Squad in the ADL if I need that.
If my Tactical Squad spends the whole game and never fires a shot, but was sitting on an objective, it did it’s job because that one VP might just win the game even though it did nothing but take up space and I have won many a game that way].
If it sat there and just absorbed fire from 3 different units for 2 turns, it did it’s job because those three units were not attacking other units, I am good with that.
If that 30 model Ork mob slams into my Tactical Squad and it take 3 turns for the fight to end, even if I loose I usually have taken the Ork Mob down to 5-6 models making it an easy kill for some else, it did it’s job. That Ork Mob is now ineffective and it took it out of the fight for 3 turns.
Yes this is 6th Edition, it is usually about taking objectives not how many models you kill.
Tac marines have no rules that benefit other units. There is no "synergy". Tac marines score and do precious little else. If I want something to just camp objectives, I'd use something much cheaper if I could.
What you said about 6th was true before Tau/Eldar. You won't live to the end of the if you don't significantly diminish their capabilities.
Given the list outline you gave me, I don't consider that a very strong list at all. In my experiences, your list would not make it to the end of a game. Not enough capability to diminish enemy capability.
Anpu42 wrote: Ok, I have been playing Space Marines since 1989. That has nothing to do with it.
You are not going to convince those of us who have been using Tactical Squads for Decades that they can’t do their job. I also build my list around the Tactical Squads.
First I take one scoring unit per 500 point of the game. This is usually 3 Tactical Squads [Combi-Plasma/Plasma-Gun/Plasma Cannon] and a Sternguard Squad [Plasma Guns and Combi-Plasmas] with Pedro [in the Storm Raven] giving me my 4 Scoring units. Then I add some Fast Attack usually 3 Land Speeders [HB Typhoons]. For my Heavy it is usually a Storm Raven and Devastators [4x Plasma Cannons]. My second HQ is usually a Libby. Then with whatever points I have leftover I buy thing like fortifications or Dreads.
The Tactical Squads are sitting on or near the objectives on my side usually supporting the Devastators. Pedro and his Sternguard then go after the objective on the far side of the board. I also have a 2 in six chance to have a second Scoring unit. The Speeders act as long range fire support or as late game Objective stealers if I get the right Mission.
They all work as a team. My Tactical Squads are being used for their job, Holding Objectives. My Sternguard are doing there job, Taking and holding an Objective or making an Assassination. The Speeders/Devastators are doing their Job, taking down threats that might threaten my Tactical Squads and Devastators at range. The Storm Raven job is three fold, taking the Sternguard to the Objective, Fire Support or Anti-Flyer.
It is about Synergy. Each unit has a job and most can do a second job. My Tactical Squads can do light Anti-Armor/MC Work or if I need to claim a mid field objective. The only thing my Devastators can’t do is Anti-Aircraft, but a Quad Gun can do that and usually I have a Tactical Squad in the ADL if I need that.
If my Tactical Squad spends the whole game and never fires a shot, but was sitting on an objective, it did it’s job because that one VP might just win the game even though it did nothing but take up space and I have won many a game that way].
If it sat there and just absorbed fire from 3 different units for 2 turns, it did it’s job because those three units were not attacking other units, I am good with that.
If that 30 model Ork mob slams into my Tactical Squad and it take 3 turns for the fight to end, even if I loose I usually have taken the Ork Mob down to 5-6 models making it an easy kill for some else, it did it’s job. That Ork Mob is now ineffective and it took it out of the fight for 3 turns.
Yes this is 6th Edition, it is usually about taking objectives not how many models you kill.
I run 3 tac squads 2 in Rhino and 1 in Stormraven. It works quite well.
Martel732 wrote: Tac marines have no rules that benefit other units. There is no "synergy". Tac marines score and do precious little else. If I want something to just camp objectives, I'd use something much cheaper if I could.
What you said about 6th was true before Tau/Eldar. You won't live to the end of the if you don't significantly diminish their capabilities.
Given the list outline you gave me, I don't consider that a very strong list at all. In my experiences, your list would not make it to the end of a game. Not enough capability to diminish enemy capability.
First I will use the word you declaird evil.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
Synergy does go both ways. With the right combination of Chapter Tactics, Wargear and Psycic Powers you can realy buff them up.
Well here is a recent one I have been working on. The only real change is the Centurions.
Martel732 wrote: Tac marines have no rules that benefit other units. There is no "synergy". Tac marines score and do precious little else. If I want something to just camp objectives, I'd use something much cheaper if I could.
What you said about 6th was true before Tau/Eldar. You won't live to the end of the if you don't significantly diminish their capabilities.
Given the list outline you gave me, I don't consider that a very strong list at all. In my experiences, your list would not make it to the end of a game. Not enough capability to diminish enemy capability.
First I will use the word you declaird evil.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
Synergy does go both ways. With the right combination of Chapter Tactics, Wargear and Psycic Powers you can realy buff them up.
Well here is a recent one I have been working on. The only real change is the Centurions.
Okay Martel now your just insulting people for having lists that work for them but not you. If every list was just bikes or just Taudar or whatever it is their would be no 40k. 40k gives us the freedom to build these armies how we see fit and use what works for us and our surroundings not have some cookie cutter list. I see why you don't like tac marines but not everyone shares that opinion.
"In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent. "
And that is why your view of tactical squads means very little to me. I see an endless stream of helldrakes, jetseers, and Riptides. You can talk about "play style" all you like but opposition matters. A lot.
Your local meta is not the overall meta. So let me rephrase.
Revised thesis: In the OVERALL meta, taking in to account competitive builds and competitive players, tactical squads are garbage.
Forget your local meta. Argue against the above thesis.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches. I could win every game by pulling out 3 Land Raiders vs Orks, or S10 AP2 Pie Guard vs Marines.
We are having very competative games by taking what we want.
We are about the enjoyment of creating "Difrent List" usaly around a basic core. I don't need to take a Triple Riptide Taudar list. We know it will win, I like to chalange myself with what we call "Normal Games" not "Super Campetive" list.
Also nobody have given an exaple other than TauDar that can show me Tactical Squads Suck.
Your list probably can't stop a BA ASM rush list, either. Not enough throw weight. BA ASM halve the firepower from plasma and then will eat everything in this list.
I don't use BA ASM because FMCs, Tau, Eldar, Necrons, and now Nids will wreck me. Your list can't wreck me because it is pretty lame in HTH and doesn't have enough firepower to stop BA ASM.
There. There's another example *From the worst codex in the game*. Because tacticals are among the worst troops in the game. That's what makes my victory possible against your list. The fact that you have so many tacticals.
Martel732 wrote: Your list probably can't stop a BA ASM rush list, either. Not enough throw weight. BA ASM halve the firepower from plasma and then will eat everything in this list.
I don't use BA ASM because FMCs, Tau, Eldar, Necrons, and now Nids will wreck me. Your list can't wreck me because it is pretty lame in HTH and doesn't have enough firepower to stop BA ASM.
There. There's another example *From the worst codex in the game*. Because tacticals are among the worst troops in the game. That's what makes my victory possible against your list. The fact that you have so many tacticals.
Heheh. BA players think that codex BA is bad. Codex Orks is a shining beacon of uselessness.
Martel732 wrote: Your list probably can't stop a BA ASM rush list, either. Not enough throw weight. BA ASM halve the firepower from plasma and then will eat everything in this list.
I don't use BA ASM because FMCs, Tau, Eldar, Necrons, and now Nids will wreck me. Your list can't wreck me because it is pretty lame in HTH and doesn't have enough firepower to stop BA ASM.
There. There's another example *From the worst codex in the game*. Because tacticals are among the worst troops in the game. That's what makes my victory possible against your list. The fact that you have so many tacticals.
Heheh. BA players think that codex BA is bad. Codex Orks is a shining beacon of uselessness.
I could take Orks and destroy BA. I've done it twice, actually. I'd much rather have Orks in 6th than BA.
Orks are a barely functional mono list right now. not sure what is worse than that...
duo list we got wagonz with shootaboyz/nobz/meganobz and nob bikers core that can be backed up with literally anything from footslogga boyz and grots to lootas and lobbas. Or all at the same time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also i manage to beat taudar with orkses from time to time. U just got to be very cunning! Distraction upon distraction and false-offence charges.
Also nobody have given an exaple other than TauDar that can show me Tactical Squads Suck.
I don't generally have problems vs marines as an ork outside of multiple tfc with mass-melta drop. Yep, when a marine player can get da boyz out in the open and then shoot this totally optfc - it's a free win there. However, melta-drop falls apart the moment it meets nob bikers. And lucky telepathy librarians are annoying.
Btw someone said krak nades are bad?
When i play platoon ig i alwayz take a bunch of krak nades. With the addition of inquisitors it's even deadlier. I had a few games where MC charged a platoon with nades and died before striking. But guards win cause of masses. Still, you can throw a krak nade! Additional 8' s6 ap4 shot is vital when u've fropped behind a tank. For just 1 pt per krak nade - they're totally worth it. Maybe, not on all the models, for guards i take it just on 30 out of 50.
What i feel when meet current tactical marines with boyz.
1. They're rather tough with that t4 and 3+ but not tough enough to compete with the weight of fire i have with those massed shootaboyz. And orkses are far from the shootiest army avaliable there. When i met a forgeworld chapter with a 5+ fnp - they still died to shooting but made those few extra saves which were handy. Actually, fnp for a 3+ save is like 11% better so it's more to save them from massed ap2-3 fire.
2. They can't do enough damage both at range and in mellee.
Probably, mellee damage should come with a possibility of purchasing an extra ccw for 1 pt per model. And it should be optional.
Range damage...bolters at their current state lack firepower. They do kill boyz but never enough of them. That can be fixed by changing a bolter profile or by giving some special rule to it. For increased cost ofcourse. I think the test with rapid fire 2 for bolters made by Brother Marcus really shows how it can be fixed. Though, i think that 4 shots is a bit too much. 2/3 seem better.
3. ATSKNF is very-very powerful. Auto-regroups with a free move + acting normally, no sweeping advances. That's huge.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Any mc spam list ain't afraid of tacticals at all. But i don't know how to fix it yet. Probably, tacticals ain't supposed to be good vs mc at all. U need hammernators for mc hunting. Unfortunately, most mc-s are unreachable by termies cause they're either flying or jump.
This message was edited 13 times. Last update was at 2014/01/17 07:27:12
Martel732 wrote: Your local meta is not the overall meta. So let me rephrase.
Revised thesis: In the OVERALL meta, taking in to account competitive builds and competitive players, tactical squads are garbage.
Forget your local meta. Argue against the above thesis.
That street goes both ways, neither is *your* meta, "tourney" play is not the be all and end all of 40k, in fact it seems to be the last playstyle on the developers minds.
I don't have exact numbers so lets assume 50% of games are played with the "tourney" meta and 50% in the "casual" meta.
In 50% of games tactical marines are absolutely fine. More even if you concede they are worthless against Tau-dar (Which lets leave that argument for another day) but they can hold their own against other races.
Martel732 wrote: 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.
And there shows your bias. Rather than rebalance down a handful of "too good" units you'd rather make the marines the first generation of OP codicies, other armies be damned and at best enjoy a period where your army of choice gets to be king of the hill while others catch up. That is not the way to balance a game system. If 90% of units are balanced and 10% not then you rework the 10% to the 90%, not the other way round.
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 the game
I think we all know that's hyperbole, off the top of my head Wyches and CSM troopers say hi, given your own feelings on terminators one could easily add Deathwing to that list. Many would even suggest Tyranid Warriors, Rippers, Bloodletters, the list is quite substantial. The humble Eldar Guardian is only saved from the list by the inclusion of the Wave Serpent.
Edit: I had more to say.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/17 10:49:55
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches.
Sorry, but that's the very definition of pulling punches. People aren't taking the strongest lists possible. Have you considered that the reason it's not enjoyable is because other lists lack something? Say, something in the Troops slot that's not rubbish?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Martel732 wrote: Your local meta is not the overall meta. So let me rephrase.
Revised thesis: In the OVERALL meta, taking in to account competitive builds and competitive players, tactical squads are garbage.
Forget your local meta. Argue against the above thesis.
That street goes both ways, neither is *your* meta, "tourney" play is not the be all and end all of 40k, in fact it seems to be the last playstyle on the developers minds.
I don't have exact numbers so lets assume 50% of games are played with the "tourney" meta and 50% in the "casual" meta.
In 50% of games tactical marines are absolutely fine. More even if you concede they are worthless against Tau-dar (Which lets leave that argument for another day) but they can hold their own against other races.
Martel732 wrote: 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.
And there shows your bias. Rather than rebalance down a handful of "too good" units you'd rather make the marines the first generation of OP codicies, other armies be damned and at best enjoy a period where your army of choice gets to be king of the hill while others catch up. That is not the way to balance a game system.
If 90% of units are balanced and 10% not then you rework the 10% to the 90%, not the other way round.
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 the game
I think we all know that's hyperbole, off the top of my head Wyches and CSM troopers say hi, given your own feelings on terminators one could easily add Deathwing to that list. Many would even suggest Tyranid Warriors, Rippers, Bloodletters, the list is quite substantial. The humble Eldar Guardian is only saved from the list by the inclusion of the Wave Serpent.
Edit: I had more to say.
I'm not really biased. I want all lists to be equally good. I don't think messing with the boltgun is the way to make that happen. That being said, compared to other meqs, GK are horrible cheese. GK book is still better than even the new C:SM book, I think. I just want marines to be as good as Eldar and vice versa. Nothing more. And sisters to be as good as both. Nothing more. I will never understand the desire to have some OP lists, and everyone else can just suck it, because trying to balance things out is just impossible. News flash: lots of other games are capable of this more or less. GW doesn't even try or care.
I don't know what the new tyranids warriors look like, but I'll probably grant you the rest of those troops. But I'd say the tactical marine isn't too far above the lot you listed off. Contributing nothing means a lot of units will be tied down at the bottom.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "That is not pulling puches"
Yes, that is indeed pulling punches. If you played against those kinds of lists, you'd understand exactly how poor tactical marines are.
You have a very skewed view of the overall game because your group chooses to omit a large part of the game. In effect, we aren't playing the same game.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2014/01/17 14:50:42
I'm not really biased. I want all lists to be equally good. I don't think messing with the boltgun is the way to make that happen. That being said, compared to other meqs, GK are horrible cheese. GK book is still better than even the new C:SM book, I think. I just want marines to be as good as Eldar and vice versa. Nothing more. And sisters to be as good as both. Nothing more. I will never understand the desire to have some OP lists, and everyone else can just suck it, because trying to balance things out is just impossible. News flash: lots of other games are capable of this more or less. GW doesn't even try or care.
I don't know what the new tyranids warriors look like, but I'll probably grant you the rest of those troops. But I'd say the tactical marine isn't too far above the lot you listed off. Contributing nothing means a lot of units will be tied down at the bottom.
In that case I'd say watch out for the "Screw GK what about my guys" type posts as they give the wrong impression. If you say WS and Riptides are OP but that's how you want tactical's balanced you are asking for OP tactical's any way you look at it.
People aren't asking for OP lists, but we have to be realistic about balance, we're talking about a handful of units. Take WS's, Riptides and The Grimoire out of the game (Not my suggestion by the way they just need nerfing to some degree) and suddenly the playing field is a lot more even. Bringing that handful of units down a peg or playing as part of a group that realizes spamming them creates an imbalance is a lot easier than calling for a rewrite of the other 99% of units to bring them up to Riptide levels.
Look at the latest White Dwarf battle report, the writers put a 6 Riptide list up and were all "lets break the force org chart to have this many, it'll look epic" probably without even realizing 3-4 of them are a common sight in an army. They play a different game to you, it has the same name but it is very different.
I'm curious now since I've got you to admit there are worse units out there, which do you think are the best troop choices that you'd like Tac marines to be comparable to?
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches.
Sorry, but that's the very definition of pulling punches. People aren't taking the strongest lists possible. Have you considered that the reason it's not enjoyable is because other lists lack something? Say, something in the Troops slot that's not rubbish?
So what are saying unless we are taking "Top Teir", "Ultra-Competative" or "WAAC" List we are "Pulling Punches"?
The most obvious and glaring comparison are grey hunters. Now I admit that this wouldn't help in any way against being shot to death against Eldar/Tau, but it WOULD be a good hedge against shooty/CC hybrid lists like GK discussed in another thread. Whatever the GK troops call themselves are also a glaringly obvious upgrade as well.
Other obvious selections that do their job better are dire avengers, fire warriors and Kroot. I realize it's hard to directly compare, but these choices all have much better outcomes per point than tactical marines.
In a world of Tau pie plate death and hell drakes, I'd have to put Ork boyz and IG guardsmen well ahead of tac marines. The old Lenin quote about a certain quality to quantity comes to mind here.
I haven't seen the new Nid troops yet. Sounds like they didn't change much. Maybe put termagants in the list above: cheaper = better.
The problem with the tac marine is multi-fold and that's why it is a hard problem to fix. The facets to this I see are:
1) Rise of Xeno firepower that makes meqs die just as fast as Orks; no armor save, no cover save mechanics. This makes ATSKNF MUCH less useful, despite what Xeno players want to claim. I've voluntarily pretended the rule didn't exist for games and notice no difference because my marines are DYING not running away.
2) Crappy marine transports. Dire Avengers bring a WS. Tac marines bring a Rhino.
3) Crappy Imperial weapons. I'm sure a balancing factor for the tac squad is supposed to be the special and heavy weapon. The problem is that Imperial heavy weapons kinda suck.
4) Tac marines fold in CC like cheap deck chairs. Especially on a per point basis. This is anti-fluff and really diminishes their "tactical" ability.
5) The bolter's maximum firepower zone leads to item 4 which gets the squad killed. Also, can't assault after using the bolter, which leads to item 4.
6) Point sink. They are STILL more expensive than most other troops, so marines have more invested in a unit that basically does nothing for the reasons listed above. Marines can't afford dead weight.
I don't expect gamers to self nerf. I expect the rules to not contain items like the Wave Serpent and Jetseer council. Yeah, it would be great to take them down a peg, but those codices are already written. So the best we can hope for are codices on the same level as Tau/Eldar to give them a run for their money. C:SM and Tyranids have already failed in this. GK are still apparently better at addressing Xenos than the new marine book.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches.
Sorry, but that's the very definition of pulling punches. People aren't taking the strongest lists possible. Have you considered that the reason it's not enjoyable is because other lists lack something? Say, something in the Troops slot that's not rubbish?
So what are saying unless we are taking "Top Teir", "Ultra-Competative" or "WAAC" List we are "Pulling Punches"?
Yes. Because you do not get an accurate view of what other players have to go up against on a consistent basis at tourneys and competitive metas. It's like putting the Cleveland Browns in the NCAA and claiming they are a fine team.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/01/17 16:00:53
Martel732 wrote: The most obvious and glaring comparison are grey hunters. Now I admit that this wouldn't help in any way against being shot to death against Eldar/Tau, but it WOULD be a good hedge against shooty/CC hybrid lists like GK discussed in another thread. Whatever the GK troops call themselves are also a glaringly obvious upgrade as well.
Other obvious selections that do their job better are dire avengers, fire warriors and Kroot. I realize it's hard to directly compare, but these choices all have much better outcomes per point than tactical marines.
In a world of Tau pie plate death and hell drakes, I'd have to put Ork boyz and IG guardsmen well ahead of tac marines. The old Lenin quote about a certain quality to quantity comes to mind here.
I haven't seen the new Nid troops yet. Sounds like they didn't change much. Maybe put termagants in the list above: cheaper = better.
The problem with the tac marine is multi-fold and that's why it is a hard problem to fix. The facets to this I see are:
1) Rise of Xeno firepower that makes meqs die just as fast as Orks; no armor save, no cover save mechanics. This makes ATSKNF MUCH less useful, despite what Xeno players want to claim. I've voluntarily pretended the rule didn't exist for games and notice no difference because my marines are DYING not running away.
2) Crappy marine transports. Dire Avengers bring a WS. Tac marines bring a Rhino.
3) Crappy Imperial weapons. I'm sure a balancing factor for the tac squad is supposed to be the special and heavy weapon. The problem is that Imperial heavy weapons kinda suck.
4) Tac marines fold in CC like cheap deck chairs. Especially on a per point basis. This is anti-fluff and really diminishes their "tactical" ability.
5) The bolter's maximum firepower zone leads to item 4 which gets the squad killed. Also, can't assault after using the bolter, which leads to item 4.
6) Point sink. They are STILL more expensive than most other troops, so marines have more invested in a unit that basically does nothing for the reasons listed above. Marines can't afford dead weight.
I don't expect gamers to self nerf. I expect the rules to not contain items like the Wave Serpent and Jetseer council. Yeah, it would be great to take them down a peg, but those codices are already written. So the best we can hope for are codices on the same level as Tau/Eldar to give them a run for their money. C:SM and Tyranids have already failed in this. GK are still apparently better at addressing Xenos than the new marine book.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches.
Sorry, but that's the very definition of pulling punches. People aren't taking the strongest lists possible. Have you considered that the reason it's not enjoyable is because other lists lack something? Say, something in the Troops slot that's not rubbish?
So what are saying unless we are taking "Top Teir", "Ultra-Competative" or "WAAC" List we are "Pulling Punches"?
Yes. Because you do not get an accurate view of what other players have to go up against on a consistent basis at tourneys and competitive metas. It's like putting the Cleveland Browns in the NCAA and claiming they are a fine team.
You've just circled back to "Marines can't kill stuff Riptides can" Killing things is nice and all but this is a scoring unit whose main purpose is scoring They don't have to fire pie plates they just need to get on the objective and stay on it! If they do that (Which they almost always do for me) then they are worth taking IMO.
Martel732 wrote: No. Marines can't kill what *sniper kroot* can. I'm not comparing their killing power to Riptides. I've never done that.
Although Riptides reduce their defenses to that of a grot. That's a problem. I addressed all this above.
No but ultimately you keep complaining about how "Marines can't kill things x unit can". Not everyone plays against some of these jerkbag stupidly overpowered lists where everything dies unless you take a jerkbag stupidly overpowered list. Some of us play games for fun and when we play games for fun were not concerned with the math behind our units as long as they do something!
Martel732 wrote: No. Marines can't kill what *sniper kroot* can. I'm not comparing their killing power to Riptides. I've never done that.
Although Riptides reduce their defenses to that of a grot. That's a problem. I addressed all this above.
No but ultimately you keep complaining about how "Marines can't kill things x unit can". Not everyone plays against some of these jerkbag stupidly overpowered lists where everything dies unless you take a jerkbag stupidly overpowered list. Some of us play games for fun and when we play games for fun were not concerned with the math behind our units as long as they do something!
If you don't care about the strength of your list, why do you care about the power level of tactical marines?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Martel732 wrote: No. Marines can't kill what *sniper kroot* can. I'm not comparing their killing power to Riptides. I've never done that.
Although Riptides reduce their defenses to that of a grot. That's a problem. I addressed all this above.
No but ultimately you keep complaining about how "Marines can't kill things x unit can". Not everyone plays against some of these jerkbag stupidly overpowered lists where everything dies unless you take a jerkbag stupidly overpowered list. Some of us play games for fun and when we play games for fun were not concerned with the math behind our units as long as they do something!
If you don't care about the strength of your list, why do you care about the power level of tactical marines?
Because they do have some flaws and they could be better. But that doesn't mean I think they are terrible right now. And what definition of "Strength" are we using. I use what I think work and what I enjoy using.
Martel732 wrote: The most obvious and glaring comparison are grey hunters. Now I admit that this wouldn't help in any way against being shot to death against Eldar/Tau, but it WOULD be a good hedge against shooty/CC hybrid lists like GK discussed in another thread. Whatever the GK troops call themselves are also a glaringly obvious upgrade as well.
Other obvious selections that do their job better are dire avengers, fire warriors and Kroot. I realize it's hard to directly compare, but these choices all have much better outcomes per point than tactical marines.
In a world of Tau pie plate death and hell drakes, I'd have to put Ork boyz and IG guardsmen well ahead of tac marines. The old Lenin quote about a certain quality to quantity comes to mind here.
I haven't seen the new Nid troops yet. Sounds like they didn't change much. Maybe put termagants in the list above: cheaper = better.
The problem with the tac marine is multi-fold and that's why it is a hard problem to fix. The facets to this I see are:
1) Rise of Xeno firepower that makes meqs die just as fast as Orks; no armor save, no cover save mechanics. This makes ATSKNF MUCH less useful, despite what Xeno players want to claim. I've voluntarily pretended the rule didn't exist for games and notice no difference because my marines are DYING not running away.
2) Crappy marine transports. Dire Avengers bring a WS. Tac marines bring a Rhino.
3) Crappy Imperial weapons. I'm sure a balancing factor for the tac squad is supposed to be the special and heavy weapon. The problem is that Imperial heavy weapons kinda suck.
4) Tac marines fold in CC like cheap deck chairs. Especially on a per point basis. This is anti-fluff and really diminishes their "tactical" ability.
5) The bolter's maximum firepower zone leads to item 4 which gets the squad killed. Also, can't assault after using the bolter, which leads to item 4.
6) Point sink. They are STILL more expensive than most other troops, so marines have more invested in a unit that basically does nothing for the reasons listed above. Marines can't afford dead weight.
I don't expect gamers to self nerf. I expect the rules to not contain items like the Wave Serpent and Jetseer council. Yeah, it would be great to take them down a peg, but those codices are already written. So the best we can hope for are codices on the same level as Tau/Eldar to give them a run for their money. C:SM and Tyranids have already failed in this. GK are still apparently better at addressing Xenos than the new marine book.
In my Local META this is a winning List. We also don't play in a "Super Competative" envirionent.
So the reason Tactical Squads don't suck is because your enemies are pulling punches?
Now do you see why your arguments don't hold much weight?
No we are not pull out Tripple Riptide Taudar, Screemer 2++ re-rolable save super cheese list that nobody was enjoying. That is not pulling puches.
Sorry, but that's the very definition of pulling punches. People aren't taking the strongest lists possible. Have you considered that the reason it's not enjoyable is because other lists lack something? Say, something in the Troops slot that's not rubbish?
So what are saying unless we are taking "Top Teir", "Ultra-Competative" or "WAAC" List we are "Pulling Punches"?
Yes. Because you do not get an accurate view of what other players have to go up against on a consistent basis at tourneys and competitive metas. It's like putting the Cleveland Browns in the NCAA and claiming they are a fine team.
True we are not playing in thoise enviroments, and from what I am seeing I don't want to. I don't want to HAVE toplay Taudar to be competitive.
Since we don't have Taudar in our current Meta we dont have to optimise every sinlge point.
That does not make me Invalaid for most armies.
If you have noticed I stoped Defending Marines vs Taudar. If we got a Taudar or even a good Tau or Eldar player in our local Meta I would be going back to back to my Dark Angels Power Feild SPAM and to be honest probably stop having fun.
Martel732 wrote: No. Marines can't kill what *sniper kroot* can. I'm not comparing their killing power to Riptides. I've never done that.
Although Riptides reduce their defenses to that of a grot. That's a problem. I addressed all this above.
No but ultimately you keep complaining about how "Marines can't kill things x unit can". Not everyone plays against some of these jerkbag stupidly overpowered lists where everything dies unless you take a jerkbag stupidly overpowered list. Some of us play games for fun and when we play games for fun were not concerned with the math behind our units as long as they do something!
I guess this summarizes why I hate tactical squads and you don't care. If you are going to take units for fun or looks, and nothing else, then the rules behind them don't matter to you at all.
Players, by the way, are not "jerkbags" for making a strong list. It's GW's fault that the units aren't balanced.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "True we are not playing in thoise enviroments, and from what I am seeing I don't want to. I don't want to HAVE toplay Taudar to be competitive.
Since we don't have Taudar in our current Meta we dont have to optimise every sinlge point.
That does not make me Invalaid for most armies.
If you have noticed I stoped Defending Marines vs Taudar. If we got a Taudar or even a good Tau or Eldar player in our local Meta I would be going back to back to my Dark Angels Power Feild SPAM and to be honest probably stop having fun."
Now we are getting some where. If tactical squads were balanced against other troop choices and other units in general, you wouldn't have to stop having fun if someone decided to play Eldar.
On the flip side, it's bad for Eldar players to have to worry about pissing off groups like yours. Any given list should have options to take on anything another list might field. That is not the case, and so we have disconnects like the one in this thread.
My tac marines are being turned into road pizza by Xeno firepower. In my return shooting phase, the tac marines basically are shooting back spitballs in comparison. This is not the case in your meta, but legally someone could come in and start doing just this. Then, for th sake of your fun, you'll be wishing tac marines could gun down MCs like sniper Kroot. Or do SOMETHING against those kinds of lists other than die.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/17 17:22:54
Personally I'd want to be able to take both a heavy AND a special at just 5 men, and have the option of swapping the heavy for a second special at increased price (say flamer at price of MM, melta somewhere above that, and plasma at cost of lascannon would be fine).
The rest of the issue lies with specific units that need to be toned down in other books.
nobody wrote: Personally I'd want to be able to take both a heavy AND a special at just 5 men, and have the option of swapping the heavy for a second special at increased price (say flamer at price of MM, melta somewhere above that, and plasma at cost of lascannon would be fine).
The rest of the issue lies with specific units that need to be toned down in other books.
That would be decent. Although the heavy weapon really encourages static play. I like the double special because I think Imperial special weapons are better than Imperial heavy weapons. I think Imperial heavy weapons pretty much suck.
Also, the folding in CC issue must be addressed in order to fulfill the fluff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/17 17:30:42
nobody wrote: Personally I'd want to be able to take both a heavy AND a special at just 5 men, and have the option of swapping the heavy for a second special at increased price (say flamer at price of MM, melta somewhere above that, and plasma at cost of lascannon would be fine).
The rest of the issue lies with specific units that need to be toned down in other books.
That would be decent. Although the heavy weapon really encourages static play. I like the double special because I think Imperial special weapons are better than Imperial heavy weapons. I think Imperial heavy weapons pretty much suck.
Also, the folding in CC issue must be addressed in order to fulfill the fluff.
Oh I know, but MSU for Marines is pretty dead at the moment, so I doubt you're going to see the return of the ultra-mauleen style army (4-6 5 man las/plas squads. It really doesn't worry me too much.
As to the second concern, while adding combat knives (the CCW) may help out, really the problem is that your opponent can challenge out the sergeant who was armed with a power fist/weapon. I can't think of an easy answer to this because changing a sergeant to a non-character infantry model who can take weapons as though they were a character just doesn't feel right to me.
Could always put in a rule that any marine in a tactical squad can accept a challenge (or attempt Heroic Intervention) as though they WERE a character, that'd be hilarious.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/01/17 17:59:46
Nah, CCW would do fine. Just don't arm sergeants with power weapons because you can't protect them. I just want to cause some casualties on hit back, instead of doing nothing.
