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.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Tourney lists tend to be spam driven (You can use redundancy if you find spam offensive), they know their target due to the very limited pool from which these tourney draw their lists from and proceed to spam the unit the most efficiently murders them. Hence the 6-7 Wave Serpents, 3-4 Riptides etc's. In this meta elite troops take it in the teeth, that sucks but it's the way it is in competitive play. If your group are happy playing like that it there's nothing that can be done, are you absolutely positive there aren't more people sick of all lists being Tau/Eldar/Daemons you can't pull aside for games?

"The best lists murder Marines, the solution is to not play against the best lists."

Really?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Tourney lists tend to be spam driven (You can use redundancy if you find spam offensive), they know their target due to the very limited pool from which these tourney draw their lists from and proceed to spam the unit the most efficiently murders them. Hence the 6-7 Wave Serpents, 3-4 Riptides etc's. In this meta elite troops take it in the teeth, that sucks but it's the way it is in competitive play. If your group are happy playing like that it there's nothing that can be done, are you absolutely positive there aren't more people sick of all lists being Tau/Eldar/Daemons you can't pull aside for games?

"The best lists murder Marines, the solution is to not play against the best lists."

Really?

All the GW apologists come up with this eventually in my experience. And people pimping the tactical marine. Which is still a bad troop. Maybe it's impossible to understand unless you actually try to use tactical marines and realize the futility.

Martel732 wrote:
Why should people want to play inferior lists?

Becouse I just like the Models and the fluff behined the Unit/List.
I would rather have a Army on the table that looks good together and has varietly than a Cookie Cutter/Net-List/SPAM Army List.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should people want to play inferior lists?

Becouse I just like the Models and the fluff behined the Unit/List.
I would rather have a Army on the table that looks good together and has varietly than a Cookie Cutter/Net-List/SPAM Army List.

So then why are you fighting so hard against people who want to improve the units in question? Nothing would force you to use the upgraded weapon options, or any possible wargear or psychic powers or whatnot that'd make them more survivable.

nobody wrote:
So then why are you fighting so hard against people who want to improve the units in question? Nothing would force you to use the upgraded weapon options, or any possible wargear or psychic powers or whatnot that'd make them more survivable.

What I am fighting is the Blacket Statement "Tactical Squads Suck!"
They Don't Suck, I even early on stated some ways to make them work.
This does not mean if the rules changed and they got better I would not use them. Heck if they got worse I would still use them.

 Anpu42 wrote:

nobody wrote:
So then why are you fighting so hard against people who want to improve the units in question? Nothing would force you to use the upgraded weapon options, or any possible wargear or psychic powers or whatnot that'd make them more survivable.

What I am fighting is the Blacket Statement "Tactical Squads Suck!"
They Don't Suck, I even early on stated some ways to make them work.
This does not mean if the rules changed and they got better I would not use them. Heck if they got worse I would still use them.

If the Xenos don't voluntarily move within your 12" sweet spot, I still don't understand how they work. Of course, we already determined that your group pulls punches and so you are not fully cogniscient of the suckitude of tacticals. Play with the gloves off sometime and see how well they do. Eldar can incinerate them about a rate of ~2 full squads per turn from outside bolter range. Have fun with that. Because you can not hit back hard enough to survive with tacticals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why should people want to play inferior lists?

Becouse I just like the Models and the fluff behined the Unit/List.
I would rather have a Army on the table that looks good together and has varietly than a Cookie Cutter/Net-List/SPAM Army List.

Evidently, you don't about winning, either. So of course tactical marines look good.

Look we are going in circles.
There are those of us who say they suck form their experiances.
There are a few of us who say they don't from their experiances.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Look we are going in circles.
There are those of us who say they suck form their experiances.
There are a few of us who say they don't from their experiances.

I can get into hardcore math, if you like.

What I really want to know is how you are getting your tacticals to within 12" without them getting butchered. Because, mathematically, they don't "work" outside 12" very well. And your experiences can't trump the math.

Dunkelzahn has at least given some evidence for why he believes they are not utter garbage. You just proclaim "they work!". How? Under what circumstances? What exactly are you getting done with them? Assaulting? Shooting? How? Which weapons for them "work"?

Using them:
>I run Gunlines so my opponent has to dig me out of my cover. Some times this lets me shoot them at 12”, sometimes 24”, sometimes I get Assaulted ad in sometimes my Plasma Cannon is the only weapon I fire.
>If my opponent has something that will causes me to take AP3 no cover fire it usually gets taken out by my Sternguard early on.
Well 80% of the games I have playing usually against MEQs, Guard, Tyranids, Orks and occasionally Eldar.
In most games my Tactical Squads are usually what I have left standing at the end of the game and are scoring me VPs. That is usually how I win my games, by Playing the Mission and Scoring VPs not Tabling my opponent so I don’t need to use my Tacticals as my attack force.
Vs. other Marines it is the Tactical Squads that I need to take down because if don’t, I loose the game.
Don’t know how to explain it more without getting into Battle Reports, this is just what is happening with my Meta.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was thinking about it, it might be tha fact that we [my local group] tend to put between 3-6 Tactical Squads in a Typical 2,000 point game. Sometimes they make up almost 50% of our points.

I'm not suggesting by any means that marines need to be tabling. What I'm suggesting is that tacticals put marines in danger of BEING tabled.

It sounds like you have a very good grasp of how things should be working, and in general, I agree that you plan should work in a balanced game.

But what happens when there's too many priority targets for the Sternguard? The Sternguard used in this manner usually only gets to fire once. And after they dead, your opponent can go back to vaporizing your scoring units.

If your opponent can force huge amounts of saves, they make cover irrelevant. It's not about AP 3 no cover (although it can be) it's about your tacticals having dozens of saves forced every turn by Xeno firepower. If this isn't happening to you, you don't know if your list really works or not.

Your list sounds just like the kind of list my BA can steamroll. The sternguards will come down, do an ineffectual amount of damage, and then we're off to the races. Tacticals don't have even close to enough fire power to stop BA ASM. Contrast this to Tau or Eldar, where I'm lucky to get a squad into HTH. The difference couldn't be more stark. Disclaimer: TFCs can barrage snipe out my sanguinary priests, but that's the TFC being awesome, not the tacticals.

Martel732 wrote:
If your opponent can force huge amounts of saves, they make cover irrelevant. It's not about AP 3 no cover (although it can be) it's about your tacticals having dozens of saves forced every turn by Xeno firepower. If this isn't happening to you, you don't know if your list really works or not.

But this is not happening to my {and my group}.

In fact my Rolling Save Sucks so bad when making one or two I would rather make 20-30, I make mosty of mine in large numbers, but ask me to roll one I usaly fail.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If your opponent can force huge amounts of saves, they make cover irrelevant. It's not about AP 3 no cover (although it can be) it's about your tacticals having dozens of saves forced every turn by Xeno firepower. If this isn't happening to you, you don't know if your list really works or not.

But this is not happening to my {and my group}.

In fact my Rolling Save Sucks so bad when making one or two I would rather make 20-30, I make mosty of mine in large numbers, but ask me to roll one I usaly fail.

Over, many many rolls, you will make EXACTLY 66% of your armor saves. This is true for everyone, including those who claim to have good dice or bad dice. They are simply misremembering.

The effect you describe is indeed the rule of large numbers. IF you make 20-30 rolls of 3+ armor, you heavily weighted towards making 14-20 of them. However, when called upon to make one or two, the likelihood of weird dice results becomes much more likely.

I guarantee you if an Eldar player forced your list to make 50 saves a turn, by the end, you will have no marines left. You MUST reduce the incoming fire and tacticals are miserable at that. If older editions, the tacticals could take the heat all game, but now they can't. Especially since AV 11 tanks suck up way less fire as well.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If your opponent can force huge amounts of saves, they make cover irrelevant. It's not about AP 3 no cover (although it can be) it's about your tacticals having dozens of saves forced every turn by Xeno firepower. If this isn't happening to you, you don't know if your list really works or not.

But this is not happening to my {and my group}.

In fact my Rolling Save Sucks so bad when making one or two I would rather make 20-30, I make mosty of mine in large numbers, but ask me to roll one I usaly fail.

Over, many many rolls, you will make EXACTLY 66% of your armor saves. This is true for everyone, including those who claim to have good dice or bad dice. They are simply misremembering.

The effect you describe is indeed the rule of large numbers. IF you make 20-30 rolls of 3+ armor, you heavily weighted towards making 14-20 of them. However, when called upon to make one or two, the likelihood of weird dice results becomes much more likely.

I guarantee you if an Eldar player forced your list to make 50 saves a turn, by the end, you will have no marines left. You MUST reduce the incoming fire and tacticals are miserable at that. If older editions, the tacticals could take the heat all game, but now they can't. Especially since AV 11 tanks suck up way less fire as well.

I have seen the math on all of that, but more times than not you make me roll 20 saves and I will loose one or two models. You make me roll 10 saves 2 from 5 difrent units I will fail 8 of them more times than not. The most samve we have ever seen in our group is 30 and I lost like 5 models.

"I have seen the math on all of that, but more times than not you make me roll 20 saves and I will loose one or two models. You make me roll 10 saves 2 from 5 difrent units I will fail 8 of them more times than not. The most samve we have ever seen in our group is 30 and I lost like 5 models."

You're just misremembering the times where the reverse happened. You can't consistently stand up to mass wound spam with even a 2+ save. Maybe a game here or there, but over the long haul, the Xenos will win far more games. You make 66% of your 3+ saves and 83% of your 2+ saves. Period. The distribution of these percentages is what causes noticeable variation.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe a game here or there, but over the long haul, the Xenos will win far more games.

This statment I agree with, but I have not seen what you are seeing. We have never seen people have to make 50+ save for one unit in one turn.
What I have seen is entine game where the marine player never got to make a save let alone have a chance to fail one.

Martel732 wrote:

If older editions, the tacticals could take the heat all game, but now they can't.

Only 5th edition allowed Tactical Marines to take more punishment. In the other 4 editions, they were easier to kill than they are now.

RT-2nd had save modifiers. 3rd-4th had much more restrictive cover saves. Only the unit-wide and better covers saves of 5th edition made them tougher. And in that edition, they only shot 12" if they moved, so it wasn't all sunshine and rainbows then either.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

If older editions, the tacticals could take the heat all game, but now they can't.

Only 5th edition allowed Tactical Marines to take more punishment. In the other 4 editions, they were easier to kill than they are now.

RT-2nd had save modifiers. 3rd-4th had much more restrictive cover saves. Only the unit-wide and better covers saves of 5th edition made them tougher. And in that edition, they only shot 12" if they moved, so it wasn't all sunshine and rainbows then either.

I was referring to the actual volume of fire coming in, not the rules so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe a game here or there, but over the long haul, the Xenos will win far more games.

This statment I agree with, but I have not seen what you are seeing. We have never seen people have to make 50+ save for one unit in one turn.
What I have seen is entine game where the marine player never got to make a save let alone have a chance to fail one.

My meta relies far more on volume of fire because armor denial schemes don't work so well against hordes. This is also why the scatter laser is almost always better than the star cannon.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

"The best lists murder Marines, the solution is to not play against the best lists."

Really?

Well no, the *best* solution is to build a group of like minded players, talk to them and say "look, we all know your 4 Riptide/ WS spam list is gonna crush my army under weight of fire just like the last 10 times, what do you say you drop a couple for something else and make it a game instead of another 2 hour exercise in you putting another tick in the win column?"
Whats the point in playing a game you have no chance of losing?

Also best list is in this subjective based on the meta:
Plasma kills marines, 7/10 of my opponents are power armoured, Plasma is good.
Flamers kill hordes, 7/10 of my opponents play 5+/6+ save units, Flamers are good.

His meta kills marines, as a marine player that must suck, if his whole group is just interesting in spamming power units rather than playing a game they *might* lose that must suck more.

If the Avenger is balanced at X then the marine with improved durability, less firepower, more range, more versatility and superior morale seems balanced at X+1.
Some of us have played tactical marines and still see them played today, years ago my backup army was second hand marines (who have turned from the light of the Emperor and gone renegade just as I did Yes, I changed them for a weaker dex) and the humble tactical marine formed the backbone of my army. Durability and versatility are the watchwords that made them useful and if I ran a list of the corpse emperors chosen today it's still revolve around at least 3x 10 man squads because solid, reliable boots on the ground win objective games.

Martel732 wrote:All the GW apologists come up with this eventually in my experience.

This I object to so OT as it is I must respond, it seems very common for people who are still enjoying the game to get jumped on as GW apologists. 40k has never been a tournament game, ever. There has never been an edition without a handful of clear power lists and anyone who says otherwise is having a memory lapse. It is a social game to be played in the spirit of the game and co-operation. Some games react when people insist on pushing the game to it's competitive limit and nerf/balance probably because it's what they want to see, that's great.

The writers at GW could give a frell about that, they are getting paid to make a game they call fun (as long as the profit keeps coming in) and we should all be so lucky. Lets not hear the old "Oh but good solid and balanced rules would be good for everyone" strawman, I'm sure they would, I doubt anyone is saying different *but* GW could care less. You've seen the WD battle reports to see the games these guys want to play, lamented their list choices, and in that environment 40k is vast amounts of fun for everyone involved.

Edit: note about profitability.

If you're playing against someone you don't know it's a bit hard to avoid Riptides and the like; sure, you can choose not to play, but that means that you, well... don't get to play. Frankly, I'm still confused that anyone could argue that Tactical Marines are fine by excluding some of the units that cause the problem. It's like arguing that Terminators are OP because one dude passed 66 armour saves.

For the record, I agree with the whole "apologist" thing; I still enjoy the game too, and think there's lots of things GW is doing right that the Internet seems to hate. This just isn't one of them.

"look, we all know your 4 Riptide/ WS spam list is gonna crush my army under weight of fire just like the last 10 times, what do you say you drop a couple for something else and make it a game instead of another 2 hour exercise in you putting another tick in the win column"

Why should they have to self-nerf? Why would they not field the best army they can and expect me to do the same? The whole point of list building is to try to get another tick in the win column so why not take a sure thing?

"Lets not hear the old "Oh but good solid and balanced rules would be good for everyone" strawman."

It's not a strawman.

"if his whole group is just interesting in spamming power units rather than playing a game they *might* lose that must suck more."

Are they supposed to spam bad units?

And I hate to point this out, but plasma is a pretty TAC choice. Most lists have a good target for plasma and it's ROF and range is the same as a boltgun.

I don't think its my meta that kills marines. It's 40K that kills marines by giving them crap offense for their points. The avenger in a vaccum MIGHT be balanced, but they unlock Wave Serpents. Even without Serpents, I'd still take the Dire Avenger. Or almost any non-meq troop at this point. (I'd keep Grey Hunters)

I'd say my BA have a pretty good chance of running your 30 tactical marine list off the able due to all those points you just wasted. Given that I can't even get to the Eldar (other than the Jetseer concil that visits ME) in most games to assault them, the difference is stark. The tac marine is dead weight in practice because of low throw weight. Marines can't afford 30 models of dead weight. Other lists can afford this, but many of them don't have to make such a choice.

You are seriously underestimating the value of taking enemy models off the board. Tactical marines are terrible at this job. That means they will have weather turn after turn of incoming fire compared to better troops. We won't get into how the Imperials have nothing as efficient as a war walker at delivering firepower. Versatility comes a price of efficacy, and that is a price 14 pt models can't pay. But it sounds like the players in your meta self-nerf. How lucky for you.

You mischaracterize the people in my group. They play to win. That's basically it. What good is a game if I have to ask people to not play to win?

Evidently, you have bought into the "forge the narrative" crap. I have never seen this done, not in nearly 20 years of playing this. I have never seen a cooperative game, ever. I've mostly seen guys trying (and usually failing) to table each other. I've gotten more cooperation from *actual* "competitive" games. GW's rules are always trying to be bent in favor of my opposition as well. I'm always part general, part barrister. Welcome to playing against war gamers.

All I want is to be able to hang with an Eldar player who is playing to win. That's all. That's not asking the moon. But evidently it is asking too much of our GW overlords.

" You've seen the WD battle reports to see the games these guys want to play,"

They would be obliterated where I play.

Martel732 wrote:

Why should they have to self-nerf?
Are they supposed to spam bad units?

When have any of us told you to this?

You mischaracterize the people in my group. They play to win. That's basically it. What good is a game if I have to ask people to not play to win?

When have any of us told you to this?

Have tried to use some of the suggested fixes and seen if they made a difference yet?

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Why should they have to self-nerf?
Are they supposed to spam bad units?

When have any of us told you to this?

You mischaracterize the people in my group. They play to win. That's basically it. What good is a game if I have to ask people to not play to win?

When have any of us told you to this?

Have tried to use some of the suggested fixes and seen if they made a difference yet?

That's what a poster is suggesting when their solution is "don't play against top lists", "don't play against Triple Riptide", "don't play against XX", "ask your opponent not to bring XXX". And that wasn't directed at you anyway. You specifically don't play in an environment where this is even a thing. But the problem is that your experiences won't travel well. If you line up those tac marines where I play, you will mulched.


"Have tried to use some of the suggested fixes and seen if they made a difference yet? "

What fixes? The above "suggestions"? No one will agree to that where I play, nor should they have to, or even be asked.

Martel732 wrote:
What fixes? The above "suggestions"? No one will agree to that where I play, nor should they have to, or even be asked.

The ones from the first page
-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.
-The ones were Bolters gain 2 shots out to 24” or Volley 2/3?

Has anyone tried a simple points decrease?
Also you could make a cheap (say 2-5 point) sergeant upgrade that allows them to fire an extra shot if they did not move last turn (essentially bolter volly-fire).

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
What fixes? The above "suggestions"? No one will agree to that where I play, nor should they have to, or even be asked.

The ones from the first page
-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.
-The ones were Bolters gain 2 shots out to 24” or Volley 2/3?

Oh that was a long time ago.

I know the first one helps a bit because that's what Grey Hunters can already do. And they are more efficacious for it.

I know the third one helps because GK already have this trick. And it's quite mean, especially on interceptors. Of course, it still fails against the best lists, or else GK would still be on top.

The second one is interesting, but then we get back to standard Imperial heavy weapons basically sucking. I like the *idea*, but tacticals aren't armed with anything that makes slow and purposeful worth having. Compare to GK that get psycannons in their infantry squads.

Sadly, no one in my play group is going to playtest anything. It's always tournament practice. It's not fair to burden the player base with this kind of problem that should have been ironed out in playtesting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Has anyone tried a simple points decrease?
Also you could make a cheap (say 2-5 point) sergeant upgrade that allows them to fire an extra shot if they did not move last turn (essentially bolter volly-fire).

This is probably the most realistic "fix". Paying less for useless units is a step in the right direction. It would be preferable and more fluffy to make them something other than scatter laser targets or Jetseer bobo dolls, but mathematically I don't see how.

Martel732 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Has anyone tried a simple points decrease?
Also you could make a cheap (say 2-5 point) sergeant upgrade that allows them to fire an extra shot if they did not move last turn (essentially bolter volly-fire).

This is probably the most realistic "fix". Paying less for useless units is a step in the right direction. It would be preferable and more fluffy to make them something other than scatter laser targets or Jetseer bobo dolls, but mathematically I don't see how.

Things that cost to much is the reason most things aren't used I seem to see. There are plenty of "bad" units that are still used because they don't cost to much.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Has anyone tried a simple points decrease?
Also you could make a cheap (say 2-5 point) sergeant upgrade that allows them to fire an extra shot if they did not move last turn (essentially bolter volly-fire).

This is probably the most realistic "fix". Paying less for useless units is a step in the right direction. It would be preferable and more fluffy to make them something other than scatter laser targets or Jetseer bobo dolls, but mathematically I don't see how.

Things that cost to much is the reason most things aren't used I seem to see. There are plenty of "bad" units that are still used because they don't cost to much.

I can fundamentally agree with this. By definition units that "suck" are overcosted and those that are "OP" are undercosted. No mechanic is broken as long as appropriate points are paid. Rather than changing rules, it would probably be easiest to further discount tac marines to fit in more stuff that actually does something. Of course, many posters will scream bloody murder, but whatever. Tactical marines are failures at the 14 pt/model price point coupled with the high prices and low efficacy of Imperial heavy weapons. And the utter suckitude of marine transports. Tau troops can HP out marines transports, but tac marines can't scratch a Serpent on their best day. Seems fair, sure.

Martel732 wrote:
I know the first one helps a bit because that's what Grey Hunters can already do. And they are more efficacious for it.

Do they have the same problem as normal Tactical Marines in your group?

I know the third one helps because GK already have this trick. And it's quite mean, especially on interceptors. Of course, it still fails against the best lists, or else GK would still be on top.

Check

The second one is interesting, but then we get back to standard Imperial heavy weapons basically sucking. I like the *idea*, but Tacticals aren't armed with anything that makes slow and purposeful worth having. Compare to GK that get Psycannons in their infantry squads.

Heavy Bolters, I know they are not Psycannons, but vs. a lot of armies they are the same thing.

Sadly, no one in my play group is going to play test anything. It's always tournament practice. It's not fair to burden the player base with this kind of problem that should have been ironed out in play testing.

Talk to the Playes about have a “Just for Fun Night.” So they can play test stuff too.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Has anyone tried a simple points decrease?
Also you could make a cheap (say 2-5 point) sergeant upgrade that allows them to fire an extra shot if they did not move last turn (essentially bolter volley-fire).

Martel732 wrote:
This is probably the most realistic "fix". Paying less for useless units is a step in the right direction. It would be preferable and more fluffy to make them something other than scatter laser targets or Jetseer bobo dolls, but mathematically I don't see how.

This to.

Yes, Grey Hunters are ironically not really any better against Tau/Eldar/Daemons even they are super good against lists they give them a chance to live and play. Which is another reason I don't blame Tau/Eldar/Daemon players, because Grey Hunters are straight up unfair if you don't shoot them to death. I used to hate Grey Hunters more than anything until we got Helldrake/Tau/Eldar/Daemons on the scene.

They are the original reason I started shooting with BA in 5th.