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.

Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:

" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "

Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:

" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "

Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.

Tactical squads often suck when you forget that the rest of the marine army is made up of tanks, TEQ and devestators. I often find that I use my heavy duty firepower against the more dangerous and scary Marine elements (such as a Land Raider full of termies rushing towards me), while the firepower that would be ineffective against this is targeted against the tactical squads. As such they seem fairly survivable, since most of it is low strength with a poor AP.

But sure if the entire army was tactical marines standing around, they'd be pretty poor.

But the points spent on tac marines could have been spent on the other stuff that kinda works. Marines tanks, teq, and devs are all pretty bad, though.

Tau can buy troops that can kill MCs. Marines? LOL

Martel732 wrote:
But the points spent on tac marines could have been spent on the other stuff that kinda works. Marines tanks, teq, and devs are all pretty bad, though.

Tau can buy troops that can kill MCs. Marines? LOL

You realize that most MCs are not all T8. T5, T6 and T7 are far more common.

Martel732 wrote:
But the points spent on tac marines could have been spent on the other stuff that kinda works. Marines tanks, teq, and devs are all pretty bad, though.

Tau can buy troops that can kill MCs. Marines? LOL

Well assuming you do *have* to take troops, the only alternative is scouts (or bikers, but that's a different topic). It may be your [i[opinion[/i] that tanks, terminators and devestator are "pretty bad", but they are all very common units and make up a good chunk of many marine players' armies. As such a tactical observance on the effectiveness of the OP when featured in a list involving them is perfectly valid. The advice itself was explicitly tailored to such lists, so where's your problem?

It's true that Tau basic weapons are a better Strength and AP, but honestly I think pretty much all of them would exchange their pulse rifles for boltguns if it meant they could get a cheap BS 4 heavy/special weapon. Fire warriors are actually a pretty poor comparison to Tactical Squads, since the former are far weaker vs virtually everything, and are a lot more fragile. They also have to pay a lot of points for a dedicated transport that is not very durable for what you pay.

MAybe you should compare tactical marines with other race's troops in a squad on squad combat without transports or stuff to find out if they're good by themselves.

Something like:
tac vs csm/firewarriors/ork boyz/necron warriors/dire avengers/imperial guardsmen/termagaunts etc.

They'll be on par or better vs most such enemies. And u'll see how huge is atsknf and how good t4 and 3+ is.

The problem lies within the ammount of fmc, riptides and other things that ignore a model having t4 and 3+.

I might do a few tests in different enviroment. The most interesting would be dire avengers and ork boyz.

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:

" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "

Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.

I didn't want to reply because you previous reply made me sad. The idea that everyone in your group is scrabbling for an advantage before the game starts goes so heavily against the spirit of the game for me as to be alien. Where is the skill or joy in victory if you start the game the equivalent of 200pts up?

For us 40k is not a sport, it is a game to be enjoyed by both players. Stronger players bring weaker lists against weaker players or weaker armies, defeat is something that can happen if they are outplayed. I am I think I can say without hubris but to make a point that I am the strongest player in our group and my primary army is Eldar (With Nids and CSM as options) if I played a high end Eldar list most of our games would be an exercise in self gratification as I chalked up pointless win after pointless win.

Now if I weaken that army I create an even playing field and if my opponent outplays me on the day, seizes a mistake or sees something I don't, they can win despite my stronger status and race choice. Now once the game starts I will pull no punches, I will play to table my opponent but unlike if I played the much stronger list if I make those mistakes I may lose. It's so much more entertaining for all involved.

Anyway, one last post before I leave the thread because neither of us is gonna budge and we're just repeating the same stuff different ways:

Tac marines with Plasma gun, Heavy Bolter against BA ASM with packs. Tacs will get to shoot, double tap and overwatch before you even really hands on that will kill half the ASM, and that's the best case for the ASM, if the marines fall back the ASM would be looking at getting single tapped twice plus a double and overwatch.

Double that up and 2 tacs against 2 ASM will kill one of the ASM squads before they close to range and while they spend the game slowly chewing up the tac squad at 1.6 kills a round the other will be free to act, claim objectives, all that fun troop stuff. Personally I find wiping out half+ a squad of MEQ's with jump packs before they can get to you a respectable level of firepower.

Oh, and better hope the tacs don't break or have Calgar, in which case they may break free, rally, and double tap you again.

Now you may run ASM differently, like with a Sang Priest and melta guns, but he is pricy and every point is put back into the balance on the tacs side, combi weapons, more troops, a better heavy weapon, last thing you want is them to have a plasma cannon.

There's very few troops in the game tacs can't go point to point with and perform at least admirably, they get killed by heavy support choices, but show me a troop choice that doesn't.

 koooaei wrote:
MAybe you should compare tactical marines with other race's troops in a squad on squad combat without transports or stuff to find out if they're good by themselves.

Something like:
tac vs csm/firewarriors/ork boyz/necron warriors/dire avengers/imperial guardsmen/termagaunts etc.

I'll start off with ignoring what you said because it doesn't work. You can't compare a squad of Tacticals to a squad of Guardsmen and then draw any meaningful conclusions from that, because the Marines are twice as expensive. It'd tilt performance in favour of the Tactical Squad.

CSM get double special weapons. They're essentially "Grey Hunters lite" since they don't get ATSKNF. Look through the rest of the thread for that discussion.

Fire Warriors have an S5 weapon with 30" range and have elements in their army that can actually augment their firepower. The only such thing for Tacticals is someone casting Prescience on them, which requires you to either take Tigurius or an allied Inquisitor. CT:UM and CT:IF obviously do their thing too, but UM is a one-shot and IF is a 10% increase in bolter hits.

Ork Boyz were discussed as early as page 1; Shoota Boyz outshoot tacticals point for point and are almost as durable in cover, while having the stabilizing effect of rolling lots of dice everytime they do anything, decreasing their odds of that one turn of "well crap, everyone died". They also get full shots out to 18", although they have a shorter max range.

Necron Warriors have what is more or less a 3+ armour save (4+ armour + ((1/3)/1/2) RP roll) which can be buffed and have a gun that can kill a Land Raider. Roughly equal survivability as Tacticals, better firepower and, above all else, Night Scythes as Dedicated Transports. Who cares if your Troops can't fight in close combat? They'll just fly around being immune to it anyway.

Dire Avengers have a gun with pseudo-rending, full shots out to 18" and battle focus. They also unlock Wave Serpents. We've seen enough discussion about these I'd say.

Guardsmen are cheap and can take loads of ablative wounds for their Plasma and Melta guns. Veterans have an obscene level of firepower and can be flown around in Vendettas. With Commissars, they're rather unlikely to be running even if the enemy gets into CC.

Termagants are cheap as chips; you can get 180 of the buggers for 720-ish points. The 'Nid Codex hasn't been out long enough for me to want to form an opinion on it yet, but 180 'gants is a LOT of things coming running your way rather fast.

Grey Hunters have already been discussed.

I'd actually rate Sisters of Battle higher than Tactical Squads. That extra Meltagun or Flamer makes a huge difference. Worse in combat, but Tactical Marines can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag either.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:

" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "

Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.

I didn't want to reply because you previous reply made me sad. The idea that everyone in your group is scrabbling for an advantage before the game starts goes so heavily against the spirit of the game for me as to be alien. Where is the skill or joy in victory if you start the game the equivalent of 200pts up?

For us 40k is not a sport, it is a game to be enjoyed by both players. Stronger players bring weaker lists against weaker players or weaker armies, defeat is something that can happen if they are outplayed. I am I think I can say without hubris but to make a point that I am the strongest player in our group and my primary army is Eldar (With Nids and CSM as options) if I played a high end Eldar list most of our games would be an exercise in self gratification as I chalked up pointless win after pointless win.

Now if I weaken that army I create an even playing field and if my opponent outplays me on the day, seizes a mistake or sees something I don't, they can win despite my stronger status and race choice. Now once the game starts I will pull no punches, I will play to table my opponent but unlike if I played the much stronger list if I make those mistakes I may lose. It's so much more entertaining for all involved.

You're actually agreeing with us, in a roundabout way. What we're saying is that Tactical Marines ought to be better so that you wouldn't have to take weaker lists. If Tactical Marines were better you would have more options that you could take without breaking the game.

Just as an example, let's assume that your favourite unit is the Wave Serpent. If you want to play with your favourite unit, you're more or less going to have a strong list by default. Your options are either to not play with your favourite unit, thus reducing your enjoyment, or to ROFL-stomp your enemy, reducing his or her enjoyment. What we want is to have Tactical Marines that let you, as an Eldar player, take Wave Serpents without feeling bad about it, without turning the fight into "look how many Marines you lose per turn, what fun!".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
MAybe you should compare tactical marines with other race's troops in a squad on squad combat without transports or stuff to find out if they're good by themselves.

Something like:
tac vs csm/firewarriors/ork boyz/necron warriors/dire avengers/imperial guardsmen/termagaunts etc.

I'll start off with ignoring what you said because it doesn't work. You can't compare a squad of Tacticals to a squad of Guardsmen and then draw any meaningful conclusions from that, because the Marines are twice as expensive. It'd tilt performance in favour of the Tactical Squad.

CSM get double special weapons. They're essentially "Grey Hunters lite" since they don't get ATSKNF. Look through the rest of the thread for that discussion.

Fire Warriors have an S5 weapon with 30" range and have elements in their army that can actually augment their firepower. The only such thing for Tacticals is someone casting Prescience on them, which requires you to either take Tigurius or an allied Inquisitor. CT:UM and CT:IF obviously do their thing too, but UM is a one-shot and IF is a 10% increase in bolter hits.

Ork Boyz were discussed as early as page 1; Shoota Boyz outshoot tacticals point for point and are almost as durable in cover, while having the stabilizing effect of rolling lots of dice everytime they do anything, decreasing their odds of that one turn of "well crap, everyone died". They also get full shots out to 18", although they have a shorter max range.

Necron Warriors have what is more or less a 3+ armour save (4+ armour + ((1/3)/1/2) RP roll) which can be buffed and have a gun that can kill a Land Raider. Roughly equal survivability as Tacticals, better firepower and, above all else, Night Scythes as Dedicated Transports. Who cares if your Troops can't fight in close combat? They'll just fly around being immune to it anyway.

Dire Avengers have a gun with pseudo-rending, full shots out to 18" and battle focus. They also unlock Wave Serpents. We've seen enough discussion about these I'd say.

Guardsmen are cheap and can take loads of ablative wounds for their Plasma and Melta guns. Veterans have an obscene level of firepower and can be flown around in Vendettas. With Commissars, they're rather unlikely to be running even if the enemy gets into CC.

Termagants are cheap as chips; you can get 180 of the buggers for 720-ish points. The 'Nid Codex hasn't been out long enough for me to want to form an opinion on it yet, but 180 'gants is a LOT of things coming running your way rather fast.

Grey Hunters have already been discussed.

I'd actually rate Sisters of Battle higher than Tactical Squads. That extra Meltagun or Flamer makes a huge difference. Worse in combat, but Tactical Marines can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag either.

So on the whole, Troops to Troops, tactical squad is above average. And that's what i'm trying to tell you. The things that shift the ballance so much are transports and too cheap and effective things that negate armor/cover/toughness. But if u're buffing tactical marines straight - u're just forcing EVEN MORE annoying ap2 ignore cover pieplates. Cause if tacticals get too buffed - other troops will have hard time matching them without abusing such cheeze.

Now the pure existence of possibility to field triptides and serpent spam without loosing much but recieving massive advantages lowers overall good tactical marines to the state of mediocre point-holders. But such is the GW policy:
1. You produced a new X model or have tons of X models that lie dusted on the stock shelves produced previously cause players usually prefere a Y model.
2. You make the rules for X model good and make rules for Y model worse so that people want to buy your X model that u've spent time and money creating in the first place. Or just ban an Y model. Or invent a new role that can be fulfilled only by X model.
3. After dealing with the butthurt of their fancy Y models being replaced by a new/inmproved X model or by the fact that the new role is so important that you can't be sucksessful without X model, players pay the money.
4. You create the line of such X models that replace Y models for all the current codexes.
5. You repeat the process.

So it's no wonder that tacticals are so outclassed by new or improved models. It's business. I bet lootas and battlewagons are gona get hit next

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You're actually agreeing with us, in a roundabout way. What we're saying is that Tactical Marines ought to be better so that you wouldn't have to take weaker lists. If Tactical Marines were better you would have more options that you could take without breaking the game.

Dammit Walrus I was trying to leave the thread

In part I am, it's why I said that suggesting people don't want a perfectly balanced game is a strawman. It'd be great if everything was balanced to perfection (no-one is saying otherwise) but doing that with the hundreds of unit combinations and powers, allies and dataslates is incredibly difficult. GW have it roughly right, there are a handful of units/combinations in the whole game that are too good or too bad, it's why you see so much in the way of repeated units in tourneys, spam the best.
The GW writers don't see their game as being played competitively, they see it as being played by people like me, so for them the "close enough" school of balance works.

I don't think Tacticals fall into the too good or the too bad categories, I think they sit in the 95% of units that are about right. Compared to Riptides they are weak, compared to Genestealers they are good.

This thread has become something like "do Tactical Marines suck?".

In my opinion, no they don´t. I play with them and against them, and I see them as one of the best units of one of the best armies.

You cannot look a "basic" troop option and compare it with a Fast, Heavy or Elite option. Troops are there to take strategic points, and perhaps give some support.

Tactical Space Marines are a multipurpose unit with more options than full Codexes. You can customize them to incredible levels, making them good at everything you want. And yes I said good. If you want to see a bad Troop option you should get your head out of this Codex. Have you played Tyranids, Chaos Marines or Sisters? They all have troops at around 14 points, the cost of a marine, which are far worse in all senses to the point that claiming that "Tactical suck" sounds quite odd.

A Chaos Space Marine lacks a lot of special rules that makes it quite inferior than the loyal counterpart. For a single point a tactical gets ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Chapter Tactics. You also lose the crippling Warriors of Chaos rule. Which is perhaps the biggest difference between Marines and the rest: Marines gets powerful & useful rules, the rest get weaknesses.

-> ATSKNF is a completely broken rule that allows the Marine player to skip all the Morale system, allegedly because it is an "army for beginners". It also grants retreating units major boosts by giving them big tactical advantages after a retreat.

-> Combat Squads is really big too. It grants you the possibility of changing the way your army deploy, in many ways, adapting to the battle. It is the only army that can do that, and it is a major tactical boost.

-> And then you get Chapter Tactics. The most powerful rule, the one everyone wanted. You can customize your army to amazing levels, getting lots of different Special Rules, all of them powerful, not a single weakness, for free. It was the dream of Chaos players (Legions), Sisters players (Orders), Ork players (Clans), Tyranid players (Hive Fleets), Dark Eldar players (Cabals), Eldar (Craftworlds), Imperial Guard players (doctrines) and the rest. Nobody else got it.

And everything is free. As a CSM player I would gladly pay 1 point for getting rid of Warriors of Chaos. If I proposed getting four really powerfull special rules for free I would be laughed at.

And let´s not start with 12 points Sisters or 14 points Genestealers!

And all this for 70 points. 70 points. And it is not ever the best Troop unit in the Codex (bikes). The best Troop unit in Codex: CSM is Cultists, and they are 50 points. What do tactical gets for 20 points?

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to shoot a weak unit (say, Cultists): it dies, runs away or get crippled.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: nothing. At all.

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a weak unit (say, Cultists): Cultists die, horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: Cultists die. Horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a light tank or a Walker: the vehicle dies, quickly. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to assault a light tank: nothing. If it is a Walker the Cultists die.

What happens if you customize your tactical marines: they have a chance of doing anything. A power fist, a power sword, a melta gun or a plasma cannon completely change their usefullness.
What happens if you customize your Cultists. Why would you? They have very few options, and they remain the same. The only option I have ever considered is making them zombies.

That´s a useless unit. A concept that was rooted out from Codex: Space Marines some time ago. The Codex have good units, very good units and excellent units. To find a really bad unit you need to look at other places.

I play both Space Marines and other armies, and Tactical are GREAT. I can trust them to hold the line and take care of easy stuff. That´s something I cannot say of my Daemons, my Genestealers, my Sisters, my cheap Culstist or my CSM.


That being said, I would give them some form of boost, because fluff-wise they are not the worse infantry unit in the Codex (save Scouts), which is what they are game-wise. Giving them the first rule proposed by the OP: ("Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list." and a slight buff to the no longer cool Bolter sound fine to me.

But then you should contemplate giving some boost to all other basic Troop options that are in a way, way worse state than Tacticals: Battle Sisters, CSM, Thousand Sons, Berserkers, Genestealers... the list is long.

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:

" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "

Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.

I didn't want to reply because you previous reply made me sad. The idea that everyone in your group is scrabbling for an advantage before the game starts goes so heavily against the spirit of the game for me as to be alien. Where is the skill or joy in victory if you start the game the equivalent of 200pts up?

For us 40k is not a sport, it is a game to be enjoyed by both players. Stronger players bring weaker lists against weaker players or weaker armies, defeat is something that can happen if they are outplayed. I am I think I can say without hubris but to make a point that I am the strongest player in our group and my primary army is Eldar (With Nids and CSM as options) if I played a high end Eldar list most of our games would be an exercise in self gratification as I chalked up pointless win after pointless win.

Now if I weaken that army I create an even playing field and if my opponent outplays me on the day, seizes a mistake or sees something I don't, they can win despite my stronger status and race choice. Now once the game starts I will pull no punches, I will play to table my opponent but unlike if I played the much stronger list if I make those mistakes I may lose. It's so much more entertaining for all involved.

Anyway, one last post before I leave the thread because neither of us is gonna budge and we're just repeating the same stuff different ways:

Tac marines with Plasma gun, Heavy Bolter against BA ASM with packs. Tacs will get to shoot, double tap and overwatch before you even really hands on that will kill half the ASM, and that's the best case for the ASM, if the marines fall back the ASM would be looking at getting single tapped twice plus a double and overwatch.

Double that up and 2 tacs against 2 ASM will kill one of the ASM squads before they close to range and while they spend the game slowly chewing up the tac squad at 1.6 kills a round the other will be free to act, claim objectives, all that fun troop stuff. Personally I find wiping out half+ a squad of MEQ's with jump packs before they can get to you a respectable level of firepower.

Oh, and better hope the tacs don't break or have Calgar, in which case they may break free, rally, and double tap you again.

Now you may run ASM differently, like with a Sang Priest and melta guns, but he is pricy and every point is put back into the balance on the tacs side, combi weapons, more troops, a better heavy weapon, last thing you want is them to have a plasma cannon.

There's very few troops in the game tacs can't go point to point with and perform at least admirably, they get killed by heavy support choices, but show me a troop choice that doesn't.

YOU FINALLY FIGURED IT OUT!! Have an exalt,

 da001 wrote:
This thread has become something like "do Tactical Marines suck?".

In my opinion, no they don´t. I play with them and against them, and I see them as one of the best units of one of the best armies.

You cannot look a "basic" troop option and compare it with a Fast, Heavy or Elite option. Troops are there to take strategic points, and perhaps give some support.

Tactical Space Marines are a multipurpose unit with more options than full Codexes. You can customize them to incredible levels, making them good at everything you want. And yes I said good. If you want to see a bad Troop option you should get your head out of this Codex. Have you played Tyranids, Chaos Marines or Sisters? They all have troops at around 14 points, the cost of a marine, which are far worse in all senses to the point that claiming that "Tactical suck" sounds quite odd.

A Chaos Space Marine lacks a lot of special rules that makes it quite inferior than the loyal counterpart. For a single point a tactical gets ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Chapter Tactics. You also lose the crippling Warriors of Chaos rule. Which is perhaps the biggest difference between Marines and the rest: Marines gets powerful & useful rules, the rest get weaknesses.

-> ATSKNF is a completely broken rule that allows the Marine player to skip all the Morale system, allegedly because it is an "army for beginners". It also grants retreating units major boosts by giving them big tactical advantages after a retreat.

-> Combat Squads is really big too. It grants you the possibility of changing the way your army deploy, in many ways, adapting to the battle. It is the only army that can do that, and it is a major tactical boost.

-> And then you get Chapter Tactics. The most powerful rule, the one everyone wanted. You can customize your army to amazing levels, getting lots of different Special Rules, all of them powerful, not a single weakness, for free. It was the dream of Chaos players (Legions), Sisters players (Orders), Ork players (Clans), Tyranid players (Hive Fleets), Dark Eldar players (Cabals), Eldar (Craftworlds), Imperial Guard players (doctrines) and the rest. Nobody else got it.

CSM get an extra CCW and can take double specials. ATSKNF has already been discussed in the thread, it's really not as good as you're making it out to be. If everyone dies to a man, you're not using it anyway.

Combat Squads lets Space Marines be the only army with deployment customization, if you exclude Imperial Guard, Space Wolves and Grey Knights.

Chapter Tactics doesn't actually do that much though. Yes, they're nifty boni to have, I'm not turning down a 6+ FNP on everything, but the reason people want Legions, Orders, Clans and the like is to make the fluff matter, not because it's the best rule in the game.

 da001 wrote:

And all this for 70 points. 70 points. And it is not ever the best Troop unit in the Codex (bikes). The best Troop unit in Codex: CSM is Cultists, and they are 50 points. What do tactical gets for 20 points?

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to shoot a weak unit (say, Cultists): it dies, runs away or get crippled.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: nothing. At all.

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a weak unit (say, Cultists): Cultists die, horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: Cultists die. Horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a light tank or a Walker: the vehicle dies, quickly. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to assault a light tank: nothing. If it is a Walker the Cultists die.

What happens if you customize your tactical marines: they have a chance of doing anything. A power fist, a power sword, a melta gun or a plasma cannon completely change their usefullness.
What happens if you customize your Cultists. Why would you? They have very few options, and they remain the same. The only option I have ever considered is making them zombies.

That´s a useless unit. A concept that was rooted out from Codex: Space Marines some time ago. The Codex have good units, very good units and excellent units. To find a really bad unit you need to look at other places.

I play both Space Marines and other armies, and Tactical are GREAT. I can trust them to hold the line and take care of easy stuff. That´s something I cannot say of my Daemons, my Genestealers, my Sisters, my cheap Culstist or my CSM.


That being said, I would give them some form of boost, because fluff-wise they are not the worse infantry unit in the Codex (save Scouts), which is what they are game-wise. Giving them the first rule proposed by the OP: ("Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list." and a slight buff to the no longer cool Bolter sound fine to me.

But then you should contemplate giving some boost to all other basic Troop options that are in a way, way worse state than Tacticals: Battle Sisters, CSM, Thousand Sons, Berserkers, Genestealers... the list is long.

Crikey, you really need to read the thread you're responding to.

Cultists get 10 wounds for 50 points, Marines get 5 for 70. The 10 Cultists are just as durable against bolters in 4+ cover as the Marines, and more durable against AP3 stuff (and if they go to ground for a 3+ or 2+ cover save, they live longer). The points saved add up, allowing you to purchase specialized units that perform better. Whether or not the Marines kill Cultists or not is irrelevant, neither of the two Troops choices can meaningfully threaten killy things, so the only thing left to do for them is to objective camp. Cultists are better at that.

You're playing to the strength of the Tactical Marines but ignore the fact that a fully kitted Tactical Squad is in excess of 140 points, whereas 10 Cultists are 50 points. If you hide the Cultists in reserve and walk them on later in the game they'll live long enough to score, freeing up at least 90 points that you could be spending on something else. Let's put it this way: Would you rather have 20 Marines or 20 Cultists and a Heldrake?

Battle Sisters aren't worse than Tacticals, because they can actually contribute. Same with CSM; double special weapons matters when the only meaningful part of the squad is the special weapons. The fact that there are Troops that are worse than Tacticals doesn't mean that they're good anyway, it just makes them not as bad as the others, most of which are in armies that have other options.

 da001 wrote:
This thread has become something like "do Tactical Marines suck?".

In my opinion, no they don´t. I play with them and against them, and I see them as one of the best units of one of the best armies.

You cannot look a "basic" troop option and compare it with a Fast, Heavy or Elite option. Troops are there to take strategic points, and perhaps give some support.

Tactical Space Marines are a multipurpose unit with more options than full Codexes. You can customize them to incredible levels, making them good at everything you want. And yes I said good. If you want to see a bad Troop option you should get your head out of this Codex. Have you played Tyranids, Chaos Marines or Sisters? They all have troops at around 14 points, the cost of a marine, which are far worse in all senses to the point that claiming that "Tactical suck" sounds quite odd.

A Chaos Space Marine lacks a lot of special rules that makes it quite inferior than the loyal counterpart. For a single point a tactical gets ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Chapter Tactics. You also lose the crippling Warriors of Chaos rule. Which is perhaps the biggest difference between Marines and the rest: Marines gets powerful & useful rules, the rest get weaknesses.

-> ATSKNF is a completely broken rule that allows the Marine player to skip all the Morale system, allegedly because it is an "army for beginners". It also grants retreating units major boosts by giving them big tactical advantages after a retreat.

-> Combat Squads is really big too. It grants you the possibility of changing the way your army deploy, in many ways, adapting to the battle. It is the only army that can do that, and it is a major tactical boost.

-> And then you get Chapter Tactics. The most powerful rule, the one everyone wanted. You can customize your army to amazing levels, getting lots of different Special Rules, all of them powerful, not a single weakness, for free. It was the dream of Chaos players (Legions), Sisters players (Orders), Ork players (Clans), Tyranid players (Hive Fleets), Dark Eldar players (Cabals), Eldar (Craftworlds), Imperial Guard players (doctrines) and the rest. Nobody else got it.

And everything is free. As a CSM player I would gladly pay 1 point for getting rid of Warriors of Chaos. If I proposed getting four really powerfull special rules for free I would be laughed at.

And let´s not start with 12 points Sisters or 14 points Genestealers!

And all this for 70 points. 70 points. And it is not ever the best Troop unit in the Codex (bikes). The best Troop unit in Codex: CSM is Cultists, and they are 50 points. What do tactical gets for 20 points?

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to shoot a weak unit (say, Cultists): it dies, runs away or get crippled.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: nothing. At all.

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a weak unit (say, Cultists): Cultists die, horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: Cultists die. Horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a light tank or a Walker: the vehicle dies, quickly. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to assault a light tank: nothing. If it is a Walker the Cultists die.

What happens if you customize your tactical marines: they have a chance of doing anything. A power fist, a power sword, a melta gun or a plasma cannon completely change their usefullness.
What happens if you customize your Cultists. Why would you? They have very few options, and they remain the same. The only option I have ever considered is making them zombies.

That´s a useless unit. A concept that was rooted out from Codex: Space Marines some time ago. The Codex have good units, very good units and excellent units. To find a really bad unit you need to look at other places.

I play both Space Marines and other armies, and Tactical are GREAT. I can trust them to hold the line and take care of easy stuff. That´s something I cannot say of my Daemons, my Genestealers, my Sisters, my cheap Culstist or my CSM.


That being said, I would give them some form of boost, because fluff-wise they are not the worse infantry unit in the Codex (save Scouts), which is what they are game-wise. Giving them the first rule proposed by the OP: ("Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list." and a slight buff to the no longer cool Bolter sound fine to me.

But then you should contemplate giving some boost to all other basic Troop options that are in a way, way worse state than Tacticals: Battle Sisters, CSM, Thousand Sons, Berserkers, Genestealers... the list is long.

This is everything I have been saying for 15 pages summed up better than me.
That and everytime I bring up Chapter Tactics I get crickets, that is the current game changer no one is seeing.

I'm not sure why some people don't see the value of ATSKNF.

It isn't just the falling auto regroup. It's also being completely immune to being wiped out in a sweeping advance. And look at the penalties you get when you rally. Oh wait, you don't suffer any of the penalties and actually get more movement. ATSKNF has saved me more times than I can count. You're also immune to fear.

Combat squads are also a huge advantage as mentioned before.

But the upgrades are what makes them versatile. Versatility is in itself the Tactical Squad's main advantage. In addition to it's special rules mentioned above you can pick just about anything to deal or help deal with anything.

Want a Tactical in your opponent's deployment zone near an objective? Hey for 35 points you can get a drop pod. Want to box up and stay safe, how about a rhino in cover and you can shoot your heavy weapon from the hatch. Not strong enough? How about a razorback where you can access another heavy weapon. Want to be more defensive take a flamer. Want to pop a vehicle first turn? Take a melta use ultra tactics and drop pod in with only 5 guys (heck take a combi melta for your sarge there too while you are at it).

It's how Tacts mesh with the rest of your army. Yep, send in your Special forces to clear specific targets and people but you are going to need your basic infantry to win the war. You can't win without your Tacts. In the marine codex you can adapt them to just about every role.

As to the OP's title about making them better, I would go with the HH bolter rule for tacticals. If they remain stationary you get an extra shot and gain shred. But that's as far as I would go. They are fine as they are in the context of the game.

 Crantor wrote:
I'm not sure why some people don't see the value of ATSKNF.

It isn't just the falling auto regroup. It's also being completely immune to being wiped out in a sweeping advance. And look at the penalties you get when you rally. Oh wait, you don't suffer any of the penalties and actually get more movement. ATSKNF has saved me more times than I can count. You're also immune to fear.

The reason ATSKNF doesn't matter in 6th edition (and we've said this loads of times) is that you have to live to use it. What few CC units remain viable in 6th edition are things like FMCs, Wraiths and Juggerlords, and they don't care if you're a Marine with ATSKNF, they cut you down instantly anyway.

Yes, ATSKNF can save you, but I'd rather have cheaper Troops so I can spend more points on damage and not have to be saved in the first place.

 Crantor wrote:

But the upgrades are what makes them versatile. Versatility is in itself the Tactical Squad's main advantage. In addition to it's special rules mentioned above you can pick just about anything to deal or help deal with anything.

If only there were a post in here somewhere discussing why versatility is worse than specialization. If only...

Meh. Doesn't bother me one way or the other. People will still whine one way or the other about either how good or how bad their or someone else's units are compared to theirs. If you don't like marines (Tacticals specifically) play another army.

Like I said, the HH shredding bolters would be a nifty addition.

Just giving my 2cents for what it is worth. And given that it is worth 10% less than USD it's less than you think.

 da001 wrote:
This thread has become something like "do Tactical Marines suck?".

In my opinion, no they don´t. I play with them and against them, and I see them as one of the best units of one of the best armies.

You cannot look a "basic" troop option and compare it with a Fast, Heavy or Elite option. Troops are there to take strategic points, and perhaps give some support.

Tactical Space Marines are a multipurpose unit with more options than full Codexes. You can customize them to incredible levels, making them good at everything you want. And yes I said good. If you want to see a bad Troop option you should get your head out of this Codex. Have you played Tyranids, Chaos Marines or Sisters? They all have troops at around 14 points, the cost of a marine, which are far worse in all senses to the point that claiming that "Tactical suck" sounds quite odd.

A Chaos Space Marine lacks a lot of special rules that makes it quite inferior than the loyal counterpart. For a single point a tactical gets ATSKNF, Combat Squads, and Chapter Tactics. You also lose the crippling Warriors of Chaos rule. Which is perhaps the biggest difference between Marines and the rest: Marines gets powerful & useful rules, the rest get weaknesses.

-> ATSKNF is a completely broken rule that allows the Marine player to skip all the Morale system, allegedly because it is an "army for beginners". It also grants retreating units major boosts by giving them big tactical advantages after a retreat.

-> Combat Squads is really big too. It grants you the possibility of changing the way your army deploy, in many ways, adapting to the battle. It is the only army that can do that, and it is a major tactical boost.

-> And then you get Chapter Tactics. The most powerful rule, the one everyone wanted. You can customize your army to amazing levels, getting lots of different Special Rules, all of them powerful, not a single weakness, for free. It was the dream of Chaos players (Legions), Sisters players (Orders), Ork players (Clans), Tyranid players (Hive Fleets), Dark Eldar players (Cabals), Eldar (Craftworlds), Imperial Guard players (doctrines) and the rest. Nobody else got it.

And everything is free. As a CSM player I would gladly pay 1 point for getting rid of Warriors of Chaos. If I proposed getting four really powerfull special rules for free I would be laughed at.

And let´s not start with 12 points Sisters or 14 points Genestealers!

And all this for 70 points. 70 points. And it is not ever the best Troop unit in the Codex (bikes). The best Troop unit in Codex: CSM is Cultists, and they are 50 points. What do tactical gets for 20 points?

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to shoot a weak unit (say, Cultists): it dies, runs away or get crippled.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: nothing. At all.

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a weak unit (say, Cultists): Cultists die, horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to shoot the "useless" tactical marines: Cultists die. Horribly. All of them Nothing they can do. No chances.

What happens if you use your "useless" tactical marines to assault a light tank or a Walker: the vehicle dies, quickly. No chances.
What happens if you use your cultist to assault a light tank: nothing. If it is a Walker the Cultists die.

What happens if you customize your tactical marines: they have a chance of doing anything. A power fist, a power sword, a melta gun or a plasma cannon completely change their usefullness.
What happens if you customize your Cultists. Why would you? They have very few options, and they remain the same. The only option I have ever considered is making them zombies.

That´s a useless unit. A concept that was rooted out from Codex: Space Marines some time ago. The Codex have good units, very good units and excellent units. To find a really bad unit you need to look at other places.

I play both Space Marines and other armies, and Tactical are GREAT. I can trust them to hold the line and take care of easy stuff. That´s something I cannot say of my Daemons, my Genestealers, my Sisters, my cheap Culstist or my CSM.


That being said, I would give them some form of boost, because fluff-wise they are not the worse infantry unit in the Codex (save Scouts), which is what they are game-wise. Giving them the first rule proposed by the OP: ("Tactical squads that number 10 models or more may take up to two weapons from the Special and/or Heavy weapon list." and a slight buff to the no longer cool Bolter sound fine to me.

But then you should contemplate giving some boost to all other basic Troop options that are in a way, way worse state than Tacticals: Battle Sisters, CSM, Thousand Sons, Berserkers, Genestealers... the list is long.

Tacticals are crap. We've explained extensively in this thread why this is true. Evidently you don't play space marines against any opponents that actually are fielding good lists or any opponent who know how to move their models. Tacticals do not contribute to the fight and are dead weight the marines can not afford. ATSKNF is incredibly overrated. I've voluntarily played without the rule in effect and noticed very little difference.

Good players are not going to allow the scenarios above to unfold. I know that I don't. I don't fear or care about tactical squads and they are always a harbinger of my opponent's defeat.

"I'm not sure why some people don't see the value of ATSKNF. "

Because my marines usually die to the man instead of taking morale tests. That's why.

"What happens if you customize your tactical marines: they have a chance of doing anything. A power fist, a power sword, a melta gun or a plasma cannon completely change their usefullness. "

No, that doesn't really mean anything. Been there, done that.

"That and everytime I bring up Chapter Tactics I get crickets, that is the current game changer no one is seeing."

That's because chapter tactics doesn't address the fundamental problems of the tactical squad at all. Chapter tactics don't make tacticals good at all, not even the bolter drill, because they're still just bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

You're actually agreeing with us, in a roundabout way. What we're saying is that Tactical Marines ought to be better so that you wouldn't have to take weaker lists. If Tactical Marines were better you would have more options that you could take without breaking the game.

Dammit Walrus I was trying to leave the thread

In part I am, it's why I said that suggesting people don't want a perfectly balanced game is a strawman. It'd be great if everything was balanced to perfection (no-one is saying otherwise) but doing that with the hundreds of unit combinations and powers, allies and dataslates is incredibly difficult. GW have it roughly right, there are a handful of units/combinations in the whole game that are too good or too bad, it's why you see so much in the way of repeated units in tourneys, spam the best.
The GW writers don't see their game as being played competitively, they see it as being played by people like me, so for them the "close enough" school of balance works.

I don't think Tacticals fall into the too good or the too bad categories, I think they sit in the 95% of units that are about right. Compared to Riptides they are weak, compared to Genestealers they are good.

If you think GW has it roughly right, you need your head examined. Too many useless units and then there are the chosen few god-like units.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dunklezahn wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh, I missed this in case he comes back to the thread:

" and for the rest of games tac marines are fine. "

Tac marines aren't even good against BA ASM. Or CSM. Or really anything when you sit down and run the numbers. Tac marines look the WORST against Taudar, but they are by no means "fine" against other matchups. I completely ignore them when I play against C:SM and wipe them up after I have taken out the units that actually cause damage. Works very well.

I didn't want to reply because you previous reply made me sad. The idea that everyone in your group is scrabbling for an advantage before the game starts goes so heavily against the spirit of the game for me as to be alien. Where is the skill or joy in victory if you start the game the equivalent of 200pts up?

For us 40k is not a sport, it is a game to be enjoyed by both players. Stronger players bring weaker lists against weaker players or weaker armies, defeat is something that can happen if they are outplayed. I am I think I can say without hubris but to make a point that I am the strongest player in our group and my primary army is Eldar (With Nids and CSM as options) if I played a high end Eldar list most of our games would be an exercise in self gratification as I chalked up pointless win after pointless win.

Now if I weaken that army I create an even playing field and if my opponent outplays me on the day, seizes a mistake or sees something I don't, they can win despite my stronger status and race choice. Now once the game starts I will pull no punches, I will play to table my opponent but unlike if I played the much stronger list if I make those mistakes I may lose. It's so much more entertaining for all involved.

Anyway, one last post before I leave the thread because neither of us is gonna budge and we're just repeating the same stuff different ways:

Tac marines with Plasma gun, Heavy Bolter against BA ASM with packs. Tacs will get to shoot, double tap and overwatch before you even really hands on that will kill half the ASM, and that's the best case for the ASM, if the marines fall back the ASM would be looking at getting single tapped twice plus a double and overwatch.

Double that up and 2 tacs against 2 ASM will kill one of the ASM squads before they close to range and while they spend the game slowly chewing up the tac squad at 1.6 kills a round the other will be free to act, claim objectives, all that fun troop stuff. Personally I find wiping out half+ a squad of MEQ's with jump packs before they can get to you a respectable level of firepower.

Oh, and better hope the tacs don't break or have Calgar, in which case they may break free, rally, and double tap you again.

Now you may run ASM differently, like with a Sang Priest and melta guns, but he is pricy and every point is put back into the balance on the tacs side, combi weapons, more troops, a better heavy weapon, last thing you want is them to have a plasma cannon.

There's very few troops in the game tacs can't go point to point with and perform at least admirably, they get killed by heavy support choices, but show me a troop choice that doesn't.

Grey Hunters. CSM. Sniper Kroot. Firewarriors. Dire Avengers. Grey Knight base troops. Shoota Boyz.

There are a ton of troops that can waste tactical marines.

Oh, and BA ASM don't really care about plasma. Plasma doesn't double me out and marines don't have much access to ignores cover. The tactical squad doesn't have a ghost of a chance, as ASM can jump over the 12" double tap spot.

Martel732 wrote:
Tacticals are crap. We've explained extensively in this thread why this is true. Evidently you don't play space marines against any opponents that actually are fielding good lists or any opponent who know how to move their models. Tacticals do not contribute to the fight and are dead weight the marines can not afford. ATSKNF is incredibly overrated. I've voluntarily played without the rule in effect and noticed very little difference.
Good players are not going to allow the scenarios above to unfold. I know that I don't. I don't fear or care about tactical squads and they are always a harbinger of my opponent's defeat.

No, you have told us why you think they are “Crap”.
You have not proven it to us the same as we have not proven they are “Not Crap” to you.

How about we try a different Approach:
List in order what you feel their deficiencies [and yes we all know what you think they are].
1] Vulnerability to AP3
2] Bolt Guns are incapable of inflicting damage
3] and so on.

Then rather than saying they “Suck Because!” give us solutions to your problems.
1] Vulnerability to AP3: Give them FNP
2] Bolt Guns are incapable of inflicting damage: Make them S5 AP4
3] and so on.

 Crantor wrote:
Meh. Doesn't bother me one way or the other. People will still whine one way or the other about either how good or how bad their or someone else's units are compared to theirs. If you don't like marines (Tacticals specifically) play another army.

Like I said, the HH shredding bolters would be a nifty addition.

Just giving my 2cents for what it is worth. And given that it is worth 10% less than USD it's less than you think.

I can't/won't play another army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Tacticals are crap. We've explained extensively in this thread why this is true. Evidently you don't play space marines against any opponents that actually are fielding good lists or any opponent who know how to move their models. Tacticals do not contribute to the fight and are dead weight the marines can not afford. ATSKNF is incredibly overrated. I've voluntarily played without the rule in effect and noticed very little difference.
Good players are not going to allow the scenarios above to unfold. I know that I don't. I don't fear or care about tactical squads and they are always a harbinger of my opponent's defeat.

No, you have told us why you think they are “Crap”.
You have not proven it to us the same as we have not proven they are “Not Crap” to you.

How about we try a different Approach:
List in order what you feel their deficiencies [and yes we all know what you think they are].
1] Vulnerability to AP3
2] Bolt Guns are incapable of inflicting damage
3] and so on.

Then rather than saying they “Suck Because!” give us solutions to your problems.
1] Vulnerability to AP3: Give them FNP
2] Bolt Guns are incapable of inflicting damage: Make them S5 AP4
3] and so on.

They do not contribute enough offense. I've said this at least 4 times. Sniper Kroot can meaningfully threaten MCs. Can tacs? No. Shoota Boyz can outshoot tacticals and suck up way more damage.

Tacticals do not make my opponent make any hard choices. In nearly every case, tacticals are safely ignored until all the other actually sorta dangerous marine units are dead, and then they can be wiped up at will.

I've also stated that being armed more like GK troops would really help a lot. S5 is so much better than S4. S4, as I said before is really like the new S3.

Martel732 wrote:

I can't/won't play another army.

That's quite the pickle then for you I guess. Like Thrills Gum. Tastes like soap yet people still chew it...

Martel732 wrote:
I can't/won't play another army.

You can't/won't change armies
You can't/won't listen to others that have experiences other than your own
You can't/won't try to make changes within your group
You can't/won't make suggestion on how to improve them

I am starting the only thing you Can/Will do is complain out them.

I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).

I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"

Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list

nobody wrote:
I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).

I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"

Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list

I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.

What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.

Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

CSM get an extra CCW

Are you talking about paying two points per model to get a CCW? You know the CSM would get 15 points against the 14 points of a far far far really far better loyal Marine?

and can take double specials.

True. That´s the only advantage the far better tactical space marines miss. That´s the reason I understand why the OP is asking for it. Sounds good to me. Then we add Legion/Order Tactics, Fearless and a Combat Squads equivalent to CSM and Sisters and we have Balance!

ATSKNF has already been discussed in the thread, it's really not as good as you're making it out to be. If everyone dies to a man, you're not using it anyway.

I see you never played with an army that depends on Morale.
You never suffered Sweeping Advance. It is a rule that quickly destroys any unit you make a mistake with.
ATSKF is broken. Really broken. It allows marines to completely ignore a lot of things that will destroy anything else. And in 6th it has gone worse: now if you retreat you regroup and do not suffer any inconvenience for it.

Combat Squads lets Space Marines be the only army with deployment customization, if you exclude Imperial Guard, Space Wolves and Grey Knights.

Marines and Imperial Guard then. I stand corrected

Chapter Tactics doesn't actually do that much though.

Hit and Run for all units, together with +1 S HoW, ignore Dangerous Terrain and +1 JInk saves? What else do you want for free?
It is the rule every player was dreaming with for years. The fact that there are marine players that do not even appreciate it is really disturbing.What else do you want?

Yes, they're nifty boni to have, I'm not turning down a 6+ FNP on everything, but the reason people want Legions, Orders, Clans and the like is to make the fluff matter, not because it's the best rule in the game.

It is the BEST rule in the game, that we can agree.
And people wanted to customize their armies, to get more options, and to feel that the fluff matters.

Cultists get 10 wounds for 50 points, Marines get 5 for 70. The 10 Cultists are just as durable against bolters in 4+ cover as the Marines, and more durable against AP3 stuff (and if they go to ground for a 3+ or 2+ cover save, they live longer).

This proves beyond doubt you haven´t play with Cultists. They are not "more durable" in any real situation, unless you are theorizing. A Tactical Space Marine squad can destroy a points-equivalent Cultist unit by looking at it in most cases. The lack of ATSKNF means a useless X points Cultist squad have zero chances of surviving in an assault against a vastly superior X points Tactical Space Marine squad. More wounds? Tell that to Sweeping Advance.

It is extremely easy to take them out of objectives. Compared to that, it is hell to do the same with tactical SM. Use a flamer? Cultists die, Astartes ignore it. You need special, costy weapons to deal with MEQs.

Do you have a problem with Cultists? No matter which army you play, there is a quick, easy fix that will destroy them in a second, and in a reliable way. In most real situations, you will have a plethora of options to solve the problem.
Do you have a problem with tactical space marines? You have a problem. No easy solution. They are tough, they never give up, they are dangerous. And they are reliable. The last part is the most important one.

The points saved add up, allowing you to purchase specialized units that perform better. Whether or not the Marines kill Cultists or not is irrelevant, neither of the two Troops choices can meaningfully threaten killy things, so the only thing left to do for them is to objective camp. Cultists are better at that.

Wrong.
A Tactical Space Marine properly customized can threat anything.
A basic Tactical Space Marine can still deal with small objectives, including walkers and light vehicles and most "infantry that suck". They can do it reliably and they are tough. They need special gear to be properly dealt with.
A Cultist, against most targets, can only cry, and pray to the Darks Gods the Marines player focuses on other things.

And remember, the Cultist is one of the best units in the Codex.

You're playing to the strength of the Tactical Marines but ignore the fact that a fully kitted Tactical Squad is in excess of 140 points, whereas 10 Cultists are 50 points. If you hide the Cultists in reserve and walk them on later in the game they'll live long enough to score, freeing up at least 90 points that you could be spending on something else. Let's put it this way: Would you rather have 20 Marines or 20 Cultists and a Heldrake?

Given that the Chaos Marines absolutely lacks any form of air weaponry, the Heldrake (a unit I dislike) is nearly compulsory. People get Cultists for the reasons you gave.
Because the other option is to take more expensive units such Chaos Space Marines and the like. Which are significantly worse than Tactical Space Marines, point by point. That doesn´t mean that the Cultist is "good". And it makes it even more clear that the tactical is one of the best troops of the game. You just need to compare it to others

Battle Sisters aren't worse than Tacticals, because they can actually contribute.

You are talking about a unit that is equal or far worse than Tactical Marines at every single thing, at 2 points less. I have seen full battle sisters squads wiped out by Termagants in a single assault. Remember: they lack ATSKNF, they die as easy as anyone else except marines.

There was a big improvement in the 6th Codex for Sisters regarding troops. Before, you didn´t get the extra special and it was 10 models. That was a tax. They never achieved anything, you just paid points to access other units. And no it is not the case of marines, a 70 points tactical squad can wipe out a Sisters 140 points squad in a single turn, with ease and with no risk, if they get near. Seriously try it: minimal Tactical SM assaults a battle sister squad doubling in numbers and points. And then remember than tactical are not supposed to excel in close combat.

The fact that there are Troops that are worse than Tacticals doesn't mean that they're good anyway, it just makes them not as bad as the others, most of which are in armies that have other options.

This sounds true. Except the "have other options" thing. All armies lack the number of options the Marines have.

Tactical Space Marines are way better, point by point, than most other equivalent units. They are also highly customizable and with lots and lots of options. Are they good?
It depends of how you define good: they are Troops, they are supposed to be the low-tier units. In that, they excel.

Crikey, you really need to read the thread you're responding to.

Why so? I read some posts and it was enough.

It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army. ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong.

I play Marines and many other armies. I do not expect my Tacticals to do really important stuff. But they are reliable, tough, can be customized to fill specific roles, cannot be ignored by most enemies, can do easy tasks and, well... they are the best Troop unit I play with. The rest I really know are worse or really, really worse.

They are also quite forgiving. If the enemy outsmarts me and I am playing Marines, I know they will probably hold. If my enemy outsmarts me playing nids, sisters or daemons... no chance.



According to the fluff, they should contribute further to the game. Here we are in agreement. But the same can be said of Sister Battle Squads, CSM, Genestealers and a really long list. And believe me, Tactical Space Marines are extremely good compared with most other units.

"It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army. ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong. "

I've army swapped many times to show others what I have to deal with. They usually don't like the results. ATSKNF is actually far, far from broken. In my experiences, it is virtually useless in the 6th ed meta. My marines DIE. They don't get a chance to roll morale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

nobody wrote:
I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).

I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"

Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list

I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.

What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.

Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.

I also gave you concrete changes, except for how to make the GK the special snowflake again if we give tacs their firepower. I really hate the GK and didn't want to think that hard.

"All armies lack the number of options the Marines have. "

It doesn't matter if all the options are bad/overcosted/ineffectual.

Dammit, sigh.

Martel732 wrote:

Oh, and BA ASM don't really care about plasma. Plasma doesn't double me out and marines don't have much access to ignores cover. The tactical squad doesn't have a ghost of a chance, as ASM can jump over the 12" double tap spot.

Except it's not 12", its 18", drop within 18" and they can double tap you. Stay outside of 18" and it's a long charge and the tacs can step back and keep you in single tap. Drop closer and they can hit you with a double. If you start jumping around cover you also can rarely move direct and thus slower, risk dangerous terrain checks, meaning you take more damage coming in. A priest may still give a 5+ against plasma but compared to your 3+ that's a huge drop in survivability, certainly enough to get you killed.

Unless you start right on the deployment lines opposite each other and the BA goes first those Tacs are putting 3 rounds *minimum* into you plus one overwatch then strike simultaneously, they have ASM bang to rights.

Sniper Kroot are good and can damage MC's better but can't fire and move properly nor can they scratch vehicles, Tac's with the right weapons can damage MC's, Vehicles, double out T3-4, don't have terrible morale and stay mobile.

CSM, no, no way, I'm not even arguing how much worse CSM are than tacs for 1 point, they don't get a melee weapon, they can pay for one which makes them more expensive than tacs and have none of the special rules Tacs do.

The others, point for point it's close enough I feel it's good enough, stronger in some cases weaker in others. We discussed Avengers to death, 12 Firewarriors kill like 1.3 marines at 30" and have 0 melee power and terrible morale.

Martel732 wrote:
If you think GW has it roughly right, you need your head examined. Too many useless units and then there are the chosen few god-like units.

Lets take an example, the Tau codex.

OP Units: Riptides, Buffmanders (rolled a few of the buffy SC commanders in here), Broadsides maybe, those are the guys in every list.
Terrible Units: The Ethereal SC's? Vespids maybe but i find they pack a decent punch.
Middle of the road (Balanced) units: Everything else in the book.

Looks like a good hit rate to me, mostly fringe single slot units that are terrible. The big power lists are those 3 units smashed together with the similar entries from the Eldar list and bare minimum troops.

Tacs sit in that last section in the marine dex.

Martel732 wrote:
"It is painfully obvious that you haven´t played any other army. ATSKNF (totally broken), Combat Squads (tactical heaven) and Chapter Traits (endless customization, picking up special rules for free!!) are three of the best rules in the game. Most of you are saying that they do not matter, and then say things about other armies that are just plain wrong. "

I've army swapped many times to show others what I have to deal with. They usually don't like the results. ATSKNF is actually far, far from broken. In my experiences, it is virtually useless in the 6th ed meta. My marines DIE. They don't get a chance to roll morale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

nobody wrote:
I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).

I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"

Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list

I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.

What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.

Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.

AND...How do we fix this for you?

I also gave you concrete changes, except for how to make the GK the special snowflake again if we give tacs their firepower. I really hate the GK and didn't want to think that hard.

And what are you doing about this?

 Anpu42 wrote:

nobody wrote:
I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).

I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"

Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list

I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.

What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.

Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.

Dunkelzhan's (sp?) posts over the last few pages were basically along the lines of asking people to not play those lists.

And personally I agree that a LOT of the problem is that certain units need a strong nerf (specifically, I think the riptide needs to lose access to the EWO, Sepent Shields should be one shot only, and rerolled armor/cover/invuln saves should not be any better than 4+)


But I honestly don't see those changing

nobody wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

nobody wrote:
I think the problem is that he experiences other people have are with metas so entirely different from his own that they may as well be talking about a different game system, and this would also apply to trying to get his group to nerf their lists so he can compete (which is utterly bizarre, especially if his area is a tourney meta).

I've seen him make suggestions, which you and others have pretty much said "don't need them, tac marines are fine l2play"

Personally I'm pricing the 3 riptides and 2 sky rays for a tournament list

I do not recall any one telling his group to NERF thier Armies.

What we have said is Until the Ingnore-Cover-Anti-AP3 Weapondry goes away MEQs are going to struggle. This is not Telling His Meta to change we are saying GW needs to change.

Yes those of us who has said, they don't need those fixes feel that way. If you have not noticed the past two days I have tried to make sugestions on how to make them better rather than just say Nope, Nope, Nope.

Dunkelzhan's (sp?) posts over the last few pages were basically along the lines of asking people to not play those lists.

And personally I agree that a LOT of the problem is that certain units need a strong nerf (specifically, I think the riptide needs to lose access to the EWO, Sepent Shields should be one shot only, and rerolled armor/cover/invuln saves should not be any better than 4+)


But I honestly don't see those changing

Sadly I agree we will not see GW doing al of that.
However I think everyone should read BRB pg 8 upper right(?) corner