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.

 Anpu42 wrote:
That sould be Ultra-Compeative Meta. We have at least for us a very compeative Meta. Now we don't have TauDar running around, but We would all like to change that.

An SoB player putting a flamer and heavy flamer in each of their BSS units with a Priest is an ultra competitive Meta? Its good that you get to play in an environment where you'd think so, Every point made about Tactical Marines "sucking" in this thread have been made with the idea that Tau, Eldar, and Daemons are at least part of the equation. If you're hoping to change to that environment, I say be careful what you wish for.

 dracpanzer wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
That sould be Ultra-Compeative Meta. We have at least for us a very compeative Meta. Now we don't have TauDar running around, but We would all like to change that.

An SoB player putting a flamer and heavy flamer in each of their BSS units with a Priest is an ultra competitive Meta? Its good that you get to play in an environment where you'd think so, Every point made about Tactical Marines "sucking" in this thread have been made with the idea that Tau, Eldar, and Daemons are at least part of the equation. If you're hoping to change to that environment, I say be careful what you wish for.

I was not responding to you, sorry if I did not make that clear.
.

 dracpanzer wrote:
Must be nice to play against SoB players who don't run priests AND run melta's in their battle sister squads.

 da001 wrote:
Sorry I thought we were talking about basic Troops. I didn´t know your Sisters got a priest attached. Anyway Tacticals will still destroy them because they have both Marneus Calgar and Tigurius attached.

You're right, Marneus Calgar and Tigurius attached to a tactical squad IS the same as a 25 point Priest model that are available to attach to every BSS squad in a TAC SoB army. You can still do so while putting together a decent SoB Priest blob. My point is that the Meta you seem to reference just isn't the same as the competitive Meta the thread is based on.

As far as "fixing" tacticals. I think changing the bolter profile to "salvo" 2/3 would be a good start for ALL the armies that use them. Let the Banner of Devestation and Noise Marines give Rend instead and you'd buff all the "weaker" 6ed dex's. Not sure if it'd be enough, but it'd be a lot more than I expect we'll ever get, absolutely nothing.

 dracpanzer wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Must be nice to play against SoB players who don't run priests AND run melta's in their battle sister squads.

 da001 wrote:
Sorry I thought we were talking about basic Troops. I didn´t know your Sisters got a priest attached. Anyway Tacticals will still destroy them because they have both Marneus Calgar and Tigurius attached.

You're right, Marneus Calgar and Tigurius attached to a tactical squad IS the same as a 25 point Priest model that are available to attach to every BSS squad in a TAC SoB army. You can still do so while putting together a decent SoB Priest blob. My point is that the Meta you seem to reference just isn't the same as the competitive Meta the thread is based on.

I think that whatever meta you are referencing, you should compare units one-by-one. I know it is not a fair comparison, but if you start considering all the options this game allows you, comparisons are impossible. My point was that the tactical, compared point by point with a similar unit, is not that bad.

As far as "fixing" tacticals. I think changing the bolter profile to "salvo" 2/3 would be a good start for ALL the armies that use them. Let the Banner of Devestation and Noise Marines give Rend instead and you'd buff all the "weaker" 6ed dex's. Not sure if it'd be enough, but it'd be a lot more than I expect we'll ever get, absolutely nothing.

Not sure about giving Noise Marines Rending but I have been toying with the salvo 2/3 for bolters for a while too. It makes basic Marines (and basic Sisters) of all armies quite more important. Instead of having a squad reduced to its Special Weapons, every model matters. I playtested this some time ago and loved it. But it was more about buffing the Bolter, not buffing Tacticals.

Perhaps the Eldar/Tau overpower is giving us a good chance to propose something that would buff all MEQs.

The Heavy Bolter is a closely related weapon which is also in need of love.

I play orkses with ig allies and have a squad of vets with an AC hwt and a melta sitting backfield. And i'm pretty happy with what they do. Now let's compare them with tac marines for this purpose.

7 vets [melta]
1 hwt [AC]
1 serg

s3, t3, i3, ld7(8 serg), armor 5+
90 pt total

They have issues with ld and basically they get wiped the moment they're shot at with something that ignores cover. Otherwise, they just go to ground. They all got nades and can get a rather cheap melta which is super-awesome for backfield sitters cause they can handle lesser threats like a landspeeder or a dreadhaught and can harm any armor with ap1. But they die in mellee to a bunch of ork boyz that made it there. Also, they generally can't handle 2-3 spacemarines and get swept down. Sometimes they can kill 1 though.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Pointefficient.

Now marines:

4 marines [plazmacannon]
1 serg

s4, t4, i4, ld8, armor 3+
85 pt total

They have issues with durability vs anti-marine weapons like baleflamers. Though atsknf is priceless for point-holding cause you can reliably regroup AND act normally. The ability to take a plazmacannon is also great cause it's a versatile tac weapon. Sometimes it can be replaced with a laz-cannon that's also good. They can handle any lesser threat backfield.
But what makes them really great is the ability to take a 10-strong squad and divide them putting one with a plazma/melta + combi-weapon in a rhino or a razorback. And they're cheaper than 2 squads of vets, 1 of which are in chimera and don't die if a transport gets blown-up. Also, they take just 1 slot.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Versatile. A bit less pointefficient than vets but much more reliable.

Now also you have sniper scouts that are great for what they do and can sometimes replace tactical marines for backfield point-holding. But they have a different role and are less survivable when something comes for them with a flamer in hands.

This is my view. Base them on the rpg model of tactical marines with alteration.

Stat line- ws4, b4, s5, t5, w2, i5, a2, Ld9, save 3+ but have the option of 1 squad per army in artificer armour, 2 if master of the forge is taken

Weapons- come standard with krak and frag grenades, bolter, bolt pistol and ccw, give them more weapon options their tactical marines not let us choose your tactics for you marines

Give them banners that do stuff

Give squad tactics to pick from

5-15 a squad

Special rules such as relentless, feel no pain, invulnerable (5+?) and possibly fleet or make them squad options

I think that makes them hard as rocks

And how much would they cost?

3rdGen wrote:
This is my view. Base them on the rpg model of tactical marines with alteration.

Stat line- ws4, b4, s5, t5, w2, i5, a2, Ld9, save 3+ but have the option of 1 squad per army in artificer armour, 2 if master of the forge is taken

Weapons- come standard with krak and frag grenades, bolter, bolt pistol and ccw, give them more weapon options their tactical marines not let us choose your tactics for you marines

Give them banners that do stuff

Give squad tactics to pick from

5-15 a squad

Special rules such as relentless, feel no pain, invulnerable (5+?) and possibly fleet or make them squad options

I think that makes them hard as rocks

Cool idea (Even if it needs adjustment) but they'd need to be so expensive so you wouldn't be able to field more than a few squads in a normal-sized game.

Many have loads of Marine models who will rarely see the field. (Afaik this was GW's primary reason for giving SM so nerfed down stats to begin with.)

Plus, they'd be extremely weak firepowerwise. A standard bolter might be cheap but that kind of statline sure isn't.

Yep, they're gona be so mellee oriented. Something like plague marines that are tough and expensive but can't do much at range.

Perhaps the good way would be to go somewhere between the Movie Marine and current Marine stats?

Like T5 compared to current Marine T4 and MM T6, and so on.

CSM can get the same treatment.

In order to avoid affecting other armies with bolters, we can just say that it is Astartes pattern bolters or something. Marines are bigger, yes? So their guns are bigger, yes? Ergo they can be more powerful as well. Like Lasgun VS Multilaser (Though Bolters won't have to be on a Multilaser level.)

Multi laser level bolt gun - heavy bolter

Stat wise they'd be expensive? Don't think so. Necrons are basically I2 (or is it 3) marines with guns that can kill tanks. Why not give the bolters that same property? They are miniature warheads after all. Maybe drop the str5 and make them t5 with bs5 and gun range 30 with s5 or ap3.

Chaos marines should be harder, they've survived that long in the warp+daemonic gifts+marks+marine power from the heresy they should be loads tougher

Something like

Tactical Marine

WS5 BS5 S5 T5 W2 I5 A2 LD9 SV3+

Special Rules: And They Shall Know No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads

Wargear:

Astartes Bolter: Strength 5 ap5 Rapid Fire range 24"

Astartes Bolt Pistol: S5 ap5 pistol range 12"

Astartes Combat Blade: Close combat weapon (Maybe Rending? Might be OTT, but they are described as having monomolecular edges)

Giving them BS5 and S5 guns would make them much much more shooty, and T5 would make them far less vulnerable to Battle Cannon equivalents. (These weapons remain highly effective, however.)

At T5, W2 and 3+ sv they have little to fear from a lasgun... But when you spam the lasguns in the numbers that the Guard are famous for, it's another story, which should please everyone.

Tempting to give them additional special rules to reflect autosenses and whatnot, but then we're starting to stray into Movie Marine territory and I want something reasonable in between.

Should their resilience be shifted more towards the armour?

Maybe an inv?

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Something like

Tactical Marine

WS5 BS5 S5 T5 W2 I5 A2 LD9 SV3+

Special Rules: And They Shall Know No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads

Wargear:

Astartes Bolter: Strength 5 ap5 Rapid Fire range 24"

Astartes Bolt Pistol: S5 ap5 pistol range 12"

Astartes Combat Blade: Close combat weapon (Maybe Rending? Might be OTT, but they are described as having monomolecular edges)

Giving them BS5 and S5 guns would make them much much more shooty, and T5 would make them far less vulnerable to Battle Cannon equivalents. (These weapons remain highly effective, however.)

At T5, W2 and 3+ sv they have little to fear from a lasgun... But when you spam the lasguns in the numbers that the Guard are famous for, it's another story, which should please everyone.

Tempting to give them additional special rules to reflect autosenses and whatnot, but then we're starting to stray into Movie Marine territory and I want something reasonable in between.

Should their resilience be shifted more towards the armour?

Maybe an inv?

Costing about 40-50 points?

Hmm. Perhaps. It depends. 40 points is as much as a Terminator, though they are arguably overcosted. Above tacticals are on par with Termies, winning out in resilience against AP4+ and AP2 but being weaker in melee. I'd say the Tacs are slightly stronger.

Do we have anything to compare these Marines to? Something reasonably similar in stats?

 koooaei wrote:
I play orkses with ig allies and have a squad of vets with an AC hwt and a melta sitting backfield. And i'm pretty happy with what they do. Now let's compare them with tac marines for this purpose.

7 vets [melta]
1 hwt [AC]
1 serg

s3, t3, i3, ld7(8 serg), armor 5+
90 pt total

They have issues with ld and basically they get wiped the moment they're shot at with something that ignores cover. Otherwise, they just go to ground. They all got nades and can get a rather cheap melta which is super-awesome for backfield sitters cause they can handle lesser threats like a landspeeder or a dreadhaught and can harm any armor with ap1. But they die in mellee to a bunch of ork boyz that made it there. Also, they generally can't handle 2-3 spacemarines and get swept down. Sometimes they can kill 1 though.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Pointefficient.

Now marines:

4 marines [plazmacannon]
1 serg

s4, t4, i4, ld8, armor 3+
85 pt total

They have issues with durability vs anti-marine weapons like baleflamers. Though atsknf is priceless for point-holding cause you can reliably regroup AND act normally. The ability to take a plazmacannon is also great cause it's a versatile tac weapon. Sometimes it can be replaced with a laz-cannon that's also good. They can handle any lesser threat backfield.
But what makes them really great is the ability to take a 10-strong squad and divide them putting one with a plazma/melta + combi-weapon in a rhino or a razorback. And they're cheaper than 2 squads of vets, 1 of which are in chimera and don't die if a transport gets blown-up. Also, they take just 1 slot.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Versatile. A bit less pointefficient than vets but much more reliable.

Now also you have sniper scouts that are great for what they do and can sometimes replace tactical marines for backfield point-holding. But they have a different role and are less survivable when something comes for them with a flamer in hands.

So you're taking a unit that's not supposed to be objective camping (seriously, it's a unit that can take 3 Special Weapons!) and you compare it to a Tactical Squad, and the Veterans are still better. If you'd upgrade the Veterans with Harker and Camo-cloaks, they'd cost 10 more points than the Tactical Marines, but have Infiltrate and a 2+ cover save in 4+ cover. That's a unit that takes 135 BS4 bolter shots to kill, whereas the Tactical Marines take 90 BS4. And yes, I know the Veterans are more vulnerable to Flamers, but then we're back to the whole "requiring special weapons to deal with troops" bit. The Marines have a S7 AP2 blast with Gets Hot!, whereas the Veterans have 2 S7 AP4 shots, 3 S5 AP4 shots and a Meltagun (you can add a Melta to the Marines for the 10 points if you want). Same cost, comparable firepower (different targets), vastly different survivability. If close combat mattered in 6th edition the Marines might be more durable, but most of the CC units in 6th edition kill Marines as if they were Guardsmen, so the increased survivability in CC doesn't really kick in very often, if at all.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Hmm. Perhaps. It depends. 40 points is as much as a Terminator, though they are arguably overcosted. Above tacticals are on par with Termies, winning out in resilience against AP4+ and AP2 but being weaker in melee. I'd say the Tacs are slightly stronger.

Do we have anything to compare these Marines to? Something reasonably similar in stats?

You can do a +5 for increase to upgrade the guns to Astartes.
+5 to gain a reg bolter and knife
+10 for WS and BS
+10 for W
+5 for I, A, and Ld

Making them about 50 points.
The thing is you would have to completely redo the SM and CSM codexes for this to work, smaller squads, buffing some special chars, re-pricing everything. These marines are a bit like tougher crisis suits with good BS and WS w/o jet packs.

I've lost track of which of these threads I've posted in, but what I'd do is change the bolt gun. Make it salvo 2/3 (or 3/2, whichever makes sense) and/or give the bolter a volkite-like ability to cause extra wounds to a unit.

But wouldn't that makes SM more gunlinish due to the wonky way where moving makes them fire at half range always?

 StarTrotter wrote:
But wouldn't that makes SM more gunlinish due to the wonky way where moving makes them fire at half range always?

Yes, it would.
I don't think that is the answer.

The defensive issue is not one that really can be solved by upping marines. Really, the issue is with specific units in other books that need a downgrade.

Offensively, I'd think double special (or heavy) and being able to take both at 5 men, would work on the offensive end.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
I play orkses with ig allies and have a squad of vets with an AC hwt and a melta sitting backfield. And i'm pretty happy with what they do. Now let's compare them with tac marines for this purpose.

7 vets [melta]
1 hwt [AC]
1 serg

s3, t3, i3, ld7(8 serg), armor 5+
90 pt total

They have issues with ld and basically they get wiped the moment they're shot at with something that ignores cover. Otherwise, they just go to ground. They all got nades and can get a rather cheap melta which is super-awesome for backfield sitters cause they can handle lesser threats like a landspeeder or a dreadhaught and can harm any armor with ap1. But they die in mellee to a bunch of ork boyz that made it there. Also, they generally can't handle 2-3 spacemarines and get swept down. Sometimes they can kill 1 though.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Pointefficient.

Now marines:

4 marines [plazmacannon]
1 serg

s4, t4, i4, ld8, armor 3+
85 pt total

They have issues with durability vs anti-marine weapons like baleflamers. Though atsknf is priceless for point-holding cause you can reliably regroup AND act normally. The ability to take a plazmacannon is also great cause it's a versatile tac weapon. Sometimes it can be replaced with a laz-cannon that's also good. They can handle any lesser threat backfield.
But what makes them really great is the ability to take a 10-strong squad and divide them putting one with a plazma/melta + combi-weapon in a rhino or a razorback. And they're cheaper than 2 squads of vets, 1 of which are in chimera and don't die if a transport gets blown-up. Also, they take just 1 slot.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Versatile. A bit less pointefficient than vets but much more reliable.

Now also you have sniper scouts that are great for what they do and can sometimes replace tactical marines for backfield point-holding. But they have a different role and are less survivable when something comes for them with a flamer in hands.

So you're taking a unit that's not supposed to be objective camping (seriously, it's a unit that can take 3 Special Weapons!) and you compare it to a Tactical Squad, and the Veterans are still better. If you'd upgrade the Veterans with Harker and Camo-cloaks, they'd cost 10 more points than the Tactical Marines, but have Infiltrate and a 2+ cover save in 4+ cover. That's a unit that takes 135 BS4 bolter shots to kill, whereas the Tactical Marines take 90 BS4. And yes, I know the Veterans are more vulnerable to Flamers, but then we're back to the whole "requiring special weapons to deal with troops" bit. The Marines have a S7 AP2 blast with Gets Hot!, whereas the Veterans have 2 S7 AP4 shots, 3 S5 AP4 shots and a Meltagun (you can add a Melta to the Marines for the 10 points if you want). Same cost, comparable firepower (different targets), vastly different survivability. If close combat mattered in 6th edition the Marines might be more durable, but most of the CC units in 6th edition kill Marines as if they were Guardsmen, so the increased survivability in CC doesn't really kick in very often, if at all.

Can you pls link a batrep where your marines were as useless as you write they are. I mean even my regular csm guyz do meaningful things. And don't tell me that a specila weapon instead of heavy is making that much difference. They can't combat squad and don't have atsknf which i'd prefer to a second weapon actually. Can you pls point out a real game issue where tacticals were worse than any other infantry would have been?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Hmm. Perhaps. It depends. 40 points is as much as a Terminator, though they are arguably overcosted. Above tacticals are on par with Termies, winning out in resilience against AP4+ and AP2 but being weaker in melee. I'd say the Tacs are slightly stronger.

Do we have anything to compare these Marines to? Something reasonably similar in stats?

You can do a +5 for increase to upgrade the guns to Astartes.
+5 to gain a reg bolter and knife
+10 for WS and BS
+10 for W
+5 for I, A, and Ld

Making them about 50 points.
The thing is you would have to completely redo the SM and CSM codexes for this to work, smaller squads, buffing some special chars, re-pricing everything. These marines are a bit like tougher crisis suits with good BS and WS w/o jet packs.

I don't think they are worth as much. Look at what tacs pay now for +1 WS, BS and so on compared to a Guardsman. Nine points in total, even if we assume orders equal CT, combat squads and ATSKNF in value. Nine more ppm is probably not enough, but 35 more seems excessive for their damage output.

 koooaei wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
I play orkses with ig allies and have a squad of vets with an AC hwt and a melta sitting backfield. And i'm pretty happy with what they do. Now let's compare them with tac marines for this purpose.

7 vets [melta]
1 hwt [AC]
1 serg

s3, t3, i3, ld7(8 serg), armor 5+
90 pt total

They have issues with ld and basically they get wiped the moment they're shot at with something that ignores cover. Otherwise, they just go to ground. They all got nades and can get a rather cheap melta which is super-awesome for backfield sitters cause they can handle lesser threats like a landspeeder or a dreadhaught and can harm any armor with ap1. But they die in mellee to a bunch of ork boyz that made it there. Also, they generally can't handle 2-3 spacemarines and get swept down. Sometimes they can kill 1 though.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Pointefficient.

Now marines:

4 marines [plazmacannon]
1 serg

s4, t4, i4, ld8, armor 3+
85 pt total

They have issues with durability vs anti-marine weapons like baleflamers. Though atsknf is priceless for point-holding cause you can reliably regroup AND act normally. The ability to take a plazmacannon is also great cause it's a versatile tac weapon. Sometimes it can be replaced with a laz-cannon that's also good. They can handle any lesser threat backfield.
But what makes them really great is the ability to take a 10-strong squad and divide them putting one with a plazma/melta + combi-weapon in a rhino or a razorback. And they're cheaper than 2 squads of vets, 1 of which are in chimera and don't die if a transport gets blown-up. Also, they take just 1 slot.
I mark them as: Good for their role. Versatile. A bit less pointefficient than vets but much more reliable.

Now also you have sniper scouts that are great for what they do and can sometimes replace tactical marines for backfield point-holding. But they have a different role and are less survivable when something comes for them with a flamer in hands.

So you're taking a unit that's not supposed to be objective camping (seriously, it's a unit that can take 3 Special Weapons!) and you compare it to a Tactical Squad, and the Veterans are still better. If you'd upgrade the Veterans with Harker and Camo-cloaks, they'd cost 10 more points than the Tactical Marines, but have Infiltrate and a 2+ cover save in 4+ cover. That's a unit that takes 135 BS4 bolter shots to kill, whereas the Tactical Marines take 90 BS4. And yes, I know the Veterans are more vulnerable to Flamers, but then we're back to the whole "requiring special weapons to deal with troops" bit. The Marines have a S7 AP2 blast with Gets Hot!, whereas the Veterans have 2 S7 AP4 shots, 3 S5 AP4 shots and a Meltagun (you can add a Melta to the Marines for the 10 points if you want). Same cost, comparable firepower (different targets), vastly different survivability. If close combat mattered in 6th edition the Marines might be more durable, but most of the CC units in 6th edition kill Marines as if they were Guardsmen, so the increased survivability in CC doesn't really kick in very often, if at all.

Can you pls link a batrep where your marines were as useless as you write they are. I mean even my regular csm guyz do meaningful things. And don't tell me that a specila weapon instead of heavy is making that much difference. They can't combat squad and don't have atsknf which i'd prefer to a second weapon actually. Can you pls point out a real game issue where tacticals were worse than any other infantry would have been?

I just did, didn't I? Batreps are anecdotal evidence anyway, it'd be meaningless. For what it's worth, I've had Crusader Squads torn to pieces by MCs, Juggerlords, Daemons and similar, and Crusader Squads are significantly more competent in CC than normal Marines. Has ATSKNF saved me? Yes, it has on occasion. More often than not, I've just gotten completely murdered.

Heldrakes are very popular. Riptides are very popular. High-volume high-S-high-AP shots are very popular (Daemons, Eldar, IG, DE, Orks). It doesn't matter that Marines have a theoretical edge against things that aren't played because they're inferior to the others. If you had a choice between a unit that's good at killing Guardsmen but bad at killing Marines and one that was good at killing any infantry, at roughly the same price, which one would you choose? Therein lies the problem.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Something like

Tactical Marine

WS5 BS5 S5 T5 W2 I5 A2 LD9 SV3+

Special Rules: And They Shall Know No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads

Wargear:

Astartes Bolter: Strength 5 ap5 Rapid Fire range 24"

Astartes Bolt Pistol: S5 ap5 pistol range 12"

Astartes Combat Blade: Close combat weapon (Maybe Rending? Might be OTT, but they are described as having monomolecular edges)

Giving them BS5 and S5 guns would make them much much more shooty, and T5 would make them far less vulnerable to Battle Cannon equivalents. (These weapons remain highly effective, however.)

At T5, W2 and 3+ sv they have little to fear from a lasgun... But when you spam the lasguns in the numbers that the Guard are famous for, it's another story, which should please everyone.

Tempting to give them additional special rules to reflect autosenses and whatnot, but then we're starting to stray into Movie Marine territory and I want something reasonable in between.

Should their resilience be shifted more towards the armour?

Maybe an inv?

People have devised a jokestatline for marines called 'Movie Marines'. Do a quick google search for them, because its essentially what you're proposing.

Marines are largely fine, its the power level of Eldar and Tau that hurt them.

Personally, all I want for a Tac squad is a suspensor web upgrade to make heavy weapons into half range assault weapons for +10/15pts. And heavy flamer for a heavy option.

But no, making them 2W and 5s across the board is not a reasonable fix or solution.

I STILL think that tac marine's lack of offensive output compared to their price really hurts marine lists that use tactical marines.

Yes, Tau and Eldar are the biggest problem, but tactical marines have trouble making an impact against ANY opponent due to their crappy offense. In a game about offense.

Martel732 wrote:
I STILL think that tac marine's lack of offensive output compared to their price really hurts marine lists that use tactical marines.

Yes, Tau and Eldar are the biggest problem, but tactical marines have trouble making an impact against ANY opponent due to their crappy offense. In a game about offense.

Well, my suspensor web idea makes the heavy weapon more readily useable in conjuction with the special.

Still, the biggest issue is Tau and Eldar. Bringing those codices down to an appropriate level would do a significant amount for bringing Tac marines in line with other troop choices.

As for shooting power, I don't have too much to offer that wouldn't be crazy powerful or silly. Maybe a 'Fury of the Legion' type rule where they can shoot twice in a single phase but forego the next shooting phase. Either that or choose double special/double heavy/special and heavy.

I don't have the answer either. I'd settle for double special and a CC weapon for a point. I guess. Doesn't help vs Eldar/Tau, but makes me feel better.

I'm not a marine fanboy, either. I play AGAINST a lot of meqs, and the easiest ones to beat are the ones with lots of tacticals. This is not a coincidence.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't have the answer either. I'd settle for double special and a CC weapon for a point. I guess. Doesn't help vs Eldar/Tau, but makes me feel better.

I'm not a marine fanboy, either. I play AGAINST a lot of meqs, and the easiest ones to beat are the ones with lots of tacticals. This is not a coincidence.

No, and I agree, but you also can't go making Tacticals too good either. There's a simple solution here, or at least temp fix, which would be double weapons of either special, heavy, or mixed. Then buy a CCW for 1pts a model. But then you have to give Assault marines a boost too now, which is an internal balance issue.

The real issue though is Tau and Eldar. Marines as a codex are largely fine.

No, assault marines big schtick is the jump pack. Raptors dont' have any magic boost compare to CSM grunts.

Martel732 wrote:
No, assault marines big schtick is the jump pack. Raptors dont' have any magic boost compare to CSM grunts.

Sorry, I was thinking of Vanguard vets and having to buy the jump pack.

Ignore my last.