How are tactical marines bad?

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.

**Ashiraya**

As much as I often find Martel overreacting, I agree with him here.

dementedwombat wrote:
Psienesis wrote:
Not saying that the Tac-Marine should be an auto-win, but if you wanted to keep it fluff-friendly, but also fairly balanced, 10 Marines should (again with proper tactics and deployment...i.e., not playing like a moron) be able to handle 10 other line-troops of any army.
Have you ever seen these rules by chance? I think you might appreciate them. Sadly they never got re-made for 6th, but the general idea still stands.
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/12/40k-playtest-movie-marines-in-5e.html

Interesting. Should be updatable with a minimum of work.

To Proposed Rules!

**niv-mizzet**

Vaktathi wrote:
If you *get* charged by IG like that (and you've probably done something bad to get into that spot), assuming 3 naked infantry squad units (150pts) units and barring huge investments in power weapons and commissars (making the unit worth a whole lot more than that tac squad) the two should be fairly even, with an edge to the marines (10man tac, 150pts). If the guardsmen never break, they'll eventually grind down and kill the marine unit after 4 or 5 rounds of combat, but they'll be losing combat by 1-2 each round and having to test each time and risk breaking and getting swept.

Nay sir, not according to math they aren't. 3 naked infantry squads on the charge, would beat the 10 tac marines by about 2 wounds. After the damage from that initial round, the guard are doing slightly more damage to the marines each round (by about 1/5 of a wound.) If the dice stay with the odds, the marines will either retreat or die after about 2.5 turns total of combat, while only taking out 8ish guard.
Even if we assume that neither side got a charge bonus and they're fighting evenly, the marines only have an edge of less than 1 wound. If they just had 1 higher base attack, or the WS chart actually did something to people attacking against higher weapon skill, this math would all change to favor the marines.

Never mind that they'd probably ACTUALLY just stop and rapid fire lasguns instead, just so they could overwatch when the marines charge, or god help the marines, use an order. The only reason these infantry squads are entertaining the thought of melee is for this experiment, which shows us that tactical marines are bad enough at melee that equal points worth of some of the most hopeless fighters in the game beat them by odds if they get to charge. I would think that, for a unit that's supposed to be "somewhat good" at melee, that they would be able to at least take on their point cost in unequipped guard infantry when charged.

Additionally, plenty of guard players I know give the platoon commander, at least, a powerfist, and hand out squad sarges to eat challenges while the commander swings with the fist with impunity. I don't have the new AM codex, but in the old one, a platoon command squad and two infantry squads combined is 145 including the fist. With him crushing an average of a marine a turn by himself, that fight is going to turn ugly for the marines.

And they can't dish out enough damage to stop "anything that fights" from getting in their face...and then removing their face.
You'll find even this is true even for the shootiest of troops, but generally, if an equal number of points of enemy killy are dumped on them, they can deal with it at least as well as other armies. I'd certainly take a Tac squad having to deal with a unit of Genestealers than an IG Vet squad.

There are a few things that anyone with a gun, even a lasgun, can stop. Genestealers are one of them. If you get to shoot at them at all outside cover, they die. Don't see many of them on the table nowadays. Sad, because they were my favorite nid troop choice in 3rd.

I should have said "anything that fights that people actually run nowadays." 150 points of ork boyz that for some reason left their nob at home, assuming they ignore shooting and just move and run, and don't risk the first possible long assault, opting for the sure thing in the next turn, end up finally striking with 9 boys, killing 3 marines and winning the first combat by 1, after which the two sides whittle each other down until about 2 boyz remain, never having had to take a leadership, and the marines are dead. Note that it would be more advantageous for the mob to be smaller and include a PK nob. They would get into melee with under 10, and actually have to take one LD test before getting there, but the nob would then proceed to rip and tear.

If they tried to do this to 150 points of fire warriors, dark eldar warriors, the IG lasgunners from above, dire avengers, or sisters, they would most likely not make it to melee. The only shooting troop squads I can find with a quick look that they could realistically hope to challenge from full range without backup are tactical marines, chaos tactical marines, and necron warriors.

(fyi sorry if it seems like I reply slow. I open up army builder and calculator for all these hypotheticals. I'm science-y that way.

In terms of 40k, the only time a unit can literally do nothing is if they are non-scoring, and their only target is a vehicle or creature with sufficiently high armor/toughness. Even little squads of termagants with the twin-linked s3 guns can find something to do if you aren't completely high when you deploy them.
Nothing may be in that table quarter for that krak grenade squad to engage, but the tac squads missile launcher may have range to something for example. The Grenade squad isn't going to be able to counter an outflanking unit, counterattack to retake a position, or do anything but shoot krak grenades at stuff. It can't pack a heavy weapon for long range, and it's not packing much heat for overwatch and it's damn sure not gonna hold a position against even depleted enemy units.

99% of "engaging" in 40k is just hitting a unit with a certain strength and AP value. The stronger the strength, the more it can affect. In that respect, a squad of grenadiers is more versatile than a bolter tac squad, while also being much, much cheaper. So much so, in fact, that the guard player could use the spare points elsewhere on the board. Even putting them right next to the grenadier squad to fill in whatever role you think they lack. Say...a heavy weapons team of 3 missile launchers to trump your tactical squad's 1. And he STILL has spent less points than the tac squad, because, as we've been saying, they just cost too damn much.

**koooaei**

niv-mizzet wrote:
That sounds like the squads of marines are just kind of cheering and throwing some random shots while all the important damage came from the good support units. Almost any troop unit in any army in the game could have waltzed in and been effective at that point. And usually for cheaper. And they probably could've helped more than the marines.

For example, in my last game vs ig marines killed off 2 chimeras and vet squads, wrecked a basilisk, killed some guards and in the end scored 3 points even though only 12 out of 30 survived. But combat squading and ATSKNF helped alot. Probably ravenguard ct is the best for rhino rush out there though.

All in all, i'd not say they did nothing. Versatility helped them to deal with both vehicles and troops. Yep, they'd have no chance vs MC but that's what gravcents and sternguard are for.

I don't claim tacticals performance is amazing and they steamroll anything. They just do good enough to pull a win and are way more interesting to play with or against rather than bikespam for my liking.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Just saying, looking at the Adepticon top 16 there's 5 armies containing either Vanilla Marines or CSM (I'm not counting the one Space Wolves dude because Grey Hunters are much better than both CSM and Tactical Squads). Counting all the Tactical Marines and CSM squads, the grand total is 5 MODELS. One of the lists had 5 Tactical Marines with a Missile Launcher. Out of 5 MEQ Codices, one dude decided to bring the minimum number of Marines you can take while still taking them.

I guess that has to mean that they're just bad players that can't make Tactical Marines work...

**niv-mizzet**

koooaei wrote:
niv-mizzet wrote:
That sounds like the squads of marines are just kind of cheering and throwing some random shots while all the important damage came from the good support units. Almost any troop unit in any army in the game could have waltzed in and been effective at that point. And usually for cheaper. And they probably could've helped more than the marines.

For example, in my last game vs ig marines killed off 2 chimeras and vet squads, wrecked a basilisk, killed some guards and in the end scored 3 points even though only 12 out of 30 survived. But combat squading and ATSKNF helped alot. Probably ravenguard ct is the best for rhino rush out there though.

All in all, i'd not say they did nothing. Versatility helped them to deal with both vehicles and troops. Yep, they'd have no chance vs MC but that's what gravcents and sternguard are for.

I don't claim tacticals performance is amazing and they steamroll anything. They just do good enough to pull a win and are way more interesting to play with or against rather than bikespam for my liking.

Yeah, no one's saying that tacticals are totally useless. A 1/1 token creature in magic can win a game if it's in the right place at the right time. Just that for the points of those 30 marines, another non-marine army could've done more damage than they did. 35 Wyches with haywire grenades, taken as small seperate units would cost a little less than the same, and could've come in a bunch of cheap venoms, or fleet-running, for example. (ignoring that that breaks the FOC.) The chimeras and basilisk would have been one rounded without blowing up, so no wyches die there, and the guards on foot would easily get caught and slaughtered. Admittedly they'd lose some bodies from those vets in the following shooting phase, but that's at most two sets of 5 wyches, assuming the vets weren't pinned coming out of the chimeras. The remaining 25 could then split up to slaughter both units of vets, claim the objective nearby and have 2 other sets of 5 wyches spare to do whatever they want, like assist on the vets just to make sure, or go after other targets nearby. Not only this, but they could suddenly turn around and handle a tyranid MC with their poison pistols if they wanted to, or take on thunderhammer terminators in melee. (Wyches love fighting guys with low numbers of strong attacks.)

And of course, 35 wyches in some venoms, aside from not fitting in one FOC, isn't even considered good. That's just the first example I could think of where a single unit choice, brought up to the same point value as tac marines, could accomplish everything they did and more.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just saying, looking at the Adepticon top 16 there's 5 armies containing either Vanilla Marines or CSM (I'm not counting the one Space Wolves dude because Grey Hunters are much better than both CSM and Tactical Squads). Counting all the Tactical Marines and CSM squads, the grand total is 5 MODELS. One of the lists had 5 Tactical Marines with a Missile Launcher. Out of 5 MEQ Codices, one dude decided to bring the minimum number of Marines you can take while still taking them.

I guess that has to mean that they're just bad players that can't make Tactical Marines work...

Heh, that's very telling. Good research, sir.

**ionusx**

Janthkin wrote:
I had to clean a lot of garbage out of this thread. If I have to do it again, Bad Things will happen to the people involved.

praise be the emporer, he has sent his mailed fist!

Anyway I think the issue here is that as of 6th edition, things have gotten up in scale. I used to play in 4th and I knew people who played 3rd. Back in 4th the bread and butter of high point armies were your meq's, tanks, elites and hq's; in 5th you shaved off meq's and tanks. In 6th now: don't go f!cking anywhere without a flyer and a aaa battery, don't even think about a 2000pts game unless you have a solution to killing baneblade eq's and knights.

Fact is the scale of warfare has grown exponentially and now troops choices are becoming irrelevant for all armies. If you go out and ask any tournament player what foc slot could get lopped off tomorrow and he wouldn't lose sleep over it. It's the troops slot. It just doesn't matter anymore. They are a means to an end in competitive play. And with all the ap2, ignores cover, strength d, 2++ rerollable shenanigans, damage sponge tarpit bs going around its no wonder.

And they really are a means to an end. If an eldar player could take a wave serpent without taking his avengers, he would. And if the tau player could just designate targets to get markerlights he wouldn't take pathfinders, if a chaos player didn't need to take horrors (or whatever their filler unit is in flying circuses is) they wouldn't. The arms race has accelerated to the point where almost every infantry unit that isn't an elite slot or an hq simply doesn't matter anymore.

Tanks are quickly going this way too and one day when gw has shoehorned apocalypse into the rulebook they will be. And then the great debate will occur as to wether it's meaningful to even have them anyway.

Just you watch, in two codex revisions, it's going to be "don't go anywhere without strength d!" and "take at least two flyers or your screwed".

Its all coming to a head and tbh. If I was in gw's shoes I would consider radically rethinking their rulebook for 7th edition. Or saying f!ck it and making apocalypse the only game mode. Your going to get their one day; why drag it out ans make us all angrier at you.

**koooaei**

Tourney warhammer is another world. If you're going competitive, you don't want 'decent' units. You want the best you can get to outcheeze the cheeze. That's the exact approach that eliminates definition - 'decent' from the candidates to-be-included in a list. It just leaves 'best' and 'not worth taking'.

Tacticals are decent.

**StarTrotter**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just saying, looking at the Adepticon top 16 there's 5 armies containing either Vanilla Marines or CSM (I'm not counting the one Space Wolves dude because Grey Hunters are much better than both CSM and Tactical Squads). Counting all the Tactical Marines and CSM squads, the grand total is 5 MODELS. One of the lists had 5 Tactical Marines with a Missile Launcher. Out of 5 MEQ Codices, one dude decided to bring the minimum number of Marines you can take while still taking them.

I guess that has to mean that they're just bad players that can't make Tactical Marines work...

I don't think tacticals are that great but I'd argue that it also might not be that the troops in and of themself are bad in comparison to other troops but it might be in combination with nerfs to transports and specific devestating units (waverserpent, heldrake, and riptide come to mind). As per CSM, that's not really surprising. They are basically worse than SM in almost every way besides being able to field 2 plasma weapons in a squad of 10+.

**AlmightyWalrus**

StarTrotter wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just saying, looking at the Adepticon top 16 there's 5 armies containing either Vanilla Marines or CSM (I'm not counting the one Space Wolves dude because Grey Hunters are much better than both CSM and Tactical Squads). Counting all the Tactical Marines and CSM squads, the grand total is 5 MODELS. One of the lists had 5 Tactical Marines with a Missile Launcher. Out of 5 MEQ Codices, one dude decided to bring the minimum number of Marines you can take while still taking them.

I guess that has to mean that they're just bad players that can't make Tactical Marines work...

I don't think tacticals are that great but I'd argue that it also might not be that the troops in and of themself are bad in comparison to other troops but it might be in combination with nerfs to transports and specific devestating units (waverserpent, heldrake, and riptide come to mind). As per CSM, that's not really surprising. They are basically worse than SM in almost every way besides being able to field 2 plasma weapons in a squad of 10+.

Wait, so it's not the Tacticals being bad, it's everything else MAKING them bad? How is that not Tacticals being bad?

**StarTrotter**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
StarTrotter wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Just saying, looking at the Adepticon top 16 there's 5 armies containing either Vanilla Marines or CSM (I'm not counting the one Space Wolves dude because Grey Hunters are much better than both CSM and Tactical Squads). Counting all the Tactical Marines and CSM squads, the grand total is 5 MODELS. One of the lists had 5 Tactical Marines with a Missile Launcher. Out of 5 MEQ Codices, one dude decided to bring the minimum number of Marines you can take while still taking them.

I guess that has to mean that they're just bad players that can't make Tactical Marines work...

I don't think tacticals are that great but I'd argue that it also might not be that the troops in and of themself are bad in comparison to other troops but it might be in combination with nerfs to transports and specific devestating units (waverserpent, heldrake, and riptide come to mind). As per CSM, that's not really surprising. They are basically worse than SM in almost every way besides being able to field 2 plasma weapons in a squad of 10+.

Wait, so it's not the Tacticals being bad, it's everything else MAKING them bad? How is that not Tacticals being bad?

I meant more in comparison to other troops and a problem of their own vehicle (rhino) being trash. That said, I never implied tacticals were all that great. I'm really not quite sure myself, but I personally lean them to a bit below decent level. Well, technically I use tactical marines as the unit to compare all other units to in terms of troops so they always become the decent unit in the end where others are above or below them but that's a different story.

**ZebioLizard2**

CSM take cultists.

What exactly do SM take to avoid taking tacs, scouts? bikers?

**Ashiraya**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
bikers?

This is what they take.

**AlmightyWalrus**

The Adepticon lists actually took mostly Scouts, I can't find any Biker lists in the top 16.

**Ashiraya**

Huh.

I was always told bikes are the way to go.

I suppose scouts let you get rid of the annoying troop tax more easily so you can get to your gra'vesastar.

**da001**

Ashiraya wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
bikers?

This is what they take.

Also Scouts. As AlmightyWalrus said, in Adepticon a pair of SM players made it into the top 16, and both used minimized Scouts as troops. There was a single tactical squad too. And cultists for CSM, of course.

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Tim-Gorthams-Space-Marines-Space-Marines-Inquisition-2nd-Seed.pdf

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Tyler-DeVriess-Tau-Space-Marines-Inqusition-3rd-Seed.pdf

Tacticals were nice before the Codex and they got quite better. However, Bikes became so much better that tacticals cannot compete.

So, imo, they are not bad. They are just "not good enough", and only in hardcore environments. I am still using tacts, and they are doing fine.

EDIT: ups, too late.

Anyway, I have seen bikes in other tournaments. "Bikes & Scouts, with the possibility of Drop Pod rain" sounds accurate to me.

**Mr.Omega**

Has someone pointed out, terrible firepower, hilariously outclassed by Bikes, moot point of surviviability and the fact they're absurdly expensive for what you really get out of them yet?

Because that's it in a nutshell.

**Smirrors**

Murdius Maximus wrote:

In a nut-shell, the other faction's have been getting exponentially more deadly over the editions while tactical squads have more or less stayed the same.

This summarises it for me. As new codex's are made with new races and new units, the relevance of Tactical Marines continues to decrease. Back in 4th edition, a lot of the current hero units and lists never existed, Tactical Marines only had to compete against Eldar Guardians, Ork Boyz and Imperial Guardsmen and they did a superior job. I would imagine most marine armies ran with two full squads. The other races didn't have fancy rules or as big death star units. With 6th edition, it is just too easy to kill a squad of marines and actually marines in general.

A 4th edition marine army may have looked something like this (or at least where i played) and it did pretty well most of the time:

Captain or Chaplain (still relevant)
Two Tactical Squads (bare minimum or none)
One Terminator Squad (irrelevant)
One Assault Squad (irrelevant)
One Devastator Squad (still relevant)
Land speeder (irrelevant)
Dreadnought (irrelevant)
Predator (still relevant)

**ZebioLizard2**

Smirrors wrote:
Murdius Maximus wrote:

In a nut-shell, the other faction's have been getting exponentially more deadly over the editions while tactical squads have more or less stayed the same.

This summarises it for me. As new codex's are made with new races and new units, the relevance of Tactical Marines continues to decrease. Back in 4th edition, a lot of the current hero units and lists never existed, Tactical Marines only had to compete against Eldar Guardians, Ork Boyz and Imperial Guardsmen and they did a superior job. I would imagine most marine armies ran with two full squads. The other races didn't have fancy rules or as big death star units. With 6th edition, it is just too easy to kill a squad of marines and actually marines in general.

A 4th edition marine army may have looked something like this (or at least where i played) and it did pretty well most of the time:

Captain or Chaplain (still relevant)
Two Tactical Squads (bare minimum or none)
One Terminator Squad (irrelevant)
One Assault Squad (irrelevant)
One Devastator Squad (still relevant)
Land speeder (irrelevant)
Dreadnought (irrelevant)
Predator (still relevant)

4th Edition had Falcon-spam and Fish of Fury, so it wasn't like they were that good by the end of 4th.

**Martel732**

I'm so glad I missed most of 4th. Tau and Eldar.. .ugh!

I might point out against S6/7 shooting, bikes have inferior durability per point compared to tac marines. Marines are taking it up the behind on every front.

**nobody**

Smirrors wrote:
Murdius Maximus wrote:

In a nut-shell, the other faction's have been getting exponentially more deadly over the editions while tactical squads have more or less stayed the same.

This summarises it for me. As new codex's are made with new races and new units, the relevance of Tactical Marines continues to decrease. Back in 4th edition, a lot of the current hero units and lists never existed, Tactical Marines only had to compete against Eldar Guardians, Ork Boyz and Imperial Guardsmen and they did a superior job. I would imagine most marine armies ran with two full squads. The other races didn't have fancy rules or as big death star units. With 6th edition, it is just too easy to kill a squad of marines and actually marines in general.

A 4th edition marine army may have looked something like this (or at least where i played) and it did pretty well most of the time:

Captain or Chaplain (still relevant)
Two Tactical Squads (bare minimum or none)
One Terminator Squad (irrelevant)
One Assault Squad (irrelevant)
One Devastator Squad (still relevant)
Land speeder (irrelevant)
Dreadnought (irrelevant)
Predator (still relevant)

Mine was something like:

Captain w/terminator armor, lightning claws
Term command squad w/2 assault cannon

Librarian w/term armor, fury of the ancients, fear of the darkness

5x6 tac marine w/lascannon, plasma gun

8 Assault Marines w/pf sarge, two flamers, meltabombs

2x1 Land Speeder w/assault cannon

8 Dev Marines w/4 missile launcher

6 Dev Marines w/4 heavy bolter

The tacticals can no longer be equipped that way (though I could go BT and get a similar effect).
The term command squad no longer exists.
The librarian no longer has access to those powers.

Meanwhile with the 6th edition rules I can no longer rely on the assault marines or land speeders grabbing objectives, nor can I (completely) rely on terrain to protect flanks.

With new army lists too I have little to no defense against flyers, and I wouldn't like my chances against wave serpents, let alone AP 2 large templates that ignore cover.

Thinking about this did bring to mind that tac marines have indeed gotten nerfed since I started playing, 4th ed marines were probably the best of the modern age (post 2nd) due to the ability to take two specials, or heavy/special without needing a full 10 men, and the ability to have hidden power fists. 3rd was straight up weaker, while 5th and 6th took away double specials and put in a "10 man to have both toys" requirement, while challenges make equipping sergeants with any kind of close combat weapon very dubious.

**Co'tor Shas**

Marines are not bad, just a bit expensive.

**Martel732**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Marines are not bad, just a bit expensive.

That makes them bad, since we have to pay points for them.

**Co'tor Shas**

Martel732 wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Marines are not bad, just a bit expensive.

That makes them bad, since we have to pay points for them.

Stealth suits aren't bad, and they are to expensive (ans squishier than SMs if it's not AP3-). They are still good, it's just that some other things are better (it happens). Just because something isn't the best does not make it bad. They are not amazing, but they are most certainly not bad.

**Martel732**

No, they're bad because they are dead weight dragging down the rest of the list in an environment where meqs can't afford dead weight. There is too much fire from lists like yours coming in.

**MWHistorian**

There are worse troops out there. Despite thinking that tacs aren't great, I like them. They're just overcosted because almost every army out there has units that can wipe them off the board like kid sneezing on a dandelion.

And...wait...did someone say 1Ksons were good? They're made to kill MEQ. They die to MEQ as easy as any other marine. Oh, and they cost as much as terminators. To say they're "situational" would still be generous.

Here's my well thought out argument against 1KSons.

Spoiler:

**Ailaros**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Ailaros wrote:You see that, though? You just had to compare it to three different units to make that statement. That's what versatility is about. It can't do krak grenades as cheaply as guard, but they do everything else better than guard. They don't score as cheaply as termagaunts, but they do everything else better. They don't shoot bolters as well, but do everything else better.
...yes, what you are calling a strength I am calling a weakness.

So a unit can do one thing better than another. Does that make the other unit bad? Are dire avengers bad because they're not good against vehicles? Are firewarriors bad because there is something else in the game that's better in close combat?

Of course not. That's just silly. If it's not an uber god of death that beats everything else it's not worth it? Pish tosh.

And that's really the point. Tervigons score cheaper, firewarriors bolter better, and guard krak grenade more cheaply, but until you show me a single unit that does all three of them better than marines, then the fact that some things are better at certain things than others doesn't make tac marines bad.

**Martel732**

"then the fact that some things are better at certain things than others doesn't make tac marines bad. "

Once you factor in cost, they are bad. Lists with troops that actually have an effective application can build the rest of the list to take advantage of that. Tacs do NOTHING well and therefore, add very little efficacy to the list. And cost a lot.

I think the real problem is that the tacs don't do any one thing well enough to impact the flow of game, and so they are dead weight in the list. They do not end up having an answer for everything, they end up having no answers at all because none of their answers mechanically work in the game. They are the missile launcher of troops.

**Ansel Darach**

Some information I think some of you will find interesting.

Just for fun I compiled a list of the average units statline based on the total points available in it and the units cost.

These numbers are based on total sum of the statline divided by point cost. (I added the chance of a successful save against a wound instead of the actual armor save number, so a +3 save added 4 to the sum total and a - adds 0 for example, special rules were ignored)

Chaos Cultist:--------------------6.25
Termagant Brood:---------------6.25
Gretchin:---------------------------6
Hormagaunt Brood:------------5.4
IG Infantryman:-------------------5.2
IG Veteran:------------------------4.5
Kroot:-------------------------------4.3
Ork Boyz:--------------------------4.3
Storm Guardians:---------------3.4444
Kabalite Warriors:--------------3.4444
Daemonette of Slaanesh:----3.3333
Bloodletters of Khorne:--------3.1
Wyches:----------------------------3.1
Space Marine Scout:-----------2.9
Plaguebearer:-------------------2.7777
Fire Warrior:-----------------------2.7777
Pink Horrors of Tzeentch:-----2.6
Ranger:----------------------------2.5833
Necron Warrior:------------------2.5384
Dire Avengers:-------------------2.5384
Space Marine:--------------------2.4285
Necron Immortal:----------------2
Nurglings:-------------------------2
Windrider Jetbike:---------------2
Ripper Swarm Brood:----------1.9230

3.4042 is the average number of "statpoints" in the statline per 1 point of the cost of a model. This isn't a complete list so I am sure that this number isn't 100% accurate, and I did not factor in units that can be used as troops outside of their regular force-org slots.

The average statline based on this falls between the Storm Guardians/Kabalite Warriors and Daemonettes of Slaanesh. For the statline of a space marine to get close to the average "point cost per statpoint" listed it would need to total out at ~47 points (+13 from what it is now), that would increase the statline to something like (Ws:5 Bs:5 S:5 T:5 W:3 I:5 A:3 Ld:10 Sv:3+) if you were not going to improve the armor save beyond a 3+. Keep in mind that the statline I just posted is what it would take to be close to but not above the average at it's current points cost.

The only issue I personally see with Space Marines as they are now is a low number of wounds for the cost of the unit, if they had 2 wounds per model I believe they would be quite good, even a borderline exceptional troops choice.

This is the same problem I have with terminators at the moment, the point costs are very high, and because they have a low wound and model count they are very squishy, even if you use T5 3++ DA termies, as they just don't have the ability to shrug off a small number of unsaved wounds without losing bodies.

**Ailaros**

Interesting.

I mean, it's sort of useless because it's missing some pretty important things like how Ap works (Sv5+ doesn't stop 1/3rd of the bullets, it stops 1/3rd of the bullets that it even gets to attempt to stop). It also ignores things like invul saves and the fact that terminators can deepstrike and bikes are really fast.

An interesting way of thinking about it nonetheless.

**BaalSNAFU**

niv-mizzet wrote:
They're bad because they're just too expensive, all things considered. Including the consideration of how weapons have gotten cheaper and deadlier. I find that they suck out loud in combat. I watched one tactical marine fight one tau fire warrior in melee from turn 2 to the game end just a couple weeks ago. Unlike guns, where each little step of skill or strength affects the dice rolls required, the weapon skill chart is...well...dumb. A marine may shoot twice as good as an ork, because his stat is double, but he only melees 17% better than a fire warrior, who his stat ALSO doubles. And the fire warrior hits back at a 4+ whether he's hitting another fire warrior, or a marine.

-They seriously, seriously, seriously, aren't the threat in melee that even an "all-rounder" should be for their cost. Maybe if they came with 2 base attacks, or the weapon skill chart was made less "let's give the low WS shooting guys a good chance in melee just to make it more lulzy" then maybe I'd respect them more.

-Dying in droves hurts marines more than any other army. If an IA blast knocks 3 marines off the table, and another knocks 6 orks off the table, the orks still lost quite a few less points. 30 to 42 in fact. They could have lost 2 more boyz and come out even.

-Ignoring their armor hurts more than ALMOST any other army. Such a huge part of their cost is in the power armor. And when it gets ignored, they just drop like an ork boy. A very expensive ork boy.

-Ignoring their T4 hurts more than most other armies. Guns have gotten, lets be honest, out of hand. S6-8 is everywhere and a half, and it all wounds marines just as easily as gretchin. This causes a squad of 10 marines to drop just through the sheer number of saves. I once suggested a fix to this by adding a rule to all astartes, including the chaos ones, where they could not be wounded on less than a 3, mainly due to all their genetic superhuman improvements. Our group plays with that rule regularly, and have found that, while on average it only stops about 3-6 wounds per game, it gives the much much more expensive marines a bit better foothold in survival than gretchin, guardsmen, and ratlings. Even the non-marine players like it. I'm still of the opinion that people wouldn't even blink at it if GW had already put it in in an older edition. If you want to hear more, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/581997.page is the thread.

-The old football saying "offense wins games, defense wins tournaments" does NOT apply in 40k. Every score you make in football does effectively nothing to influence the rest of the game (morale not withstanding.) Every kill you make in 40k reduces the amount of attacks you have to receive for the entire rest of the game though. Marines don't kill things. They were made to be able to take punishment, and the punishments have grown more severe. Now they can't take it, and they can't kill the enemies fast enough to stop the punishment. As was said above, the underlying goal of the game, as well as almost any strategy game, is to remove options from the opposition. Any tool you have that doesn't help towards that goal is of negligible use.

-Rhinos suck. Even when I see spam rhinos or razorbacks, they're up in flames SOOOO fast my head spins. Either that or they're just stunned or immobilized right in the spot where they deployed. This is somewhat related to the ever-rising amount of s6-8 shooting for lower and lower prices. So tac marines are walking everywhere unless you for some reason decide to shell out for a land raider or storm raven for one.

-Shooting rules, assault drools. The tac marines are paying for a slight bit of assault ability. (Part of which entails the almost-pointless weaponskill stat.) But they are typically only found in two states in the games I see: Shooting, or dead. Only rarely do I see one or two lucky men make it to assault, where...well...they just aren't as good as they're cracked up to be. See the first paragraph for example.

There is a reason I play Blood Angels over other marines. I can't stand taking tactical squads when I could have an ASM squad with two meltas actually go accomplish something, or at least be somewhat threatening to my opponent. Any time I play against other marines, I just focus everyone against their optional guys who CAN do things, and then go mop up tactical squads last. I haven't lost to a marine army in a loooooong time. Like...before 6th edition came out. Granted, I haven't played against the grav-star with my BA, so there's one high tier list that would probably bite into me. But your typical "here's some heavies, some elites, an HQ, and a couple tac squads" lists? I eat them the same way every time. Toppings then boring crust.

Whenever I want to run typical codex marines, I just take two bare bones 5 man scout teams and reserve them for objectives. The rest is all guys meant for actually fighting the battle.

I'm guessing you don't play orks, because you either pay for your cover with a KFF or have to cram into limited space (which means you have to take a unit too small to be useful and make yourself vulnerable to blasts). Wouldn't really say that 18" Assault 2 is any better than 24" rapid fire. The fearless isn't too helpful either, since it only lasts until you take serious casualties.

I played a game today where we rolled a 1 for terrain density for EVERY 2x2 square. During the first two turns, EVERY UNIT in both armies had cover against the entire enemy army. You get to place half the terrain. That means its half your fault if your orks can't find cover.

Forcing the enemy to finish off every single model is worth something.

Or he could just wait until he's out of other good targets to throw the last few shots and finish them off. If its down to a couple tac marines, they're now a .01 on the threat scale. Just work on the other stuff and come back to them.

Marines can take twice their number in orks easily if they get the charge, more if they have a flamer. Yeah, orks are cheap, but marines are at least twice as good as them at pretty much everything.

I have never ever ever seen a group of tactical marines win out against double their number in orks in an assault, even including the bolt pistols before-hand. The flamer is making things a little farfetched, as any ork player I know would bring their squad formation up in such a way that the flamer guy would only net a couple possible wounds, so that argument would imply that the ork player is just not moving tactically. Even shoota boyz get 2 attacks base, plus the literal always-there nob with klaw and pole. Even my furious charging BA assault squads are a little nervous going into the middle of twice their number of orks.
Marines are not twice as good at everything. They're worse at melee than shoota boyz are. They're going to get absolutely stomped by choppa slugga boyz. 6 times the attacks is way more than enough to make up for the fact that the orks aren't furious charging. Orks are also better at sucking up damage and not caring, since they just have more wounds on the table. Green tide is surprisingly effective when everyone else keeps bringing grav guns and such to take out riptides and knights.

I'm actually wondering how you should point cost Tactical Marine squads now. It's kind of bothering me. I'm not a game designer, but I enjoy trying to puzzle out mechanics and create interesting ones, so it's a subject that has captured my interest.

I guess you have to cost models based on the best thing they can do, then add a very small additional cost if they can do something else as well. I think GW is applying an "additive capability" mindset to their costing where the ability to do multiple things adequately is costed like the sum of all their abilities.

This would make a lot more sense. The tac marines can't use all their skills at once. If they're firing guns, they aren't in melee. If they're in melee, they aren't firing guns. They are literally less than the sum of their parts. I agree with your logic here, and immediately recognize you as a better game designer than the GW staff, if for no other reason than you actually like thinking about it instead of just writing something down to get it out the door.

If I could exalt this 1000 times and then obtain your address so I could send you a 750 of Blue Label I would.Truer words have nenever been spoken (atleast during my time on Dakka. Having played every army except Sisters, Tau, GK and Orks I will say without any doubt that tac marines are a fething joke for every reason listed above. They suck to the point of being a handicap. I've been running Marines since 3rd and even then they weren't far above average. That was when you could rhino rush and bounce from combat to combat. Now they're terribad. I run two marine armies. CF with 2x scout squads, 2x sternguard and Scars with 4x biker squads. Tac marines are straight up deadweight.