Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 04:19:25
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
DarknessEternal wrote:Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
I'm not saying it's inefficient. Indeed, I was completely agreeing with you.
But 14 points a model is a high by-model price for a troops choice. Most armies come in at less than 10, and at least three have something that comes at 5 points a model or fewer.
I agree that, if you use them as they're designed to be used, you get more than 14 points per model worth of stuff, but most people look at the 14 points and then forget what you get for it (or can't see it because they can't make use of it).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 04:19:56
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Lesser Daemon of Chaos
The deck of the Widower
|
I think how good or bad Tactical Marines are depends on your gaming group (or meta). People that play in a solely fluffy group that do not abuse the easy win armies will have decidedly different experience with them than the people playing in groups with all the spammed min/maxxed armies. So in summary, Tactical Marines are fine unless they are not.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 04:44:05
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Ailaros wrote:DarknessEternal wrote:Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
I'm not saying it's inefficient. Indeed, I was completely agreeing with you.
But 14 points a model is a high by-model price for a troops choice. Most armies come in at less than 10, and at least three have something that comes at 5 points a model or fewer.
I agree that, if you use them as they're designed to be used, you get more than 14 points per model worth of stuff, but most people look at the 14 points and then forget what you get for it (or can't see it because they can't make use of it).
You can bring most of that into play in most games. That's the problem.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 04:54:34
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine
Little Rock, Arkansas
|
I have the following opponents for my most common games.
Flyrants + bug swarm with venomthropes and synapse well dispersed.
Tau with 1 IA riptide, but has FE suits with all plasma/fusion and farsight.
Chaos with 2 helldrakes, plasma cannon hellbrute, nurgle oblits.
Dark Eldar beta strike from reserve.
Dem orks'es with varying loadouts.
Salamander CT marines of varying loadouts.
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down, the tacs have been murdered by aerial tyrant firepower and psychic power. So all they do in this matchup is buy some time for me and maybe stick a lucky wound on something.
FE tau: No. Taxicals literally combust at random in this fight.
Chaos: They almost combust as fast as the tau matchup.
Dark Eldar: Also here pretty much to die. No sane DE raider pilot actually lands near enough for them to charge it, unless they plan on murdering the unit with splinters.
Orks: They fall back while shooting and knock out maybe half their value in orks before getting run over. Less if there's cover.
Sallies: The only time I feel like the taxicals are actually part of my army, mainly because he also runs them, and the match is all the more even because of it.
Now bear in mind I win a lot, but against anyone but the orks and sallies, the taxicals do literally 0%-1ish% of the damage.
|
20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 05:04:32
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Ailaros wrote:DarknessEternal wrote:Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
I'm not saying it's inefficient. Indeed, I was completely agreeing with you.
But 14 points a model is a high by-model price for a troops choice. Most armies come in at less than 10, and at least three have something that comes at 5 points a model or fewer.
I agree that, if you use them as they're designed to be used, you get more than 14 points per model worth of stuff, but most people look at the 14 points and then forget what you get for it (or can't see it because they can't make use of it).
You have made a false assumption.
You assume people want to take troops at all. They do not. That is why tactical marines suck. It's why FoC swaps are being removed.
I wouldn't say they are tactical. Blood runners are tactical. 40k in general is not. They are just bad, as most troops are in the game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 05:30:12
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight
|
DarknessEternal wrote: Ailaros wrote:
Tac marines, like many other units that are dismissed as terrible out of hand (like 1ksons and possessed), come with a high price tag
Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
14 points is not expensive for a Tactical Marine. It's a steal.
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
Isn't that avoiding the point? If it weren't for X they'd be the best troops in the game, isn't a valid argument, as when you take anything but X you already know exactly what you're going to do with them. They pay to be average in everything, everything else pays to be good in one field bad in another, and because of that you can play those units to their strengths. Tacticals don't have a strength except as objective holder, which is ironically where they really shine, I imagine if you told people that if they had to the option to take a Tac marine with no gear at all just their stats for 7 ppm they would jump at it and they'd be a nightmare to clear off a objective.
|
SHUPPET wrote:
wtf is this buddhist monk ascendant martial dice arts crap lol
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 05:35:17
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
niv-mizzet wrote:I have the following opponents for my most common games.
Flyrants + bug swarm with venomthropes and synapse well dispersed.
Tau with 1 IA riptide, but has FE suits with all plasma/fusion and farsight.
Chaos with 2 helldrakes, plasma cannon hellbrute, nurgle oblits.
Dark Eldar beta strike from reserve.
Dem orks'es with varying loadouts.
Salamander CT marines of varying loadouts.
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down, the tacs have been murdered by aerial tyrant firepower and psychic power. So all they do in this matchup is buy some time for me and maybe stick a lucky wound on something.
FE tau: No. Taxicals literally combust at random in this fight.
Chaos: They almost combust as fast as the tau matchup.
Dark Eldar: Also here pretty much to die. No sane DE raider pilot actually lands near enough for them to charge it, unless they plan on murdering the unit with splinters.
Orks: They fall back while shooting and knock out maybe half their value in orks before getting run over. Less if there's cover.
Sallies: The only time I feel like the taxicals are actually part of my army, mainly because he also runs them, and the match is all the more even because of it.
Now bear in mind I win a lot, but against anyone but the orks and sallies, the taxicals do literally 0%-1ish% of the damage.
Going through that list of armies, some thoughts.
A couple of those pose problems for everyone, not just Marines and Tactical squads. Certain Tau builds are very difficult for many armies to deal with (hence why they're so complained about, much like Eldar).
Flyrants are difficult for every army to deal with, the flyer rules are just kind of silly right now, and some of the formations allowing units to recycle just make some of those things flat out absurd.
Dark Eldar have long been a relatively reliable hard-counter to elite-ish armies, in fact every game I've ever had against DE with MEQ armies has been hard fought and usually ends with the DE winning.
Heldrakes meanwhile have caused issues for lots of armies, tactical marines aren't uniquely affected by them to any special degree more than many other (often more expensive) units, while the large numbers of Oblits is absolutely nothing new that's been something you can expect to see since 3E.
Against Orks, your tactical marines aren't generally intended to be the primary killer of the Orks, at least not big mobs of them (just as with any horde unit), they're there to mop up after they Orks have been depleted by heavy weapons or provide fire support to soften them up so you can toss your own assault units into 'em. With the 7E Ork morale rules and their low leadership, this is easier than ever.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 05:37:45
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
niv-mizzet wrote:
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down,
You know what I've seen kill dozens of Venomthropes? Tactical Marines dropping right behind them.
*Snort*Snort*Derision*Disbelief*
Yeah, they have 2 wounds, the Marines have 20 shots.
|
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 05:39:59
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
!!Goffik Rocker!!
|
People rate everything that's not an autowin as underpowered.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 05:41:05
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Quickjager wrote:
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
Isn't that avoiding the point?
No, just because something is better than another thing, doesn't make the lesser thing worth nothing. It makes it worth less than the superior thing. This is a mindbogglingly simple thing the Internet CANNOT LEARN. "Worth less" and "worthless" are different things.
Quickjager wrote:
I imagine if you told people that if they had to the option to take a Tac marine with no gear at all just their stats for 7 ppm they would jump at it and they'd be a nightmare to clear off a objective.
Why would you waste any points on anything that can only sit on objectives? You only get so many of those points.
|
"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."
This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.
Freelance Ontologist
When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 05:46:47
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine
Little Rock, Arkansas
|
DarknessEternal wrote:
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
I consider ork boys to be the best troop in the game, when you consider goodness-point cost ratio. The current guns, point costs, and cover save system seem to favor having more cheap bodies over a few elite ones. In fact, an elite hidden in a mob of ablative wounds is QUITE sturdy. Having cover saves as a BS modifier so high armor can benefit from being 99.999999% obscured from vision would be another change that would make me like having standard power armor mooks again.
Very few armies actually have a problem with morale until the unit has been decimated to the point of uselessness anyway, so ATSKNF is not the big advantage a lot of people make it out to be. Maybe once every 5 games it'll stop some unimportant unit from getting swept, and then half the time that's NOT what I want, because I want to shoot at the choppy unit that's tearing those guys up, and would prefer they just lay down and die so I can. So one out of 10 games it helps me, and one out of 10 hurts. Automatically Appended Next Post: DarknessEternal wrote:niv-mizzet wrote:
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down,
You know what I've seen kill dozens of Venomthropes? Tactical Marines dropping right behind them.
*Snort*Snort*Derision*Disbelief*
Yeah, they have 2 wounds, the Marines have 20 shots.
13.3 hits, 6.7 wounds, 1.1 failed save. No halfway decent nid player doesn't get their thropes in some ruins for 2+ cover with some surrounding chaff units, especially when they see a pod over on your reserves table.
Also drop pods are good. I even outlined that in this very thread. Showing up where you want on the table virtually risk-free and able to immediately shoot is amazing, and ANYONE getting to use this, even the less-than-stellar taxicals, can shine. That's more about the drop pod being awesome than the squad though.
Somehow marines being lame always brings out the guy who's like "but they're awesome in drop pods!"
Literally everything you can put in a drop pod is awesome in a drop pod. Alpha strikes from the direction and location that you want are GOOOOOD. (Me I'd rather have my fragiosos take the pods.)
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 05:54:54
20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 06:04:12
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
Anpu42 wrote:Martel732 wrote:FNP is not easy, as priests are now HQs.
They're still going to be obliterated on the Space Puppy counter attack. Nothing has changed from 5th in that Space Wolves basically negate close combat units with their schlubs. I still don't understand why GW thinks that's fair, but I just pretend I'm the IG against them, and it sometimes works out.
You still can buy a HQ and Poof you have FNP, 3-4 Flamer Attacks and then get to complete your Assault before I can attack.
As for the others:
>Iron hands can get an Army wide FNP 6+
>Crimson fist get to Re-Roll ones with their Bolters/Heavy Bolters [This can go along way to mitigating the "Bolter Issue"]
>The Ultra-Smurffs have a really nasty One use power for Re-rolls iirc, two with the right reroll.
>Dark Angels can pull off a huge RoF and possible 4++ if set up correctly.
Each Armies Tactical Squad has its own Strength and weaknesses, it is just a matter of exploiting the Strength and working out how to mitigate the Weakness.
Have to stop you there. DA's huge RoF comes from not moving, severely limiting their potential, or from throwing the Dakka Banner on LRCs or on Bikes, both of which are not tac marines. Second, the 4++ is only a 3" bubble on each HQ/Techmarine and applies to enemies. Yeah, you can "set it up correctly", but at that point, just stop and go play Tau. They are better at gunlining.
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 06:14:11
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
My experience with tacticals is that they are mediocre with a glimmer of potential.
They really only tip over the edge when going drop pod and having the ability to litter the field with 12-18 obsec units. Rhinos can get close, but their fragility and the ability to shoot them before they get across the field limits the damage they can do.
I will state as a Salamanders player that I am somewhat jealous of the BA Tacticals, since it looks like they can get HFs?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 07:07:37
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine
|
I´m guessing the people saying Tactical Marines suck haven´t had 3-4 squads drop podded on them all blistering with Meltas and Combimeltas ( or even Flamers, if the opponent happens to be the horde type ) backed up by the rest of the armys firepower ofcourse.
And bolters are far from useless. God knows how many times squads much more expensive have been mowed down by rapidfiring bolters. Like mentioned before, playing them in 5 man minimum squads to sit on objectives is the worst way to play them. Just use Sniper Scouts for that if that´s what you´re into, or even Land Speeder Storm ones.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/12/17 07:10:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 07:12:32
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
RunicFIN wrote:I´m guessing the people saying Tactical Marines suck haven´t had 3-4 squads drop podded on them all blistering with Meltas and Combimeltas ( or even Flamers, if the opponent happens to be the horde type ) backed up by the rest of the armys firepower ofcourse.
And bolters are far from useless. God knows how many times squads much more expensive have been mowed down by rapidfiring bolters. Like mentioned before, playing them in 5 man minimum squads to sit on objectives is the worst way to play them. Just use Sniper Scouts for that if that´s what you´re into, or even Land Speeder Storm ones.
Yeah, I have. It's weak sauce compared to what Xenos and SW can do.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 07:13:06
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 08:56:56
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot
|
DarknessEternal wrote: Ailaros wrote:
Tac marines, like many other units that are dismissed as terrible out of hand (like 1ksons and possessed), come with a high price tag
Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
14 points is not expensive for a Tactical Marine. It's a steal.
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
200-ish points for a battle-ready Tactical Squad doesn't seem cheap when you add them up, it certainly weakens investment into your support elements.
And no, they are definitely not the 2nd best Troops in the game, nor the third best, they're not even in the top 5. Though the actual layout of the top 5 is disputable, I'd have these lower down that Marines: Dire Avengers, Kabalites, Plague Marines, Ork Boys, Firewarriors, FA Crisis Suits, Necron Immortals and IG Vets; are all considerably better Troops choices.
Even if you're just talking about raw strength and nothing else, Deathwing Terminators, aforementioned Plague Marines, etc all are way nastier than Tacs.
The whole versatility argument is a bit pointless because its just a back and forth game of "they're versatile because of this, so they're good <---> they're not specialised enough because of this, so they're bad". Put it this way; at least its far easier and far more common to see evidence in practice for the latter.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/17 08:59:23
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 09:33:38
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Glorious Lord of Chaos
The burning pits of Hades, also known as Sweden in summer
|
I find their rules (especially CSM but also loyalist tacticals) very unexciting. Sure, you have some things working against morale (in the case of the loyalists, at least...) and some other benefits (also mostly loyalists) but they are generally pretty dull. If I played loyalist SM I'd probably run Bikes or BA (Do they still have ASM troops? Assault Marines are badass, even though they are so hilariously weak).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 09:48:13
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator
|
They are the jack of all trades and the master of none.
However, I find them quite useful in a mission based on objectives.
They are rather hard to remove from an objective and this is where they shine.
|
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a " " I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 09:50:54
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine
|
Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I have. It's weak sauce compared to what Xenos and SW can do.
I´d say that´s an overstatement, it´s not like SW troops are 5 times better, just slightly. And if you consider blowing up most of enemy armour or 1-2 Imperial Knights weak with mere Troops then I don´t know, you must be playing an army list that´s in the top 5% when it comes to destructive power.
Now generally speaking, I think´s it´s perfectly fine and in a way logical that Troops aren´t especially powerful. They are just Troops. Just like in an actual war, troopers don´t matter that much in the end in a huge conflict and there´s only so much one can achieve when not inside a tank, jet fighter or operating artillery.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 10:16:24
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Keeper of the Holy Orb of Antioch
avoiding the lorax on Crion
|
They may not be perfect but unlike most they can by tooled up or down, combat sqauded and adapted to face most threats.
There flexible, and rhino,s are very cheap.
Not masters of one but able to face down variable threats.
Yes they do not hit like devestators, attack like sternguard, tank hits like hammernatora or look ugly as hell like centurians.
They are basic flexible infriantry, tons of specialists in space marines too.
|
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 13:57:11
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Blood-Drenched Death Company Marine
Little Rock, Arkansas
|
RunicFIN wrote:I´m guessing the people saying Tactical Marines suck haven´t had 3-4 squads drop podded on them all blistering with Meltas and Combimeltas ( or even Flamers, if the opponent happens to be the horde type ) backed up by the rest of the armys firepower ofcourse.
And bolters are far from useless. God knows how many times squads much more expensive have been mowed down by rapidfiring bolters. Like mentioned before, playing them in 5 man minimum squads to sit on objectives is the worst way to play them. Just use Sniper Scouts for that if that´s what you´re into, or even Land Speeder Storm ones.
Again. Anything that can go in a pod is awesome in a pod, because pods are like Hollywood agents, they can make anyone shine. You get to show up risk free at the spot you want on turn 1 at your optimal engagement range, or 1 turn away from optimal if it's an assault element. (Since, yknow, GW hates assault.) All you have to worry about is one decent interceptor gun in like...the entire game.
Being awesome in a pod does not make a unit awesome by default. Even flayed ones could be nice in a pod.
It's like saying the unit is awesome with an invisibility thrown on them. Yeah, so is everyone else.
|
20000+ points
Tournament reports:
1234567 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 15:26:12
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
DarknessEternal wrote:niv-mizzet wrote:
Against the nids, shooting is worthless until the venoms are down, and that only happens after I get some assault in, since I don't have handy ignore cover s8 things. By the time the venoms are down,
You know what I've seen kill dozens of Venomthropes? Tactical Marines dropping right behind them.
*Snort*Snort*Derision*Disbelief*
Yeah, they have 2 wounds, the Marines have 20 shots.
Yup, yup, yup. You don't need S8 to kill a venomthropes, or really anything in the Nid army. I find lasguns are pretty good at killing T4 Nids.
OT: if we had cover modifiers instead of cover saves, so armor+cover actually meant something we prolly wouldn't need this thread.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 15:27:54
"Bringer of death, speak your name, For you are my life, and the foe's death." - Litany of the Lasgun
2500 points
1500 points
1250 points
1000 points |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 15:38:08
Subject: Re:What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
They don't have a 6++ save?
Honestly, I think it is just that Marines get so many cool toys the Tactical Marines pale in comparison. Let's face it, Depending on what flavor of Marine you pick you can have more and cooler toys than batman!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 15:41:58
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 15:50:22
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
Why do space Tac marines suck? Why is it even a question?
Needs a full squad of 10 to take a heavy and a special weapon.
Costing between 160 - 180 points for proper load outs.
Bad transports - Armor 11 razors? give me a break.
3+ armor is okay. 4+ cover saves for free are even better. (see ruins)
The only real pro of paying so much for troops that don't kill much is ATSKNF. I would much rather lose that ability and gain some killy stats or all 2 heavys or 2 specials in a squad of 10.
Compare IG vets to marines. I must ask...why are the vets cheaper and better?
Apart from the fluff that comes from marines. Like only 3-4 squads needed to clear a planet of all Xenos. I seriously get discouraged by their extreme lack of performance on the table top. I avoid all but the minimum required. Usually 2, 5 mans with laz cannons.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 15:51:12
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Stalwart Dark Angels Space Marine
Minnesota, USA
|
Tacs are flexible units. That's their big advantage. Combat squads, the weapon options, and transport options make them decent at a lot of things. A couple of things work against them.
Bikes are severely undercosted. They have the same advantages, but get Relentless, a nifty cover save, excellent mobility, Twin linked bolters,and a toughness boost. At 7 points a model, that is a ridiculous boost. Imagine giving those same buffs to any other basic troop choice in the game for 7 points per model.
The other major problem is the proliferation of low AP weapons, which GW made worse with the addition of Grav-guns. Every codex I have looked at seriously can kill Tacticals by the bucketfull.
With these limitations in mind, they can still be useful. They just aren't optimal compared with bikes. When bikes as troops goes away or if bikes get a well deserved price hike, you will see Tacticals come back in a big way.
|
I have no idea what I am doing.
3k -
2.5k -
.5k - (Dark Hunters)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 15:52:09
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
RunicFIN wrote:Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I have. It's weak sauce compared to what Xenos and SW can do.
I´d say that´s an overstatement, it´s not like SW troops are 5 times better, just slightly. And if you consider blowing up most of enemy armour or 1-2 Imperial Knights weak with mere Troops then I don´t know, you must be playing an army list that´s in the top 5% when it comes to destructive power.
Now generally speaking, I think´s it´s perfectly fine and in a way logical that Troops aren´t especially powerful. They are just Troops. Just like in an actual war, troopers don´t matter that much in the end in a huge conflict and there´s only so much one can achieve when not inside a tank, jet fighter or operating artillery.
Do regular tacticals get 2 special weapons plus a combi, plus possibly an additional weapon, and counter attack?
I'll agree it's not 5 times better (which no one suggested but you), but saying slightly better doesn't seem correct either.
If we are talking tacticals from SM anyway. BA ones get really nice formations allowing them to charge from DS, which makes them a LOT better. Chaos ones are just awful, no one takes them. SM ones are very weak since you essentially get 1 special weapon and 4 ablative wounds if you combat squad them.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/17 16:04:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 15:59:45
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Mr.Omega wrote: DarknessEternal wrote: Ailaros wrote:
Tac marines, like many other units that are dismissed as terrible out of hand (like 1ksons and possessed), come with a high price tag
Is 14 points a high price tag for something that can kill anything in the game with Toughness less than 10, AV less than 12, will never remain broken and doesn't suffer the penalties of breaking, can never be swept in Assault, and usually has a better save outside of cover than many things have in cover? And all out of the Troops slot?
14 points is not expensive for a Tactical Marine. It's a steal.
If it weren't for Bike Marines, they'd be the best Troops in the game without question. Just because Bikes exist, and in the same army no less, and are objectively better than Tactical Marines, that doesn't make Tactical Marines bad.
200-ish points for a battle-ready Tactical Squad doesn't seem cheap when you add them up, it certainly weakens investment into your support elements.
And no, they are definitely not the 2nd best Troops in the game, nor the third best, they're not even in the top 5. Though the actual layout of the top 5 is disputable, I'd have these lower down that Marines: Dire Avengers, Kabalites, Plague Marines, Ork Boys, Firewarriors, FA Crisis Suits, Necron Immortals and IG Vets; are all considerably better Troops choices.
Even if you're just talking about raw strength and nothing else, Deathwing Terminators, aforementioned Plague Marines, etc all are way nastier than Tacs.
The whole versatility argument is a bit pointless because its just a back and forth game of "they're versatile because of this, so they're good <---> they're not specialised enough because of this, so they're bad". Put it this way; at least its far easier and far more common to see evidence in practice for the latter.
You forgot SM Bikers in the list of best troop choices, but the list is accurate overall.
14 seems like a steal in the same way a Tactical Terminator looks like a steal at 40 points. ATSKNF, Storm Bolter, Power Fist with 2 attacks, and the ability to Deep Strike. It's when you actually start adding up the points you end up realizing you should buy something else, like Assault Terminators or Bikers.
|
CaptainStabby wrote:If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote:BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote:Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote:ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 16:08:09
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
WellSpokenMan wrote:Tacs are flexible units. That's their big advantage. Combat squads, the weapon options, and transport options make them decent at a lot of things. A couple of things work against them.
Bikes are severely undercosted. They have the same advantages, but get Relentless, a nifty cover save, excellent mobility, Twin linked bolters,and a toughness boost. At 7 points a model, that is a ridiculous boost. Imagine giving those same buffs to any other basic troop choice in the game for 7 points per model.
The other major problem is the proliferation of low AP weapons, which GW made worse with the addition of Grav-guns. Every codex I have looked at seriously can kill Tacticals by the bucketfull.
With these limitations in mind, they can still be useful. They just aren't optimal compared with bikes. When bikes as troops goes away or if bikes get a well deserved price hike, you will see Tactical come back in a big way.
Bikes don't even need a price hike - marines just need to cost less or do more and then bikes will look less under priced. Relentless is pretty wasted on a bike, they can't even take a heavy weapon. I'd take marines in droves if they had relentless.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 16:10:40
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Xenomancers wrote: WellSpokenMan wrote:Tacs are flexible units. That's their big advantage. Combat squads, the weapon options, and transport options make them decent at a lot of things. A couple of things work against them.
Bikes are severely undercosted. They have the same advantages, but get Relentless, a nifty cover save, excellent mobility, Twin linked bolters,and a toughness boost. At 7 points a model, that is a ridiculous boost. Imagine giving those same buffs to any other basic troop choice in the game for 7 points per model.
The other major problem is the proliferation of low AP weapons, which GW made worse with the addition of Grav-guns. Every codex I have looked at seriously can kill Tacticals by the bucketfull.
With these limitations in mind, they can still be useful. They just aren't optimal compared with bikes. When bikes as troops goes away or if bikes get a well deserved price hike, you will see Tactical come back in a big way.
Bikes don't even need a price hike - marines just need to cost less or do more and then bikes will look less under priced. Relentless is pretty wasted on a bike, they can't even take a heavy weapon. I'd take marines in droves if they had relentless.
You can rapid fire and charge with relentless. It's not always amazing, but sometimes it helps, especially on chaos bikers and swift claws.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2014/12/17 16:20:32
Subject: What's wrong with Tactical Marines?
|
 |
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator
|
They are the workhorse in an SM army.
Hard to remove but not very killy.
|
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a " " I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
|