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.

I've come to the conclusion - if you think tac marines are any good - you are playing a different game. Their firepower is lacking an it's easy to understand why - 1 heavy weapon for 10 troops that cost 14 points a piece is not enough.

If Tacs had the option to take 2 heavies or 2 specials they would be in a much better place. It would actually allow me to use some "Tactics."

Another option would be to give marines relentless - this would allow you to use the unit as having a special and a heavy. PC Plasma squads in rhinos would be pretty fun to drive up on people. Same with the Multi-Melta which is currently unusable in a tac squad. Might even consider a HB lol.

It's clear they need something.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've come to the conclusion - if you think tac marines are any good - you are playing a different game. Their firepower is lacking an it's easy to understand why - 1 heavy weapon for 10 troops that cost 14 points a piece is not enough.

If Tacs had the option to take 2 heavies or 2 specials they would be in a much better place. It would actually allow me to use some "Tactics."

Another option would be to give marines relentless - this would allow you to use the unit as having a special and a heavy. PC Plasma squads in rhinos would be pretty fun to drive up on people. Same with the Multi-Melta which is currently unusable in a tac squad. Might even consider a HB lol.

It's clear they need something.

Relentless would be awesome and fitting.
Relentless with a knife would make them very worth the points without being overpowered. It would, however, make ASM and Termies very useless as currently represented

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Can you link that article? I am REALLY curious what he said.

Is this the one?

http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/11/disadvantages-only-make-my-units-stronger/

Distractions are fine, but most things people claim to take as distractions are bad distractions. My 120pt naked Wraithlord that forces the other guy to chop through T8/4W to deal with him is a distraction.

As to Tactical Marines it's a meta problem, not a problem intrinsic to the unit; cheap/consequence-free long-range AP2/3 guns are way, way too common in the game today. Tactical Marines were more useful before Riptides, Exocrines, Wraithknights, and their ilk started showing up on the field because their armour meant something; today your soldiers' armour means very little in competitive games because you can build an entire army that ignores it, so Tactical Marines are paying for stats that don't matter.

Yeah, when one riptide can take a 5 point gun, and on turn 3 or 4 decide he's run out of good targets and almost ONE-SHOT the entire tac squad from across the board...

That's a good example of how the game has escalated AROUND the marines, but the marines haven't been adjusted to be able to deal with it.

For me, the problem its lethality.
There got none. Bolters are pathetic against most anything that isn't a guardsman, a single special weapon is unreliable, and a single heavy weapon is useless. If they could double up on one or the other, and get a special rule like the old veterans (or current heresy era veterans) I would like them. right now, any tactical flexibility is essentially left to sternguard, who are everything I want for a tactical marine plus some bells, whistles,a large price tag and force organization chart shift

loyaltemplar wrote:
For me, the problem its lethality.
There got none. Bolters are pathetic against most anything that isn't a guardsman, a single special weapon is unreliable, and a single heavy weapon is useless. If they could double up on one or the other, and get a special rule like the old veterans (or current heresy era veterans) I would like them. right now, any tactical flexibility is essentially left to sternguard, who are everything I want for a tactical marine plus some bells, whistles,a large price tag and force organization chart shift

Pretty much my feelings. I've seen a lot of "well they can hold objectives!" Yeah, and with 7th, my LR can too. So.....

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've come to the conclusion - if you think tac marines are any good - you are playing a different game. Their firepower is lacking an it's easy to understand why - 1 heavy weapon for 10 troops that cost 14 points a piece is not enough.

If Tacs had the option to take 2 heavies or 2 specials they would be in a much better place. It would actually allow me to use some "Tactics."

Another option would be to give marines relentless - this would allow you to use the unit as having a special and a heavy. PC Plasma squads in rhinos would be pretty fun to drive up on people. Same with the Multi-Melta which is currently unusable in a tac squad. Might even consider a HB lol.

It's clear they need something.

Clearly Anpu is playing a different game. In his game, plasma takes out transports reliably.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've come to the conclusion - if you think tac marines are any good - you are playing a different game. Their firepower is lacking an it's easy to understand why - 1 heavy weapon for 10 troops that cost 14 points a piece is not enough.

If Tacs had the option to take 2 heavies or 2 specials they would be in a much better place. It would actually allow me to use some "Tactics."

Another option would be to give marines relentless - this would allow you to use the unit as having a special and a heavy. PC Plasma squads in rhinos would be pretty fun to drive up on people. Same with the Multi-Melta which is currently unusable in a tac squad. Might even consider a HB lol.

It's clear they need something.

I wouldn't say it isn't a different game, but more a case of a different meta. Though tactics wise that is why there is the ability to combat squad. You can break it off and have the special go around and harass units and then have the heavy weapon sit in the back and act as supporting fire. Such as tac squad takes melta gun and plasma cannon, drops half unit with melta behind transport, tries to open it up and if they do manage to do that they can then use a plasma cannon to take out the unit that just popped out.

I can't imagine a meta where a) people put any thought at all into their lists and b) tac marines are as effective as the proponents claim. Tac marines don't DO anything.

Martel732 wrote:
I can't imagine a meta where a) people put any thought at all into their lists and b) tac marines are as effective as the proponents claim. Tac marines don't DO anything.

I feel like you keep comparing tacs to either the broken trifecta of eldar, tau and chaos daemons or environments where everyone is WAAC and only brings the most broken lists with most broken armies. Otherwise tacs can be great is used tactically and with the proper chapter tactics.

You can't use something tactically that poses no threat to pretty much any opposing squad. The myopic 12" threat range is way too short. Tacs weren't getting anywhere against my 5th ed BA lists, and those were the worst lists in the game.

Martel732 wrote:
I can't imagine a meta where a) people put any thought at all into their lists and b) tac marines are as effective as the proponents claim. Tac marines don't DO anything.

It's fine. I just play DA, GK, or IG with SM allies to avoid ever having to use a tac squad. Works pretty good.

Yeah, it's easy to discount tac marines when you compare them to units kitted out to kill MEQ. Play better.

 Las wrote:
Yeah, it's easy to discount tac marines when you compare them to units kitted out to kill MEQ. Play better.

How are firewarriors or ork boyz designed to kill MEQ specifically?

Also, L2P? That's adorable

I was waiting for the L2P argument to come along.

Martel732 wrote:
I was waiting for the L2P argument to come along.

I did learn...I stopped fielding tacticals lol.

Look at it this way, what is the difference between a Devastator Squad and a Tactical Squad...? Pretty much nothing except the Devs can take 3 extra Heavy weapons and that makes them pretty desirable for some people, BECAUSE they can then specialize in a role. The natural progression would then just simply allow Devastator and Assault marine be troops, or what GW has been doing more as of late is just take a formation to replace the CAD. Don't you worry! By the time the SM codex update is around you'll probably not have to take a single Tactical or Scout squad.

Akiasura wrote:

 Las wrote:
Yeah, it's easy to discount tac marines when you compare them to units kitted out to kill MEQ. Play better.

How are firewarriors or ork boyz designed to kill MEQ specifically?

Also, L2P? That's adorable

Ork boyz are meant to be a squishy unit that hits hard if you let them. Tac marines are not meant to be able to take out 20+ boyz if they get charged, however they can hold their own in that situation with a bit of luck. But don't depend on it.

Tac marines are a troop choice with more options than either of those units. They are meant to work in concert with the rest of your army and accomplish small, specific tasks. They require skill to use. You can't just plop them down and expect them play themselves.

Yes, at a certain point L2P becomes kind of relevent.

 Quickjager wrote:
Look at it this way, what is the difference between a Devastator Squad and a Tactical Squad...? Pretty much nothing except the Devs can take 3 extra Heavy weapons and that makes them pretty desirable for some people, BECAUSE they can then specialize in a role. The natural progression would then just simply allow Devastator and Assault marine be troops, or what GW has been doing more as of late is just take a formation to replace the CAD. Don't you worry! By the time the SM codex update is around you'll probably not have to take a single Tactical or Scout squad.

Devs are immobile long range shooters/objective campers. That's their role. Tac marines can be kitted to be mobile and play reactively. Devs cannot do that.

No, it really doesn't. Because no amount of L2P will let make tactical marines dangerous to your opponent.

" more options than either of those units."

Options that mean nothing in the scheme of a game.

 Las wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Las wrote:
Yeah, it's easy to discount tac marines when you compare them to units kitted out to kill MEQ. Play better.

How are firewarriors or ork boyz designed to kill MEQ specifically?

Also, L2P? That's adorable

Ork boyz are meant to be a squishy unit that hits hard if you let them. Tac marines are not meant to be able to take out 20+ boyz if they get charged, however they can hold their own in that situation with a bit of luck. But don't depend on it.

Tac marines are a troop choice with more options than either of those units. They are meant to work in concert with the rest of your army and accomplish small, specific tasks. They require skill to use. You can't just plop them down and expect them play themselves.

Yes, at a certain point L2P becomes kind of relevent.

Wouldn't a generalist unit be easier to use since it can always be applied in some way to the situation at hand?

If you want people to believe you, you'll need something more specific than "meant to work in concert with the rest of your army".
Considering they can't be a tarpit because they don't have a big enough foot print. They don't absorb firepower well enough, point for point, unless out in the open. They don't buff anyone or help anyone. 1 heavy weapon flying solo won't threaten any tank thanks to HP.

Unless by "working in concert" you meant "I throw 500 points of marines at 180 points of your guys", in which case, sure. Yeah. That's uh...that's great.
But they don't make that easy being slow and having a small ideal firing range. Tau, Eldar, Necrons, GK, Guard, Orks, all do it better. Heck, even scouts with snipers do it better!

Martel732 wrote:
No, it really doesn't. Because no amount of L2P will let make tactical marines dangerous to your opponent.

" more options than either of those units."

Options that mean nothing in the scheme of a game.

Really? A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output? With obsec to deny a crucial maelstrom obj? Combat squaring for essentially split fire? The ability to hurt most MCs in CC or reliably crush something like a maulerfiend even after being charged? There's a ton you can do with them, it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit."

They're a blast to play imo. They require skill with maneuvering and model placement, smart synergy with other units, baiting the enemy to play on your terms, etc. Learn to make em work and they can shine.

 Las wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, it really doesn't. Because no amount of L2P will let make tactical marines dangerous to your opponent.

" more options than either of those units."

Options that mean nothing in the scheme of a game.

Really? A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output? With obsec to deny a crucial maelstrom obj? Combat squaring for essentially split fire? The ability to hurt most MCs in CC or reliably crush something like a maulerfiend even after being charged? There's a ton you can do with them, it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit."

They're a blast to play imo. They require skill with maneuvering and model placement, smart synergy with other units, baiting the enemy to play on your terms, etc. Learn to make em work and they can shine.

Thats right - we just aren't baiting them hard enough.

Tacs aren't grey hunters okay. You can play them that way if you want but they will always do less damage than grey hunters for the same cost. 5 mans with a combi vet in pod cost roughly 140 points. I can get a tri laz pred for that without throwing my object sec units away. Grey hunters work that way because theres a good chance that 30 GH will kill everything that threatens them and if they don't they still get double the CC attacks back at the enemy as basic marines.

 Las wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No, it really doesn't. Because no amount of L2P will let make tactical marines dangerous to your opponent.

" more options than either of those units."

Options that mean nothing in the scheme of a game.

Really? A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output?
Pods are good, put anything in there and they would be awesome. But in one round of shooting they won't make their points back, and unless they cripple a tank, it doesn't seem worth it unless done in mass
With obsec to deny a crucial maelstrom obj?
Not unique to them
Combat squaring for essentially split fire?
So I get 3 bolters, a combi, and a special weapon and 1 heavy from down field? What unit am I crippling with this impressive salvo?
The ability to hurt most MCs in CC or reliably crush something like a maulerfiend even after being charged?
Hurt most MC's? Sure, they may take a wound, but the MC is going to kill the marines over 2 combat phases. Maybe 3. And it won't die in that time period unless you roll way over average. If it's a character MC it's worse. Maulerfiends are a bad unit, that are used to hunt tanks, and are WAY faster than marines. Why is it even touching them unless it wants to?
There's a ton you can do with them, it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit."
See above
They're a blast to play imo. They require skill with maneuvering and model placement, smart synergy with other units, baiting the enemy to play on your terms, etc. Learn to make em work and they can shine.
Baiting only works if they are a threat, you have not explained how they are. Or if your opponent is an idiot and charges basic marines over devs for some reason. You still have not explained this amazing synergy they have with anything other than a drop pod

ive played a templars list with a hundred (ten squads) initiates, which was pretty fun and had too many targets to attack before they got into combat. was great fun. though i know crusader squads arent exactly tac squads

Martel732 wrote:
Options that mean nothing in the scheme of a game.

That seems debatable, to say the least. Options give you, well, options.

Having squads that can perform multiple roles can be pretty useful.

Akiasura wrote:

So I get 3 bolters, a combi, and a special weapon and 1 heavy from down field? What unit am I crippling with this impressive salvo?

I'm not sure it's necessarily about crippling something. Just that not many armies can choose to have a troop choice advance on the enemy, whilst the same troop choice holds a backfield objective and provides supporting fire.

Akiasura wrote:
Hurt most MC's? Sure, they may take a wound, but the MC is going to kill the marines over 2 combat phases. Maybe 3. And it won't die in that time period unless you roll way over average.

Well, to be fair, 2 combat phases can still be enough to keep a MC of an objective, or stop it interfering in an important combat until it's too late.

In terms of killing it, surely that's why you don't charge a MC on full wounds? It's just an option if your other firepower has left it clinging to a single wound, and you really need it dead or out of action in your opponent's turn.

more wounds is superior than better saves. marines come in squads of 10 but guardsmen/orks come in squads of 15+ and while fire warriors, guardians and scouts are also only squads of 10 their noticeably cheaper.

they need to have a price cut and increase max squad size to 15 imo. tactical squads and marines in general stopped being relevant when better saves stopped being important and the only way to fix it now is to 1) removes ap3/ap2 on piles of stuff which would make so many people angry like you dont even know, or 2) drop prices and increase suqad sizes.

however they are a mild problem for marines compared to terminators. termites are absolutely dreadful and they need a massive fix, i move that they need to do a huge brb fix.

 ionusx wrote:
more wounds is superior than better saves.

Not always.

Against AP2/3 weapons, more wounds are obviously better.

However, Blast, Template and Nova weapons even the balance somewhat.

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Options that mean nothing in the scheme of a game.

That seems debatable, to say the least. Options give you, well, options.

Having squads that can perform multiple roles can be pretty useful.

What are these multiple roles they are performing?

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

So I get 3 bolters, a combi, and a special weapon and 1 heavy from down field? What unit am I crippling with this impressive salvo?

I'm not sure it's necessarily about crippling something. Just that not many armies can choose to have a troop choice advance on the enemy, whilst the same troop choice holds a backfield objective and provides supporting fire.

And how is that useful? I could take a cheaper option to hold the backfield objective (5 marines and a heavy weapon is 80 points roughly, depends on the weapon) and 1 weapon is supporting fire...technically.

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Hurt most MC's? Sure, they may take a wound, but the MC is going to kill the marines over 2 combat phases. Maybe 3. And it won't die in that time period unless you roll way over average.

Well, to be fair, 2 combat phases can still be enough to keep a MC of an objective, or stop it interfering in an important combat until it's too late.

In terms of killing it, surely that's why you don't charge a MC on full wounds? It's just an option if your other firepower has left it clinging to a single wound, and you really need it dead or out of action in your opponent's turn.

I am not the one who said MC in CC, so please don't edit what I said to make it seem this is so. I was refuting another poster's statement that this was a role they can perform.
2 combat phases is literally one turn. Remember, CC happens in everyone's turn, regardless of who won. Any unit would delay it, since most MC will hit on 3/4's, wound on 2's, no saves regardless of stat lines. There are a few only SM can wound, true, but I wouldn't call that a useful function for the price you pay at 14ppm. Same thing with taking one wound off of a MC, that's pretty crappy for 14ppm. You are also assuming that it is an MC they can catch, hit (so not flying) and wound in a situation that another troop couldn't do so, since anyone else can do it for cheaper (and Eldar/Tau do it better).

Akiasura wrote:Also, L2P? That's adorable

Let us know when you come up with a strategy game that doesn't involve player skill.

I'm sure it will be even cuter.

Anyways, it seems that the reasons people have with tac marines is that they're not as shooty as HS choices, and they're not as good against marines as things which are specialized to be good against infantry. I feel like someone already went over this. Oh, right...

Ailaros wrote:Comparing them face to face against things that do a single thing well is always pointless. As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against unless the marine player is doing something very wrong.

If you want to look at versatility, you have to compare two units against everything, not against each other. Will ork boyz beat their points in space marines? Yes. Now, let's look at everything else.

Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them. Which is why tac marines are better than boyz, with a few exceptions, not boyz are better than marines because of one comparison.