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.

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

Honestly, I would like you to come up with a strategy at all that doesn't consist of handwavium, but I've never been one for Christmas miracles.
And you're strawmanning. I never mentioned the game not requiring strategy, or developing a game that doesn't. I was mocking someone saying L2P, which is a trope and doesn't add anything.

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

Quoting yourself might be the most egotistical thing I've ever seen, but alright. How is the marine player doing something wrong when dire avengers get dropped off by a transport that pops theirs, dislodges troops that they can't avoid because they are so much slower, and get shot up? How do they avoid Tau fire when the Tau outrange the majority of their weapons? I suppose you could buy a full squad just to fire a single heavy weapon, but I wouldn't call it worth it. How do you fight off equivalent amount of orks, cult troops, bikers, IG, or anything else, all from the troops sections? You don't out range them (save with a single weapon), you don't out assault them, and you aren't faster. You can't. That's why they are podded, fire as much as they can, and then get wiped. Or not taken, which is more common in competitive metas.

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

OMG YOU ARE GOING TO DO ACTUAL COMPARSIONS WITH DETAILS!? GET HYPED.

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

Oh.....

...


OK.

RULE #1 - NOT OPTIONAL.

" A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output?"

Yes, it is.

" it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit." "

Most of the time, it is.

" baiting the enemy to play on your terms"

My terms will be killing all your units I care about and then tabling your tac marines. It's hard to obj sec when you're dead.

"Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them"

You have to do more than claim this. I can tell you that mathematically boyz are better at sucking down Riptide templates. That seems like a big strike right there.

" As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against "

You don't always get that choice. Your opponent gets turns, too, you know.

Akiasura wrote:Honestly, I would like you to come up with a strategy at all that doesn't consist of handwavium, but I've never been one for Christmas miracles.

A great mind understands the value of ad hominem.

Akiasura wrote:And you're strawmanning. I never mentioned the game not requiring strategy, or developing a game that doesn't. I was mocking someone saying L2P, which is a trope and doesn't add anything.

If what's wrong with tactical marines is that people are using them wrong, then it does have use.

It's especially useful when people are playing a game that requires player skill, and people are making arguments as if that's not true. A simple L2P dismisses a bunch of phony arguments.

Akiasura wrote:How is the marine player doing something wrong when dire avengers get dropped off by a transport that pops theirs, dislodges troops that they can't avoid because they are so much slower, and get shot up?

You start by assuming that tac marines aren't designed to beat up twice their points of elite slots, and continue with taking it out of the vacuum and assuming for a moment that the space marine player knows what target prioritization is and shoots at the skimmer before it's game-changingly too late.

Akiasura wrote:How do they avoid Tau fire when the Tau outrange the majority of their weapons?

Are you talking about all tau? Are you comparing HS riptides that are designed to kill space marines against space marines?

Or are you saying that space marines are just screwed against tau, as most infantry units in the SM codex don't have longer ranged weapons than tau. Because if you don't believe that tau are just a straight hard counter, then what you do with tac marines is what you do with the rest of your army to beat tau.

For example, by not engaging in a pointless long-range gunfight with them. Tac marines are no different than everything else in the army.

Akiasura wrote:How do you fight off equivalent amount of orks, cult troops, bikers, IG, or anything else, all from the troops sections?

Well, assuming you're not drop podding on them and wiping them out with flamers, I'd say that the space marine player, once again, shouldn't be a moron and throw unsupported tac squads into situations they're designed to lose. Assume a modicum of player skill on the marine player's part, who, if it's really that important, will shoot at them before the tac squad gets there, or will use an assault unit to disrupt.

If your arguments are really based on space marine players marching blindly forward with no tactics whatsoever, then your comments only apply to the circumstances where the marine player is an idiot. Indeed, if you're a bad player, then you won't get very much from tac squads, which was rather the point in the first place.

Countering "tac squads can do well if you use them right" with "tac squads do poorly if you use them wrong" doesn't really address the issue. Saying "lol, l2p ka-waiiii!" doesn't either.

Akiasura wrote:
OMG YOU ARE GOING TO DO ACTUAL COMPARSIONS WITH DETAILS!? GET HYPED.

 Ailaros wrote:

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.

Oh.....

Some day you'll be able to do basic analytics yourself instead of shutting down and typing with the caps lock key on.

If you need this kind of help, then let's compare shoota boyz, the nob with a klaw and rokkit against their points in tac marines with a lascannon, meltagun, and power fist.

Now look at AV11+. In close combat, both units get some S8 Ap2, except then the marines are better because they're using krak grenades while the orks are picking their noses. What about shooting? A BS4 meltagun is already vastly superior to a BS2 rokkit, and when you look at long range, the marines have the ability to sit and shoot with a BS4 lascannon while the orks are desperately running around trying to get a BS2 rokkit in range.

So, a tac squad is better against all vehicles of AV11+

Would you like me to list them all for you?

Yes, please. List them all. I want to see this.

You're also making the huge assumption that versatility is worth a damn in this game. I can build versatility into my list, I don't need in it at the squad level. I would never use a tac squad to take out and AV 11 vehicle, because they'll probably fail from lack of firepower.

" "tac squads do poorly if you use them wrong""

They do poorly no matter what you do with them. That's the whole point.

Martel732 wrote:
" A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output?"

Yes, it is.

" it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit." "

Most of the time, it is.

" baiting the enemy to play on your terms"

My terms will be killing all your units I care about and then tabling your tac marines. It's hard to obj sec when you're dead.

"Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them"

You have to do more than claim this. I can tell you that mathematically boyz are better at sucking down Riptide templates. That seems like a big strike right there.

" As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against "

You don't always get that choice. Your opponent gets turns, too, you know.

1: that's not an argument.

2: That's not how the unit plays best, necessarily. If you're expecting tacs to be doing that all the time, then of course they will be less effective at that than dedicated long range shooters.

3: that's why I make you play on my terms.

As for your final point, that's why you have to, you know, play well.

Edit: you don't put a tac squad in a list and think "I will use this to kill av11 vehicles." The point is that if you need them to they sure as hell can.

 Las wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
" A pod and four plasma shots the turn they come down is bad damage output?"

Yes, it is.

" it's just not as simple as "I stand here and shoot you, now on to the next unit." "

Most of the time, it is.

" baiting the enemy to play on your terms"

My terms will be killing all your units I care about and then tabling your tac marines. It's hard to obj sec when you're dead.

"Hmm, seems tac marines are better than boyz against a big majority of them"

You have to do more than claim this. I can tell you that mathematically boyz are better at sucking down Riptide templates. That seems like a big strike right there.

" As is putting tac marines up against units they'd never be up against "

You don't always get that choice. Your opponent gets turns, too, you know.

1: that's not an argument.

2: That's not how the unit plays best, necessarily. If you're expecting tacs to be doing that all the time, then of course they will be less effective at that than dedicated long range shooters.

3: that's why I make you play on my terms.

As for your final point, that's why you have to, you know, play well.

Let me just make this clear. There is no way to make me "play on your terms" with tac marines. If you have smashbane, a grav star, grav bikers, and some tac marines, those other units are making me play a certain way, not the tac marines. They are literally dead weight. You'd be better off with more bikers.

"If you're expecting tacs to be doing that all the time"

No, I just expect SOMETHING for 14pts/model, and usually get nothing. Or my opponent gets nothing which was more often the case up until now. Now BA are faced with fielding these abominations of math. Your statement also implies using tac for hth, since that's the alternative to shooting. Which they are even worse at. Can you please provide some specific examples of how to squeeze the value out of tacs?

Las wrote:Tac marines are a troop choice with more options than either of those units.

What, like the lascannon? What about taking power fist + power axe + meltabombs on the sergeant, that is an option, and more options make units better.

Also, how does having "options" help a unit that is playing on the table top? Right, it wouldn't matter at this point if you were saying some things that were correct.

niv-mizzet wrote:
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.

Yeah well that is your fault for playing any games besides just the starter set. t4 3+ is pretty ballin against cultists if they are completely alone and don't have a player controlling them in the single player intro missions from Dark Vengeance.

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

It's really sad that the reason a veteran unit is strong is that they have expensive ammo instead of skills. Too bad that bs5 bolters do not get closer to good than bs4 bolters.

 Ailaros wrote:
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.

How is the Ailarian doing these days anyway; do you have reunions with all the contributors, laden with bonhomie? Do you think if you quote yourself to yourself enough that it will create an echo across the universe that makes it seem to a casual observer like you are conducting a bona fide mutually fulfilling conversation?


RE riptides, plasma spam, and exocrines: army-wide FNP gives you a save against those guns that doesn't work against actual battle cannons or prism cannon. pay for the FNP without increasing points by going to 4+ armor save. The net is the same against small-arms, better against ap1-3, the same against ap4 if you are in 4+ cover and only partly worse against ap4 if you are not in 4+ cover.

RE lethality: marines are supposed to be good because any three of them with just small arms are supposed to be amazing. Problem: in this game small arms without special rules are pointless. Marines are good at a part of fighting that the game doesn't even include. Change the game so that firefights that happen at close range allow both sides to fire and the sides to win or lose like close combat, with morale penalties for the loser. When heavy weapons are Unwieldy and can get shot down in the very turn they try to fire, bolters become really important defensive/suppressive guns, more so because power armor can give bonuses to snap fire that regular armor doesn't.

 Ailaros wrote:
So, a tac squad is better against all vehicles of AV11+

So what? They still suck at the job, so who cares if they're better than another unit that also sucks at it? The fact that your mandatory troops that you never take more than the minimum of are slightly less of a waste than some other mandatory troops doesn't mean they're a good unit, or that you should include more than the minimum required to have a legal list.

Akiasura wrote:

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.

Objective secured?

Special weapons up front?

Akiasura wrote:
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 didn't edit what you said. You were talking about a MC in combat, and I was responding to the point you made.

If you want me to also quote the post you were responding to, then may I suggest you choose a way of responding that is less of a pain to quote.

Akiasura wrote:
Any unit would delay it, since most MC will hit on 3/4's, wound on 2's, no saves regardless of stat lines.

The difference is that many units would also run and get cut down - which can't happen to marines.

Akiasura wrote:
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).

Well, I don't think anyone suggested this as their main role.

It's just another option for them that many other units don't have access to.



Saying that, I do think GW dropped the ball when they made all units scoring. Whilst only allowing troops to score probably isn't ideal, it gave them a vital role that didn't relate to their killing power.

 vipoid wrote:
The difference is that many units would also run and get cut down - which can't happen to marines.

Note that this is a bad thing most of the time. Usually if you're in combat and can't win you want to fall back immediately so that you can shoot the enemy unit next turn instead of leaving it locked in combat (where you aren't going to kill it) and immune to shooting. Having a MSU unit that won't reliably die when it gets charged is a liability, not something to praise.

It's just another option for them that many other units don't have access to.

But who cares about options that aren't very useful? I'd much rather have a unit that doesn't have the barely-relevant option but costs fewer points.

 Peregrine wrote:

Note that this is a bad thing most of the time. Usually if you're in combat and can't win you want to fall back immediately so that you can shoot the enemy unit next turn instead of leaving it locked in combat (where you aren't going to kill it) and immune to shooting. Having a MSU unit that won't reliably die when it gets charged is a liability, not something to praise.

I thought the original idea was the marines charging the MC? In which case running would leave it free to do whatever it wants in your opponent's turn.

Or did I just got the wrong end of the stick?

 Peregrine wrote:

But who cares about options that aren't very useful? I'd much rather have a unit that doesn't have the barely-relevant option but costs fewer points.

Fair enough.

 vipoid wrote:
I thought the original idea was the marines charging the MC? In which case running would leave it free to do whatever it wants in your opponent's turn.

That makes even less sense then. Why would you voluntarily charge an MC with a few tactical marines?

 Ailaros wrote:

Akiasura wrote:Honestly, I would like you to come up with a strategy at all that doesn't consist of handwavium, but I've never been one for Christmas miracles.

A great mind understands the value of ad hominem.

I would say it's better to stay away from this considering a mod jumped in, so I'll leave this alone.

 Ailaros wrote:

Akiasura wrote:And you're strawmanning. I never mentioned the game not requiring strategy, or developing a game that doesn't. I was mocking someone saying L2P, which is a trope and doesn't add anything.

If what's wrong with tactical marines is that people are using them wrong, then it does have use.

It's especially useful when people are playing a game that requires player skill, and people are making arguments as if that's not true. A simple L2P dismisses a bunch of phony arguments.

L2P is a trope that addresses nothing. If you have a strategy that helps tacs play better, please, enlighten all of us and you'll win the debate. If you don't, continue to support L2P arguments.

 Ailaros wrote:

Akiasura wrote:How is the marine player doing something wrong when dire avengers get dropped off by a transport that pops theirs, dislodges troops that they can't avoid because they are so much slower, and get shot up?

You start by assuming that tac marines aren't designed to beat up twice their points of elite slots, and continue with taking it out of the vacuum and assuming for a moment that the space marine player knows what target prioritization is and shoots at the skimmer before it's game-changingly too late.

I am comparing them only to troops. In this case it could have been Dire Avengers in a WS, Necrons in a flyer, Tau in a fish, among a few others. Elites were never mentioned by me, please do not Strawman. Please explain how a marine squad will destroy a skimmer when it can fire 1 heavy weapon, and possibly 1 plasma shot at it before it does it's thing?

 Ailaros wrote:

Akiasura wrote:How do they avoid Tau fire when the Tau outrange the majority of their weapons?

Are you talking about all tau? Are you comparing HS riptides that are designed to kill space marines against space marines?

Or are you saying that space marines are just screwed against tau, as most infantry units in the SM codex don't have longer ranged weapons than tau. Because if you don't believe that tau are just a straight hard counter, then what you do with tac marines is what you do with the rest of your army to beat tau.

For example, by not engaging in a pointless long-range gunfight with them. Tac marines are no different than everything else in the army.

I am only comparing troops, as I stated. I never once mentioned riptides (if I did, please source and win the debate!). If you can not, please do not strawman.
I am saying that troop marines are screwed against fire warriors. Tau out range them, so you can't sit back and shoot except with one weapon. You don't want to rapid fire them, since they are cheaper and can put out serious hurt, so points wise you will lose. You are not fast enough nor have the means, outside of a landraider, to get to melee range with them.

 Ailaros wrote:

Akiasura wrote:How do you fight off equivalent amount of orks, cult troops, bikers, IG, or anything else, all from the troops sections?

Well, assuming you're not drop podding on them and wiping them out with flamers, I'd say that the space marine player, once again, shouldn't be a moron and throw unsupported tac squads into situations they're designed to lose. Assume a modicum of player skill on the marine player's part, who, if it's really that important, will shoot at them before the tac squad gets there, or will use an assault unit to disrupt.

How do you reach assault? Also, will 2 flamers really wipe out an entire unit of Orks, Cult troops, bikers, or IG?
What are you shooting at the enemies with from outside of their range, the one heavy weapon?

So your strategy is to pod in, use two flamers and rapid fire, then die? Or to combat squad, have 5 guys sit there and fire one weapon while the other 5 march up to do battle? I can't see that beating any of the enemies I mentioned in either case.

 Ailaros wrote:

If your arguments are really based on space marine players marching blindly forward with no tactics whatsoever, then your comments only apply to the circumstances where the marine player is an idiot. Indeed, if you're a bad player, then you won't get very much from tac squads, which was rather the point in the first place.

Instead of suggesting all of us are bad players, suggest a strategy that does work. I have yet to hear one.

9 pages in...

Moderator warnings ignored...

Thread closure...imminent.

 Peregrine wrote:
That makes even less sense then. Why would you voluntarily charge an MC with a few tactical marines?

To try and take off it's last wound? To keep it away from an objective for a turn?

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
That makes even less sense then. Why would you voluntarily charge an MC with a few tactical marines?

To try and take off it's last wound? To keep it away from an objective for a turn?

Better to shoot it then. As many 'attacks' as charging, but that hit on 3+ instead of (likely) 4+.

You'll be standing there with ObSec anyway, and since pretty much no MCs in the game are ObSec, you're better off trying to evade and shoot it as much as possible while staying in objective range. One round melee less means one round less attacks for the MC.

 Ashiraya wrote:

Better to shoot it then. As many 'attacks' as charging, but that hit on 3+ instead of (likely) 4+.

You'll be standing there with ObSec anyway, and since pretty much no MCs in the game are ObSec, you're better off trying to evade and shoot it as much as possible while staying in objective range. One round melee less means one round less attacks for the MC.

Good point.

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
That makes even less sense then. Why would you voluntarily charge an MC with a few tactical marines?

To try and take off it's last wound? To keep it away from an objective for a turn?

Due to a shortage of far more capable units that -should- have dealt with the problem unit, instead of leaving it to the rear eschelon.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
That makes even less sense then. Why would you voluntarily charge an MC with a few tactical marines?

To try and take off it's last wound? To keep it away from an objective for a turn?

Better to shoot it then. As many 'attacks' as charging, but that hit on 3+ instead of (likely) 4+.

You'll be standing there with ObSec anyway, and since pretty much no MCs in the game are ObSec, you're better off trying to evade and shoot it as much as possible while staying in objective range. One round melee less means one round less attacks for the MC.

Sometimes you don't have the option. This is what were saying.

 Las wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
That makes even less sense then. Why would you voluntarily charge an MC with a few tactical marines?

To try and take off it's last wound? To keep it away from an objective for a turn?

Better to shoot it then. As many 'attacks' as charging, but that hit on 3+ instead of (likely) 4+.

You'll be standing there with ObSec anyway, and since pretty much no MCs in the game are ObSec, you're better off trying to evade and shoot it as much as possible while staying in objective range. One round melee less means one round less attacks for the MC.

Sometimes you don't have the option. This is what were saying.

In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.

Granted, this is somewhat off topic. Against MC, unless a character, Orks do a good job, Eldar/De want to shoot it and do it better, Tau shoot it better, CSM cult units can lay out some pain in melee, IG light it up, Necrons do a slightly worse job, but probably ppm wise are equivalent to marines and this is the worst way to use them...most troops have more viable strategies than a marine in this situation.

It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.

A wraith lord with one wound left. Your special weapons is dead, it's on a secondary objective that you need by the end of the turn.

Akiasura wrote:

In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.

Actually, it's the other way round.

If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.

Akiasura wrote:
It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.

A depressing state of affairs for the game then.

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.

Actually, it's the other way round.

If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.

Fair point.
Though, the MC most likely wants to be in combat, and it isn't as bad for them, and it depends on how long it takes an MC to wipe a marine squad. I want to say, assuming the marines break and get charged every combat, it'll be 2-4 rounds depending on the attacks and combat ability of the MC (compare a keeper to a carnifex, for example), so it could be worth it for either side. Unless the MC is at low wounds, he'll roll over the marines though, and a squad of marines cost close to a MC, unless he's a flying MC (in which case, no combat).
Still, I hardly think a specific scenario that rarely comes up (Special and heavy weapons guy dead, charge range, 1 wound left, MC on the ground) makes a 14ppm worth it. I think marines should get relentless (Most likely make BA and SW too strong though...), or bolters get shred, or they drop to something more reasonable, like 11ppm.

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.

A depressing state of affairs for the game then.

It really is. In 3rd edition, I did not mind fighting the rhino rush with my Biel-tan eldar. Marines, even basic troops, were to be feared, and were extremely tough to take out. I enjoyed facing them, liked the fact my troops were afraid to fight them up close and had to use hit and run strategies to win.
Now the armies seem so unfluffy, with minimal troops taken, termies hardly ever used, and bikes all day every day. I play 40k because this is my favorite setting of all time, I want to see battles unfold like in the fluff.

I will say, there's been a few strong showings for DE and Nids at GTs and such in past month-ish. If those two keep showing up, IF and UM tacticals (not to mention DA) might be a strong option if the Riptide+Broadside and WS+Dires meta continues to wane.

Akiasura wrote:
Fair point.
Though, the MC most likely wants to be in combat, and it isn't as bad for them, and it depends on how long it takes an MC to wipe a marine squad. I want to say, assuming the marines break and get charged every combat, it'll be 2-4 rounds depending on the attacks and combat ability of the MC (compare a keeper to a carnifex, for example), so it could be worth it for either side. Unless the MC is at low wounds, he'll roll over the marines though, and a squad of marines cost close to a MC, unless he's a flying MC (in which case, no combat).
Still, I hardly think a specific scenario that rarely comes up (Special and heavy weapons guy dead, charge range, 1 wound left, MC on the ground) makes a 14ppm worth it. I think marines should get relentless (Most likely make BA and SW too strong though...), or bolters get shred, or they drop to something more reasonable, like 11ppm.

I don't think marines should get a point drop, honestly. It just leaves too little room in terms of units that should be cheaper.

Frankly, I think there have been far too many price-drops for units in general. We should perhaps be looking to raise prices on other units, rather than constantly dropping under-performing units. It's just not sustainable. I mean, we already have units that cost just 3pts per model, how much lower can we reasonably go?

Plus, as units get price-drops, it makes many upgrades less and less viable (suddenly you go from paying 25% of a unit's cost for a Power Fist, to paying 50% or somesuch). So, you just end up with everyone taking only the bare minimum (or badly underpriced) upgrades, and these sort of armies just feel lacking in character.

I know that raising prices is harder, as is de-escalating the game (reducing AP2 and AP3 weapons), but I think it will be much better in the long-term.

Just my 2 cents.

Akiasura wrote:
It really is. In 3rd edition, I did not mind fighting the rhino rush with my Biel-tan eldar. Marines, even basic troops, were to be feared, and were extremely tough to take out. I enjoyed facing them, liked the fact my troops were afraid to fight them up close and had to use hit and run strategies to win.
Now the armies seem so unfluffy, with minimal troops taken, termies hardly ever used, and bikes all day every day. I play 40k because this is my favorite setting of all time, I want to see battles unfold like in the fluff.

It seems like the more GW talks about narrative gaming and armies with loads of tactical marines and such, the more it alters the rules to make such armies less and less desirable.

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
Fair point.
Though, the MC most likely wants to be in combat, and it isn't as bad for them, and it depends on how long it takes an MC to wipe a marine squad. I want to say, assuming the marines break and get charged every combat, it'll be 2-4 rounds depending on the attacks and combat ability of the MC (compare a keeper to a carnifex, for example), so it could be worth it for either side. Unless the MC is at low wounds, he'll roll over the marines though, and a squad of marines cost close to a MC, unless he's a flying MC (in which case, no combat).
Still, I hardly think a specific scenario that rarely comes up (Special and heavy weapons guy dead, charge range, 1 wound left, MC on the ground) makes a 14ppm worth it. I think marines should get relentless (Most likely make BA and SW too strong though...), or bolters get shred, or they drop to something more reasonable, like 11ppm.

I don't think marines should get a point drop, honestly. It just leaves too little room in terms of units that should be cheaper.

Frankly, I think there have been far too many price-drops for units in general. We should perhaps be looking to raise prices on other units, rather than constantly dropping under-performing units. It's just not sustainable. I mean, we already have units that cost just 3pts per model, how much lower can we reasonably go?

Plus, as units get price-drops, it makes many upgrades less and less viable (suddenly you go from paying 25% of a unit's cost for a Power Fist, to paying 50% or somesuch). So, you just end up with everyone taking only the bare minimum (or badly underpriced) upgrades, and these sort of armies just feel lacking in character.

I know that raising prices is harder, as is de-escalating the game (reducing AP2 and AP3 weapons), but I think it will be much better in the long-term.

Just my 2 cents.

I would love it if everything went up in points. It would lower the cost of the game, make upgrades worth it, give more leeway in terms of costing things to make everything viable.
But they would never do that sadly. They want armies to get bigger, not smaller, and raising point costs would mean less sales.
Still, I agree with you 100% on this.

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
It really is. In 3rd edition, I did not mind fighting the rhino rush with my Biel-tan eldar. Marines, even basic troops, were to be feared, and were extremely tough to take out. I enjoyed facing them, liked the fact my troops were afraid to fight them up close and had to use hit and run strategies to win.
Now the armies seem so unfluffy, with minimal troops taken, termies hardly ever used, and bikes all day every day. I play 40k because this is my favorite setting of all time, I want to see battles unfold like in the fluff.

It seems like the more GW talks about narrative gaming and armies with loads of tactical marines and such, the more it alters the rules to make such armies less and less desirable.

They have such a large disconnect with players and how their own game operates. I remember in the 3rd edition rule book, they had a battle report between eldar and marines. The marine player just rolled over the eldar player, who had taken a horrible army list (no one took striking scorpions back then) and couldn't handle basic strategies like "don't use snipers in melee against terminators". Before playing I thought the game sounded epic, and I wanted to play the underdog, but within about 6 months of playing and reading WD it became quickly apparent that only...2?...people at GW actually knew how to play the game.

So did players. I forget the edition, but a few of them had rules that if a transport had all the exits blocked and troops couldn't be placed, all the troops inside a transport died if the transport was destroyed. It was a fluffy thing that rarely mattered unless your troops could say...teleport. Or fly.

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.

Actually, it's the other way round.

If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.

Akiasura wrote:
It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.

A depressing state of affairs for the game then.

Tac Marines have been depressing on the table top for a long time. They have been one of the worst troop options in the game since at least 3rd and from what I heard in 2nd they were even worse. It's not really a new thing for AP 2/3 to be rampant - it always has been. Sure there's more of it now because there are new weapons and armies since 3rd but that only makes tacs struggle even more than they have been struggling. Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs. Clearly GW understands tacs are really underwhelming. In terms of an easy fix - something GW should be looking for - buffing the bolter is probably the best thing to do - 2/3 salvo 24" would work nicely - then buff the SB and HB accordingly (also weapons that are really lacking). Adding relentless to the PA profile would also be an appropriate fix (I always imagine space marines would be a steadily advancing army - I can't imagine them being tied down by a heavy weapon or having walking really effect their ability to use their weapon.) I think that with relentless at their current price tactical would be fairly priced - I'd even be willing to pay a little more to get it like 16 ppm or just increase the heavy weapons costs by 5- 10 points.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.

Actually, it's the other way round.

If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.

Akiasura wrote:
It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.

A depressing state of affairs for the game then.

Tac Marines have been depressing on the table top for a long time. They have been one of the worst troop options in the game since at least 3rd and from what I heard in 2nd they were even worse. It's not really a new thing for AP 2/3 to be rampant - it always has been. Sure there's more of it now because there are new weapons and armies since 3rd but that only makes tacs struggle even more than they have been struggling. Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs. Clearly GW understands tacs are really underwhelming. In terms of an easy fix - something GW should be looking for - buffing the bolter is probably the best thing to do - 2/3 salvo 24" would work nicely - then buff the SB and HB accordingly (also weapons that are really lacking). Adding relentless to the PA profile would also be an appropriate fix (I always imagine space marines would be a steadily advancing army - I can't imagine them being tied down by a heavy weapon or having walking really effect their ability to use their weapon.) I think that with relentless at their current price tactical would be fairly priced - I'd even be willing to pay a little more to get it like 16 ppm or just increase the heavy weapons costs by 5- 10 points.

In 3rd they weren't that bad, the only army that could just roll over them was a starcannon heavy eldar list, and even that suffered considering how good the transports were. The dreaded rhino rush was a thing. I can't speak to 4th, I didn't play too much during 4th since my army went from mediocre to OP in a hurry, but by 5th...yes, they were terrible.

Salvo, relentless, shred on bolters...all those things would be fine, and are much more likely to happen over a point drop.
I wish my local group allowed house rules so I could field marines outside of grey hunters. Bikers and such just don't fit with alpha legion...and I like my horde of marines from different legions with the hydra shoulderpads to be on foot.

Akiasura wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

In what situation with the limitations provided above is charging an MC worth it?
1 wound left and in rapid fire range? Unless bolters can't hurt it, I would also think shooting does a much better job. Remember, if the marines fight in melee, break, and then get caught, the MC is now completely safe from gun fire on your turn. That...is bad.

Actually, it's the other way round.

If you're charging it and your marines break but get caught, then it's stuck fighting them in your opponent's turn.

Akiasura wrote:
It's hard to come up with situations where marines do a decent job that isn't drop pod, rapid fire, die.

A depressing state of affairs for the game then.

Tac Marines have been depressing on the table top for a long time. They have been one of the worst troop options in the game since at least 3rd and from what I heard in 2nd they were even worse. It's not really a new thing for AP 2/3 to be rampant - it always has been. Sure there's more of it now because there are new weapons and armies since 3rd but that only makes tacs struggle even more than they have been struggling. Dropping them in cost 1 ppm is a cheap joke at fixing tacs. Clearly GW understands tacs are really underwhelming. In terms of an easy fix - something GW should be looking for - buffing the bolter is probably the best thing to do - 2/3 salvo 24" would work nicely - then buff the SB and HB accordingly (also weapons that are really lacking). Adding relentless to the PA profile would also be an appropriate fix (I always imagine space marines would be a steadily advancing army - I can't imagine them being tied down by a heavy weapon or having walking really effect their ability to use their weapon.) I think that with relentless at their current price tactical would be fairly priced - I'd even be willing to pay a little more to get it like 16 ppm or just increase the heavy weapons costs by 5- 10 points.

In 3rd they weren't that bad, the only army that could just roll over them was a starcannon heavy eldar list, and even that suffered considering how good the transports were. The dreaded rhino rush was a thing. I can't speak to 4th, I didn't play too much during 4th since my army went from mediocre to OP in a hurry, but by 5th...yes, they were terrible.

Salvo, relentless, shred on bolters...all those things would be fine, and are much more likely to happen over a point drop.
I wish my local group allowed house rules so I could field marines outside of grey hunters. Bikers and such just don't fit with alpha legion...and I like my horde of marines from different legions with the hydra shoulderpads to be on foot.

Cant CSM take CCW on marines? In a few editions they were able to. I really couldn't tell you because I haven't seen a CSM is ages. All chaos is daemons with psychic shenanigans. CCW marines with a rhino could at least serve a purpose.