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.

The argument is that, because the ROF is so high, it can ignore the 3+ by overwhelming it.

I don't agree that it ignores the 3+ just because it overwhelms it.

Bharring wrote:
The argument is that, because the ROF is so high, it can ignore the 3+ by overwhelming it.

I don't agree that it ignores the 3+ just because it overwhelms it.

The end effect is same. No, it doesn't ignore the 3+, it just makes it irrelevant. Is that supposed to make marine players feel better?

"And this is where your argument falls down. Just like DecuriCrons/SerpentSpam/Triptide/Gravstar before it, you are using the most anomalously imbalanced units as a measuring stick for the whole game, which is the completely backwards way of looking at it."

In competitive events, people and entities are measured against the best. Michael Jordan. Jack Nicklaus. Joe Montana. Real Madrid. The standards are set by the best in an event, not some magical middling ground. These anomalous units ARE the measuring stick since they are legal for play and your opponent doesn't have to agree to not use them in a competitive setting. And this a war game with a winner and loser; it IS competitive. Forge the narrative is a lame excuse for crap rules.

"A codex/unit/model that can't handle the exploitation of the most imbalanced units around is not automatically bad"

That's the definition of bad in a competitive setting. And that's why the BA, in practice, are just as bad as the DA and Orks.

"Tacticals are a great tool"

This has not been true since 3rd, even in "friendly" games. Maybe in 4th, I didn't play it. But absolutely false in 5th ed and beyond.

"Melta will reliably bust tanks,"

Not in 7th. Do the math.

all threads become eldar jetbike threads this week :(

it's understandable, they really are that bad.

axisofentropy wrote:
all threads become eldar jetbike threads this week :(

it's understandable, they really are that bad.

The 6th ed Eldar codex already had too much access to cheap, reliable, and durable scatterlasers. It's a scatterlaser thing, not a jetbike thing. The jetbikes just make it beyond the pale.

Martel732 wrote:

In competitive events, people and entities are measured against the best. Michael Jordan. Jack Nicklaus. Joe Montana. Real Madrid. The standards are set by the best in an event, not some magical middling ground. These anomalous units ARE the measuring stick since they are legal for play and your opponent doesn't have to agree to not use them in a competitive setting. And this a war game with a winner and loser; it IS competitive. Forge the narrative is a lame excuse for crap rules.

"A codex/unit/model that can't handle the exploitation of the most imbalanced units around is not automatically bad"

That's the definition of bad in a competitive setting. And that's why the BA, in practice, are just as bad as the DA and Orks.

If the title of the thread was 'are Tactical Squads the best in the game', and the OP was looking to win a Grand Tournament, everything you are saying would be valid and I wouldn't be arguing. However, the question instead is "I have these Tactical Marines, how do I use them?", and it's reasonable to assume the OP is playing in a more reasonable meta, rather than one that is out only to win and to exploit the game however they can (I accept your meta seems to be like this, but most aren't).

When the question is 'how do I use unit X', 'don't' is never a helpful answer.

The title actually asks if they are worth it. I'm making the argument that they are not. Scouts seem to be a better source of obj sec because of their cheaper cost per wound.

I throw two in every Space Marine list. I keep them cheap, give them a rhino, and move towards objectives as quickly as I can.

They never live, though. If they could take 2x heavy or 2x special weapons, then they'd be 2x more useful to me. I'd park 10 on an objective with a pair of missile launchers. no problem!

They'd still die, though.

Tactical marines are only worth it in one scenario.

When you actually form a list around them.

I've been playing drop pod ultra marines with Calgar. realistically it's the drop pods I'm winning with but dropping 5 drop pods on turn 1 in a 1850 is pretty hard to lose with. ESP when I'm twin linked most the game or at least re rolling 1's. Not Everything has AP3 or less - with a strong alpha - they should lose some important things and you should control the game going forward.

Martel732 wrote:

axisofentropy wrote:
all threads become eldar jetbike threads this week :(

it's understandable, they really are that bad.

The 6th ed Eldar codex already had too much access to cheap, reliable, and durable scatterlasers. It's a scatterlaser thing, not a jetbike thing. The jetbikes just make it beyond the pale.

In all honesty I've since come to the conclusion that the only way to fight Eldar on an even footing is to roll the 30K-era Taghmata list.

Since that gives you T5/3W/4+/6+ FNP Jet Pack Infantry as Compulsory troops, that can DS in with S7/Rending basic guns, and take MMs, Plasma Fusils (3 S6/AP3 shots @ 24"), or Photon Thrusters (2 S6/Ap2 shots @ 48" w/ Lance+Gets Hot). And you can take T7/3+ armor MCs as non-Compulsory troops, and said giant robits are armed with an S6/AP3 gun that spits 3 shots @ 24" with Pinning.

And that's just Troops- the amount of durability (and S6/AP3 shooting) that you get out of a Taghmata list is insane- For example, Lootas that roll 3 shots with their Deffguns can only kill around two Thallax (the T5/3W/4+/6+++ dudes) in a single turn- and that's if the Thallax stand in the open like gormless idiots.

Oh, and said Thallax? They have a rule that reduces cover saves by -2. Jinking Wave Serpents never died so fast.

But alas, it's a 30K list, and thus requires FW gubbins. So it can be yours, all for the low low price of a kidney, half your liver, and the soul of your firstborn child

So is it not worth it for me to be a software dev, because there exist better software devs elsewhere?

With that logic, only one thing fits any given question. What a hellish, dull world.

Bharring wrote:
So is it not worth it for me to be a software dev, because there exist better software devs elsewhere?

With that logic, only one thing fits any given question. What a hellish, dull world.

This seems to be a sideways defense of this change. Please tell me I'm wrong.

What change? Tacs haven't had their rules changed lately.

Bharring wrote:
What change? Tacs haven't had their rules changed lately.

Wrong thread, sorry. And yes, using tac marines for the majority of the last 20 years has been a dull, hellish world.

So to answer the meta question.
In my area it's a full on mix, IG, Nids, Eldar, Marines, Chaos, Deamons, Crons you name it. Only about two tourney rats and everyone else is just there to have fun.

So Martel I see your point, but I will at most be running into one Eldar player and frankly if they just spam broken units I have the ultimate solution.

I play someone else.

LunaWolvesLoyalist wrote:
So to answer the meta question.
In my area it's a full on mix, IG, Nids, Eldar, Marines, Chaos, Deamons, Crons you name it. Only about two tourney rats and everyone else is just there to have fun.

So Martel I see your point, but I will at most be running into one Eldar player and frankly if they just spam broken units I have the ultimate solution.

I play someone else.

We use a blind draw for opponents so no one can avoid lists they don't like. So that's where I'm coming from.

I got you man. For what it's worth I'm sorry your stuck in such a competitive area.

LunaWolvesLoyalist wrote:
I got you man. For what it's worth I'm sorry your stuck in such a competitive area.

I like competition. But... mostly fair ones.

 raiden wrote:
Tactical marines are only worth it in one scenario.

When you actually form a list around them.

Yes and no. I wouldn't say you have to form a list around them, but you have to be smart. You can't just throw em in and go, like you can with other troops (Fire Warriors, Ork Boys, Scouts)

Martel732 wrote:


This has not been true since 3rd, even in "friendly" games. Maybe in 4th, I didn't play it. But absolutely false in 5th ed and beyond.

For the record, one of the best marine lists in 4th was a heavy tac squad list (multiple 6 man squads with las/plas and as many assault cannons as you could take).


IMO, If you want to play tacs, play drop pods. Personally the times I do play 40K at this point I go ahead and stack tacticals in rhinos, but I gave up on competitive 40K 3 editions ago. 7th's tournament scene is hysterical.

nobody wrote:

Martel732 wrote:


This has not been true since 3rd, even in "friendly" games. Maybe in 4th, I didn't play it. But absolutely false in 5th ed and beyond.

For the record, one of the best marine lists in 4th was a heavy tac squad list (multiple 6 man squads with las/plas and as many assault cannons as you could take).


IMO, If you want to play tacs, play drop pods. Personally the times I do play 40K at this point I go ahead and stack tacticals in rhinos, but I gave up on competitive 40K 3 editions ago. 7th's tournament scene is hysterical.

Yep. Safer delivery, better armor all around, board control, ability to flank the enemy, all for the same points cost.

LunaWolvesLoyalist wrote:
tourney rats

HAH good one!