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.

Bolters need changed because they are awful in 7th ed. Every marine player does everything they can to avoid tac squads but still stay bound usually. That's because tac squads can't shoot and can't fight. They rightly should cost even less than they do to match their in-game efficacy.

Martel732 wrote:
Bolters need changed because they are awful in 7th ed. Every marine player does everything they can to avoid tac squads but still stay bound usually. That's because tac squads can't shoot and can't fight. They rightly should cost even less than they do to match their in-game efficacy.

idk what you're talking about tac squads are frigging awesome shots

you just ain't doin it right

 j31c3n wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Bolters need changed because they are awful in 7th ed. Every marine player does everything they can to avoid tac squads but still stay bound usually. That's because tac squads can't shoot and can't fight. They rightly should cost even less than they do to match their in-game efficacy.

idk what you're talking about tac squads are frigging awesome shots

you just ain't doin it right

No, I can assure you that your opponents aren't doing it right. I've been using marines since 1994 and tac squads have always sucked hard. Even my BA can wipe up tac-heavy lists easily. They have no killing power. And can't fight back in CC.

maybe your expectation of their performance is too high

 j31c3n wrote:
maybe your expectation of their performance is too high

What? To accomplish SOMETHING? Kill SOMETHING before they get loled off the table by scatterlasers?

I'm often facing an entire field of units that they can't even really hurt. They're one of the game's biggest jokes, especially fluff-wise.

Martel732 wrote:

 j31c3n wrote:
maybe your expectation of their performance is too high

What? To accomplish SOMETHING? Kill SOMETHING before they get loled off the table by scatterlasers?

Don't engage scatterlaser jetbikes with a tactical squad. They have their function, but you have to remember the crunch and don't think of the fluff. Fluff is about veterans, captains, and Primarchs. This is just an average tactical marine.

I don't get the choice of what to engage because the scatterbikes are so fast. They choose with their 36" range. That's part of the problem. And because Imperial heavy weapons aren't very good, I can't really kill them well at 36". And they are faster than jump troops/fast tanks. So yeah....

Well average tactical marines need to be cheaper, because they are dead weight on the table top. Especially for the damn BA. What are we supposed to do with these slow ass losers?

I have to agree with Martel here. At wargames con I was running a battle company with doctrines and everything. I couldn't kill jack. I was literally winning by abusing the "billion obsec units" portion of the battle company and dog piling on objectives against people that weren't expecting it. Game 1 I killed a contemptor dread with some of the few melta I have, and killed 2 of his marines out of a command squad with 4 squads all firing in. I literally did no other damage.

They mostly played defensively thinking that I could do damage if they just carelessly approached. I, in fact, could not. It's still just rank and file marines. Only with free razorbacks/drop pods do they start to become decent for their cost.

When playing as my BA, I ONLY use tacticals for a heavy flamer drop squad, if I use one. My mandatory troops are almost always scouts.

I keep looking for the stim button with marines. And expecting a medivac to come in out of reserves. Because then tac squads might be worthwhile. But the mighty Astartes can't even rise to the level of intergalactic rednecks in power armor. I'm not sure how anyone who gives the fluff any credence can even play this game. Because marines don't just fail to live up to the fluff, they are BAD units unless they have add-on gizmos like special issue ammo or centurion suits.

 j31c3n wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 j31c3n wrote:
maybe your expectation of their performance is too high

What? To accomplish SOMETHING? Kill SOMETHING before they get loled off the table by scatterlasers?

Don't engage scatterlaser jetbikes with a tactical squad. They have their function, but you have to remember the crunch and don't think of the fluff. Fluff is about veterans, captains, and Primarchs. This is just an average tactical marine.

Your opponent deploys a firebase cadre (riptide + broadsides all with interceptor,) wraithknight, some packs of scatbikes, some farseers on bikes, and has flamer-D wraithguard waiting in no-scatter deep strike reserve with a wwp dark eldar archon. (And 5 kabalite warriors going to ground on his far-rear objective.)

Where do you "use" the tactical marines against this? Any podding marines get murdered by intercept, many held at range get scatlasered, any in close get stomped by a wraithknight, and any holding back are about to eat a fistful of str D dice. If the mission is kill points, you may as well just pack up and wait for next round.

One scatbike is 27 points. 2 tactical marines is 28 points. Name a target where you would rather have the two marines shooting than the scatbike, assuming you use them to their full capability. (IE the scatbike doesn't stupidly approach closer than he has to etc.)

niv-mizzet wrote:

 j31c3n wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 j31c3n wrote:
maybe your expectation of their performance is too high

What? To accomplish SOMETHING? Kill SOMETHING before they get loled off the table by scatterlasers?

Don't engage scatterlaser jetbikes with a tactical squad. They have their function, but you have to remember the crunch and don't think of the fluff. Fluff is about veterans, captains, and Primarchs. This is just an average tactical marine.

Your opponent deploys a firebase cadre (riptide + broadsides all with interceptor,) wraithknight, some packs of scatbikes, some farseers on bikes, and has flamer-D wraithguard waiting in no-scatter deep strike reserve with a wwp dark eldar archon. (And 5 kabalite warriors going to ground on his far-rear objective.)

Where do you "use" the tactical marines against this? Any podding marines get murdered by intercept, many held at range get scatlasered, any in close get stomped by a wraithknight, and any holding back are about to eat a fistful of str D dice. If the mission is kill points, you may as well just pack up and wait for next round.

One scatbike is 27 points. 2 tactical marines is 28 points. Name a target where you would rather have the two marines shooting than the scatbike, assuming you use them to their full capability. (IE the scatbike doesn't stupidly approach closer than he has to etc.)

That's why I said his opponents are doing it wrong. Like how Bharring is always doing math of tac marines against footdar. I never see footdar, so such comparisons are useless to me. Eldar players would be nuts to field footdar with scat bikes available to them.

Not everyone plays in a tournament meta infested with WAAC players.

 j31c3n wrote:
Not everyone plays in a tournament meta infested with WAAC players.

So tactical marines are good when my opponents aren't trying to win? That's so comforting. That's the very definition of a bad unit.

Newsflash: it's not WAAC to field legal options that turn tac squads into road pizza.

It's not my fault that your meta sucks the fun out of your gameplay, dude. No amount of buffs to tactical marines will change that.

 j31c3n wrote:
It's not my fault that your meta sucks the fun out of your gameplay, dude. No amount of buffs to tactical marines will change that.

Patently untrue. If BA were competitive, there would be no problems on my end. It sucks losing because my plastic soldiers don't roll as many dice as the other plastic soldiers. I wouldn't want to play in a meta where people don't try. If you are having success with tac squads, your opponents are intentionally or unintentionally throwing the game to you.

S: 4 AP: 5 Assault 3 Shred 24". There. Happy Bolting.

Well, then have fun with your underperforming tactical squads then, you have chosen that.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
S: 4 AP: 5 Assault 3 Shred 24". There. Happy Bolting.

Scouts come with bolters, too.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
S: 4 AP: 5 Assault 3 Shred 24". There. Happy Bolting.

Better take this down before Bharring sees it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Well, then have fun with your underperforming tactical squads then, you have chosen that."

What did I choose again? The only choice I made was BA back in 1994.

Martel732 wrote:
I keep looking for the stim button with marines. And expecting a medivac to come in out of reserves. Because then tac squads might be worthwhile. But the mighty Astartes can't even rise to the level of intergalactic rednecks in power armor. I'm not sure how anyone who gives the fluff any credence can even play this game. Because marines don't just fail to live up to the fluff, they are BAD units unless they have add-on gizmos like special issue ammo or centurion suits.

Not much in the game itself lives up to actual fluff. It's impossible. If they made the game hold up to fluff, the game would be even dumber than it is now and armies would likely be a lot stricter in build, or less interesting or fun to play at all. If the game fit the fluff, my Waaaaagh would consist of so many models, I'd need several tables to fit them all on board, and according to fluff, I'd likely lose to two squads of Tac Marines and a Chapter Master because 'boys in blue'.

Forget fluff. It doesn't work for game play mechanics that well, as much as we wish it could.

Melevolence wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I keep looking for the stim button with marines. And expecting a medivac to come in out of reserves. Because then tac squads might be worthwhile. But the mighty Astartes can't even rise to the level of intergalactic rednecks in power armor. I'm not sure how anyone who gives the fluff any credence can even play this game. Because marines don't just fail to live up to the fluff, they are BAD units unless they have add-on gizmos like special issue ammo or centurion suits.

Not much in the game itself lives up to actual fluff. It's impossible. If they made the game hold up to fluff, the game would be even dumber than it is now and armies would likely be a lot stricter in build, or less interesting or fun to play at all. If the game fit the fluff, my Waaaaagh would consist of so many models, I'd need several tables to fit them all on board, and according to fluff, I'd likely lose to two squads of Tac Marines and a Chapter Master because 'boys in blue'.

Forget fluff. It doesn't work for game play mechanics that well, as much as we wish it could.

I get that, but it's still stupid to have the poster boy unit for the game suck in the game. It's 2nd ed all over again. They are embarassingly bad compared to space-elves riding fancy motorbikes

Martel732 wrote:

Melevolence wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I keep looking for the stim button with marines. And expecting a medivac to come in out of reserves. Because then tac squads might be worthwhile. But the mighty Astartes can't even rise to the level of intergalactic rednecks in power armor. I'm not sure how anyone who gives the fluff any credence can even play this game. Because marines don't just fail to live up to the fluff, they are BAD units unless they have add-on gizmos like special issue ammo or centurion suits.

Not much in the game itself lives up to actual fluff. It's impossible. If they made the game hold up to fluff, the game would be even dumber than it is now and armies would likely be a lot stricter in build, or less interesting or fun to play at all. If the game fit the fluff, my Waaaaagh would consist of so many models, I'd need several tables to fit them all on board, and according to fluff, I'd likely lose to two squads of Tac Marines and a Chapter Master because 'boys in blue'.

Forget fluff. It doesn't work for game play mechanics that well, as much as we wish it could.

I get that, but it's still stupid to have the poster boy unit for the game suck in the game. It's 2nd ed all over again.

As much as I hate to admit it, having so many different playable factions (And a lack of dedicated rules writers) causes a lot of this issue. It's easier to make a tighter game when there are less factions to balance against, or when you're trying to make each faction feel so unique and not 'copy paste but with different models'. Honestly, I'd hate to be a rules writer for GW. Because no matter what you do, you'll open a can of worms.

If they actually got a single set of rules writers, and not have a single person head the rules writing for the books (Make it a group effort), then things would likely be better, still feel close to fluff without being over the top for any one army.

Yeah, you think it sucks that your Tac Marines die easy? I'm still annoyed my Warboss gets gimped to even the most basic of enemies because of poor written rules and a lack of worthwhile armor and a total absence of invuls. When that Warboss is supposed to be the most powerful single body on the field, but can just keel over to a Sargent? Really game? Really?

But again...it's a game. And a game with dice. Dice give no feths about fluff.

Actually their rate of dying is not so bad is their lack of dealing death in return. Given the resources put into the training and fielding of these guys, no one would fear them at all the way the game models them. They are like British tanks in WWII: good armor, but very undergunned. Not a good combination.

I realize there are many other bad units in the game, I'm just not as intimately familiar with them as the tactical marine.

It sounds to me like you might want to play an Unbound list with Pedro Kantor and a couple squads of Sternguard or something.

 j31c3n wrote:
It sounds to me like you might want to play an Unbound list with Pedro Kantor and a couple squads of Sternguard or something.

Yeah.... Pedro's not a BA. The other Astartes chapters need something for their tacs as well, not just vanilla marines. Even the once-dreaded grey hunters are looking mighty weak now as the importance of assault has decreased. Counter attack is pretty weak when everyone's plan A is to shoot them off the table.

Blacksails wrote:They could change them by dialing everything back.

Good minute or so of laughter at that one.

Personally, my 'ideal update' for Bolt Weapons would be "Wound anything on a 6 regardless of Toughness", as a counterpart to the Gauss "Glance anything on a 6 regardless of armour" to represent that what bolters are really good at is putting big, messy holes in things that would otherwise ignore tiny bullet holes outright.

problem with tatical squads is they're the gold standard of 40k.

everything is compared to them. and everyone plans around space Marines. you could give tac marines 2++ saves and S10 bolt guns, and people'd simply plan around that. this also factors into why Marine fluff is the way it is, they're more often then not dealing with traitor guard and Orks. both of which space Marines can useally handle

 j31c3n wrote:
Not everyone plays in a tournament meta infested with WAAC players.

I used to eat marine based lists with cc carnifexes in 5th or warriors and genestealers in early 6th. Seeing tac marines or termies heavy army on the other end of the table is a guaranted win for me. They're tragic and fold even before mediocore lists, it's the rest of the codex that saves the day.

Shred relentless and split fire at once would make them just ok imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:

Blacksails wrote:They could change them by dialing everything back.

Good minute or so of laughter at that one.

Personally, my 'ideal update' for Bolt Weapons would be "Wound anything on a 6 regardless of Toughness", as a counterpart to the Gauss "Glance anything on a 6 regardless of armour" to represent that what bolters are really good at is putting big, messy holes in things that would otherwise ignore tiny bullet holes outright.

That sounds good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chmcclellan wrote:
Off the top of my head:

+1 S - The easy option, PsyBolts in the prior GK codex were key in making shooty marines more effective. Likewise, people wanted to play heavy bolter razorbacks.

"Bolt"- A new special rule, mini rending. To wound roles of 6 are AP 2 or 3 and armor penetration roles of 6 are resolved at +1, +d2 or +2 Strength.

Either would make them better against heavy infantry and a threat against light armor - what you really want out of a gun that shoots exploding bolts.

That bolt rule sounds good too, nerfed rending though even full rending would be ok with point adjustment imo.

 Blacksails wrote:
They could change them by dialing everything back.

If only.