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 difference between 1.5 and 2.5 may only be 1, but its also 66% more.
That DA that's losing 66% more from your Plas squad (or 100% more from a naked Boltgun squad) costs exactly as much as a CSM.

Sure, guard are substantially cheaper than CSM, but 1.5 Guardians, Kalabites, Corsairs, Harlequins, or Pathfinders all cost more than a Marine.

A competitive setting is where Tacs don't do well, but 90% of the units in the game don't do well there. This is why there are two wildly different, but both effectively correct opinions. Tags don't often do well in competitive environments, but they still do well against or compared to a lot - I'd guess 80% - of the units in the game.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Wait, why doesn't cover matter? SLs don't ignore cover.

Unless you mean it's because of the number of shots a Scatbike unit get's, in which case that 3+ still causes more marines to survive than a 4+, 5+ or 6+ would.

It's the problem that the marines can't hurt the scatterbikes back.

90% of the game is less capable of hurting ScatterBikes than Marines.

Martel732 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Wait, why doesn't cover matter? SLs don't ignore cover.

Unless you mean it's because of the number of shots a Scatbike unit get's, in which case that 3+ still causes more marines to survive than a 4+, 5+ or 6+ would.

It's the problem that the marines can't hurt the scatterbikes back.

Perhaps the problem is scatbikes rather than Marines?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Wait, why doesn't cover matter? SLs don't ignore cover.

Unless you mean it's because of the number of shots a Scatbike unit get's, in which case that 3+ still causes more marines to survive than a 4+, 5+ or 6+ would.

It's the problem that the marines can't hurt the scatterbikes back.

Perhaps the problem is scatbikes rather than Marines?

No, because tacs have had the same problem for a long time. They really can't get enemy models off the table. If you use them as back field scoring units, they aren't really contributing and your list gets torn apart piecemeal. They become a turn 4 or 5 casualty during the tabling process.

"- I'd guess 80% - of the units in the game."

The 80% that don't typically get used.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Wait, why doesn't cover matter? SLs don't ignore cover.

Unless you mean it's because of the number of shots a Scatbike unit get's, in which case that 3+ still causes more marines to survive than a 4+, 5+ or 6+ would.

It's the problem that the marines can't hurt the scatterbikes back.

Perhaps the problem is scatbikes rather than Marines?

No, because tacs have had the same problem for a long time. They really can't get enemy models off the table. If you use them as back field scoring units, they aren't really contributing and your list gets torn apart piecemeal. They become a turn 4 or 5 casualty during the tabling process.

I don't think that problem stems from a 3+ save, that's for sure. I know I'very had my tank company bum-rushed by foot Marines (including Tacticals) with one unit of DSing terminatora - Tactical Squads are certainly capable of removing Leman Russ battletanks from the table!

I once faced an IG list with 29 plasma guns. There was no bum rushing that list with tacs. Certainly in 5th, tac based lists were just leafblowered off the table. In 2nd, they died in place to CSM, Eldar, and Tyranids.

'I don't think that problem stems from a 3+ save, that's for sure"

The problem makes the 3+ look bad, because Eldar can remove half an enemy list in one turn of shooting. You don't even get to exploit Eldar "fragility" because they've killed you before you can even get into position to hurt them. Marines have to suck up turn after turn of the enemy list in a high-functioning state by default.,

Akiasura wrote:

Which is why you see basic marines taken so often in Chaos, yes?

CSM are a special case - they are in a codex so flawed that is nerfs itself on a turn-by-turn basis.

If Eldar are removing half your army from ScatterBikes in one round, they are killing 75%+ of many other armies in the same round.

Marines have to suck up the firepower, and don't have the numbers to do it. How do you think all the forces that are *worse* at sucking up that firepower feel?

The 3+ may not be enough for Marines to beat Scatter Bike spam, but its more - per point even - than many other armies get. And those other armies are often no better or worse at killing said bikes.

" How do you think all the forces that are *worse* at sucking up that firepower feel? "

Most lists have far more firepower than a non-grav cent marine list. Marines firepower problems really began to surface in 5th and they have only tangentially addressed the issue by making new "must have" models for space marines.

Note that BA even have access to FNP and it still doesn't change the outcome a slight bit. Durability in this game is overrated compared to remove models as a general rule. You have to get to TWC or Wraiths before durability becomes a thing.

A Silver Tide isn't going to put nearly as much, if any, firepower into Scatter Bikes T1, and are only marginally more survivable vs Scatter Bike spam.

A Green Tide style list actually loses more points per SL fired at it than Tac Marines, and puts less dakka out too.

A Swordwind list will do nearly as much damage as a foot PA-heavy SM list, but dies much, much faster. And most units have shorter range.

A Spirit Host style list has little that shoots past 12". So they may be a little more survivable per pt (3x the SL shots/casualty, but 32ppm+), but are certainly doing less damage to the Bikes.

Ubercompetitive armies - the type that only care about winning - will typically do better than SM Tacs (almost always), but that is only a small amount of options in this game. The majority of options do quite a lot *worse* than SM Tacs against Scatter Bikes. That 3+ really helps them there.

Foot PA-heavy armies don't have the greatest firepower, but are very, very durable compared to most other armies out there.

Martel732 wrote:
" How do you think all the forces that are *worse* at sucking up that firepower feel? "

Most lists have far more firepower than a non-grav cent marine list. Marines firepower problems really began to surface in 5th and they have only tangentially addressed the issue by making new "must have" models for space marines.

Note that BA even have access to FNP and it still doesn't change the outcome a slight bit. Durability in this game is overrated compared to remove models as a general rule. You have to get to TWC or Wraiths before durability becomes a thing.

The problem is that this lists with more firepower certainly don't have more firepower after losing 75% of their army to scatbikes. Then they are in the same boat as marines, except without the durability to last even past the next enemy shooting phase.

With regard to tacticals not being great, I think they're reflective of much bigger problems with the game in general:

1) Non-specialists are worthless. A lot of units these days - and troops in particular - tend to consist of '1 useful guy with a meltagun/plasmagun' and '4-10 ablative wounds that contribute nothing to the game'.

See, back in 5th, every army had to contain at least some infantry. So, even against mechanised list, bolters, lasguns and such still fulfilled a useful role by killing infantry once transports were cracked open. And, even that was a worst-case scenario - since you could easily have infantry that weren't in transports.

Nowadays, armies can (and frequently do) contain no infantry whatsoever. You can easily have whole armies that are outright immune to bolters and lasguns (along with most other small-arms fire). This is a horrible situation for a game to be in at all, but is even worse when it comes to troops. Elites and such can usually have (or come close to) 1:1 special weapons, but most troops are stuck with 1:5 or similarly inefficient ratios.

2) Troops frequently bring nothing to the table, other than inefficient firepower.

Once again, let's remember back in 5th, when only troops could score. You can argue that it's not the most elegant solution, but it served its purpose - it made troops useful in a way that had nothing to do with their statline or weapons. You were free to take minimal troops, but then you could only capture 2 objectives.

Nowadays, everything can score, meaning there's no reason to take troops (unless, of course, they have statlines and weapons that Fast Attack units would kill for - looking at you, Eldar...). The only reason to take them is as a tax to unlock one of the super-formations.

Troops should be fulfilling a core role, they should be important to every army - not a tax you have to pay before you're allowed to take anything good or useful.

 Selym wrote:
I think you're missing the point that a 3+ save is better than a 4+ or 5+ cover save, that T4 is better than T3, and that when the anti-tank weapons get pointed at you, you're still entitled to jump into that very same cover.

You're not listening again.
3+ is good, but not when you have to pay so much for it, especially when. Units that cost less can camp in cover and be more survival for the cost. 3 Guardsmen in cover for a 4+ cover save is more durable than 1 Marine with a 3+ Armor save or 4+ Cover save.

I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp. If you played in a competitive setting maybe you'd get it.

 vipoid wrote:
With regard to tacticals not being great, I think they're reflective of much bigger problems with the game in general:

1) Non-specialists are worthless. A lot of units these days - and troops in particular - tend to consist of '1 useful guy with a meltagun/plasmagun' and '4-10 ablative wounds that contribute nothing to the game'.

See, back in 5th, every army had to contain at least some infantry. So, even against mechanised list, bolters, lasguns and such still fulfilled a useful role by killing infantry once transports were cracked open. And, even that was a worst-case scenario - since you could easily have infantry that weren't in transports.

Nowadays, armies can (and frequently do) contain no infantry whatsoever. You can easily have whole armies that are outright immune to bolters and lasguns (along with most other small-arms fire). This is a horrible situation for a game to be in at all, but is even worse when it comes to troops. Elites and such can usually have (or come close to) 1:1 special weapons, but most troops are stuck with 1:5 or similarly inefficient ratios.

2) Troops frequently bring nothing to the table, other than inefficient firepower.

Once again, let's remember back in 5th, when only troops could score. You can argue that it's not the most elegant solution, but it served its purpose - it made troops useful in a way that had nothing to do with their statline or weapons. You were free to take minimal troops, but then you could only capture 2 objectives.

Nowadays, everything can score, meaning there's no reason to take troops (unless, of course, they have statlines and weapons that Fast Attack units would kill for - looking at you, Eldar...). The only reason to take them is as a tax to unlock one of the super-formations.

Troops should be fulfilling a core role, they should be important to every army - not a tax you have to pay before you're allowed to take anything good or useful.

Armies that can be outright immune to lasguns and bolters have existed since the Armored Company list appeared in 3rd Edition - the current problem isn't the fault of things being immune to bolters.

2 DAs in cover is more durable than 1 Marine. But cost twice as much.

Guardians, Kalabites, Fire Warriors, Necron Warriors. Not all units without a 3+ are cheap horde units. Marines outlast most of those in 5+ cover per point easily.

That's whats so hard to grasp. Why Guardsmen, a unit who's biggest strength is soaking fire by dying, being cheaper/wound than Marines suddenly means Marines pay too much for that 3+.

-Players won't take infantry because vehicles = better
-Make upper limit of vehicles based on multiple factors (call it resource problems)
-Suddenly horde mode engaged

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Selym wrote:
I think you're missing the point that a 3+ save is better than a 4+ or 5+ cover save, that T4 is better than T3, and that when the anti-tank weapons get pointed at you, you're still entitled to jump into that very same cover.

You're not listening again.
3+ is good, but not when you have to pay so much for it, especially when. Units that cost less can camp in cover and be more survival for the cost. 3 Guardsmen in cover for a 4+ cover save is more durable than 1 Marine with a 3+ Armor save or 4+ Cover save.

I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp. If you played in a competitive setting maybe you'd get it.

How much do you think Marines pay for PA? A guardsman in CA with a Bolter and Krak Grenades is 9.5 points. That means 4.5 points buys you ATSKNF, +1 WS, +1S, +1 T, +1 LD, Chapter Tactics, a Bolt Pistol and a 3+ save.

If you assigned even a -single point- to all those options, Marines should be 17.5 points, which means some of them are free (or valued at less than a point and rounded down). So the PA save may not be what marines are paying for.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How much do you think Marines pay for PA? A guardsman in CA with a Bolter and Krak Grenades is 9.5 points. That means 4.5 points buys you ATSKNF, +1 WS, +1S, +1 T, +1 LD, Chapter Tactics, a Bolt Pistol and a 3+ save.

If you assigned even a -single point- to all those options, Marines should be 17.5 points, which means some of them are free (or valued at less than a point and rounded down). So the PA save may not be what marines are paying for.

Coincidentally, 17.5pts was about what marines cost in 5th.

Extrapolating from the maths that a SM is worth 17.5 pts via upgrading, and that they are currently seen to be overcosted at 14 points, we can learn that the superior forces are undercosted.

 Selym wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Which is why you see basic marines taken so often in Chaos, yes?

CSM are a special case - they are in a codex so flawed that is nerfs itself on a turn-by-turn basis.

What you are saying makes zero sense.
In CSM, you have two troop choices without unlocks.

Cultists. These are worse than guardsmen, and cost roughly the same.
Marines. On release, these were comparable to imperial marines since they got 2 specials and could drop the useless CCW for a point decrease. New chapter tactics have made imperials better however.

So in the only codex with MEQ and GEQ available, and in a dex that arguably had better MEQ than imperials (not including wolves and knights), and worse GEQ by far than imperials,
you still saw GEQ taken
Granted, this is because you want them holding a backfield objective and not fighting (either unit), and GEQ are better at this. They are better, point for point, at soaking wounds.



@ Bharring,
The point wasn't who loses more. That was not part of the original discussion.
The point was someone claimed that marines had fire power that was "effective against most targets". I then looked into how much damage they do in their most typical loadouts and determined that it would take about 3-4 rounds of rapid fire to earn their points back. Without suffering casualties. This is, quite frankly, absurd.

To compare, dire avengers will do thus to marines
10 dire avengers
13.2 hits, 4.4 wounds, 2.2 rending wounds, 3.7 wounds. Inside of cover, this becomes ~3 (2.9? I'm doing this in my head).
Keep in mind I didn't take the exarch into the equation, who is far better than a sarge.
Eldar also get battlefocus.
So, without any buffs, DA need about 3 rounds of shooting against marines to earn their points back. They will beat marines in a fire fight as well, since the marines will only be able to get 1 shot against them most of the time.

So, Dire avengers do more wounds then marines do in a fire exchange, and are faster. If the targets are TEQ equivalent, point wise DA pull ahead even more in efficiency.
Take all this, and then realize that you do not even see DA in competitive armies. Eldar also have access to amazing support abilities (re-rolling to wound does a lot for their damage due to rending).

Really? Let's see.
Against GEQ.

DAs do:
Less than CSM at 18-24" (can't shoot).
Double CSM at 12-18" (both S4 AP5, but assault 2.
Exactly as much damage as CSM at 0-12".
33% less than CSM in CC.

So, if it takes X rounds for CSM to make back their points, unless you're in a very specific 6" range, CSM are as good or better. In some cases, incomparably better.

So a naked CSM kills 2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) Guardsmen assuming 5+ cover. That's 16/27.

13 (CSM/DA) = (16/27)(5)(t)
T= 4.3 rounds for CSM or DA to make their points back shooting Guardsmen

13 = (16/27)(9)(t) Guardians
T = 2.4 rounds. Much better. But still the same for both CSM and DAs.

And those are naked CSM.

(An Exarch, for shooting, is 10pts for a +25% chance to hit. When looking at shooting, its effects are minimal.)

Finally, the numbers for killing Termies:
Assuming 5 CSM with 2 PG:
2x2x(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) = 40/27
3x2x(2/3)(1/2)(1/6) = 1/3
= 49/27 dead Termies/round

Assuming 7 DAs to match cost:
7x2x(2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 28/27 AP2 kills
7x2x(2/3)(1/3)(1/6) = 14/27 ap5 kills
= 42/27 kills

Unless my math is off, doesn't that make Plasma CSM squads *better* at killing Termies?

Not sure if CSM can take the 2nd PG below 10, but alternately that could be a CombiPlas on the Sarge instead.

To add insult to injury, DAs die *twice* as fast to Boltgun shots as CSM.

further, they get destroyed in CC by almost anything, whereas CSM beat most units in CC.

Finally, DA firepower goes down in exact proportion with losses. Plas-toting CSM, though, keep the bulk of their firepower (plasma guns) until the last few models die.

So CSM do put out about the firepower DAs do. While being much, much more survivable. So they certainly aren't paying through the nose for that 3+.

Why are Cultists taken over CSM when the player needs a blob to sit in the backfield? Because Cultist are a GEQ blob, and priced that way. First, not all GEQs are blob-priced. Secondly, the role you're describing calls for cheapos, not elites. So of course using the elite for that role isn't the best idea.

The real problem is that DA ride around in WS and marines in a rhino. So the direct match up never really matters. The DA will hangout and wait for the rest of the Eldar list to slaughter everything on the marine side (from which the 3+ does NOT save them) and then hop out and claim victory.

The REAL issue here is that marines never deviate much from a tac marine. Devs are tac marines with heavy weapons. Assault marines (who are jokes) are just tac marines with a knife and a worse gun. Just as the tac marine really can't carry out their mission, tac marine derivatives are also to be shunned and never used.

Most of the best marine units are the ones that significantly deviate from the tac marine and marine traditional weapons. These include the Grav cent and TFC. Other good marine units like Sternguard actually make the boltgun useful instead of a liability.

These direct comparisons are not very useful to a get true measure of a unit's worth. Marine transports will be slaughtered by Eldar firepower, stranding the entire army for a turkey shoot, OR the marines go all-in on drop pods and have one whole shooting turn before the Eldar all move away and resume the turkey shoot.

Why is it a turkey shoot? Marine ranged options are largely very inefficient, which is the real problem, not 3+. It just makes 3+ seem useless because the end result is the same.

If you think shooting Tacs after popping their transport is a turkey shoot, you should try shooting DAs after popping theirs. Or Kalabites. Or Fire Warriors. Or IG Vets.

The t4 3+ makes it much less of a turkey shoot. Again, those without a 3+ are worse in the exact situation you imagine puts Tacs at the bottom of the totem pole.

Bharring wrote:
If you think shooting Tacs after popping their transport is a turkey shoot, you should try shooting DAs after popping theirs. Or Kalabites. Or Fire Warriors. Or IG Vets.

The t4 3+ makes it much less of a turkey shoot. Again, those without a 3+ are worse in the exact situation you imagine puts Tacs at the bottom of the totem pole.

The difference is that the marines can't pop the WS. That's a huge, huge, difference. The WS crushes marine transports and then cripples the marines for an easy mop up. 3+ doesn't help. Having real weapons would. It's all coming back to offense and the marines' lack thereof.

Yes, tacs have an advantage in a magical world where no one is meched up and there are no enemy massed heavy weapons.

I guess my bottom line is that if it's a model worth fielding in the first place, 3+ armor is great. Scatterbikes are my exhibit A for this. They'd be good at 4+ or 5+ armor, but 3+ just makes them that much better. Tac marines are defined by their armor and little else. This used to work out back in 3rd and 4th, but doesn't work anymore. Tacs aren't worth fielding to begin with, and the 3+ just delays their inevitable demise to superior mobility and firepower.

Tacs are an expensive way to kill nothing and accomplish nothing in 7th ed. Obviously, free transports changes a lot because that's free HP for the Eldar to scrub away before they get to the units you actually paid for.

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
If you think shooting Tacs after popping their transport is a turkey shoot, you should try shooting DAs after popping theirs. Or Kalabites. Or Fire Warriors. Or IG Vets.

The t4 3+ makes it much less of a turkey shoot. Again, those without a 3+ are worse in the exact situation you imagine puts Tacs at the bottom of the totem pole.

The difference is that the marines can't pop the WS. That's a huge, huge, difference. The WS crushes marine transports and then cripples the marines for an easy mop up. 3+ doesn't help. Having real weapons would. It's all coming back to offense and the marines' lack thereof.

Yes, tacs have an advantage in a magical world where no one is meched up and there are no enemy massed heavy weapons.

I guess my bottom line is that if it's a model worth fielding in the first place, 3+ armor is great. Scatterbikes are my exhibit A for this. They'd be good at 4+ or 5+ armor, but 3+ just makes them that much better. Tac marines are defined by their armor and little else. This used to work out back in 3rd and 4th, but doesn't work anymore. Tacs aren't worth fielding to begin with, and the 3+ just delays their inevitable demise to superior mobility and firepower.

Tacs are an expensive way to kill nothing and accomplish nothing in 7th ed. Obviously, free transports changes a lot because that's free HP for the Eldar to scrub away before they get to the units you actually paid for.

Wait so in this scenario the problem is the Rhino vs WS matchup, which pits a 35 pt tank against a 120pt tank.

And that makes Tactical Marines bad.

Okay.

A Tac squad has a very low chance of of dropping a Serpent in one round of shooting its front/side armor.

DAs have exactly 0 chance of hurting a Rhino on front/side armor.

And SM don't have that much trouble dropping a Raider or Venom.

So is the argument that 3+s suck because there exists transports that aren't free kills for Tac squads? That is quite a lot of jumps.

Bharring wrote:
A Tac squad has a very low chance of of dropping a Serpent in one round of shooting its front/side armor.

DAs have exactly 0 chance of hurting a Rhino on front/side armor.

And SM don't have that much trouble dropping a Raider or Venom.

So is the argument that 3+s suck because there exists transports that aren't free kills for Tac squads? That is quite a lot of jumps.

I never said 3+'s suck. As I said, on a unit that's worth taking without a 3+, it's great. But on a unit where that's the only redeeming feature? Not so useful.

Before the gladius, every tac-heavy list has been a walkover. What does that tell you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
If you think shooting Tacs after popping their transport is a turkey shoot, you should try shooting DAs after popping theirs. Or Kalabites. Or Fire Warriors. Or IG Vets.

The t4 3+ makes it much less of a turkey shoot. Again, those without a 3+ are worse in the exact situation you imagine puts Tacs at the bottom of the totem pole.

The difference is that the marines can't pop the WS. That's a huge, huge, difference. The WS crushes marine transports and then cripples the marines for an easy mop up. 3+ doesn't help. Having real weapons would. It's all coming back to offense and the marines' lack thereof.

Yes, tacs have an advantage in a magical world where no one is meched up and there are no enemy massed heavy weapons.

I guess my bottom line is that if it's a model worth fielding in the first place, 3+ armor is great. Scatterbikes are my exhibit A for this. They'd be good at 4+ or 5+ armor, but 3+ just makes them that much better. Tac marines are defined by their armor and little else. This used to work out back in 3rd and 4th, but doesn't work anymore. Tacs aren't worth fielding to begin with, and the 3+ just delays their inevitable demise to superior mobility and firepower.

Tacs are an expensive way to kill nothing and accomplish nothing in 7th ed. Obviously, free transports changes a lot because that's free HP for the Eldar to scrub away before they get to the units you actually paid for.

Wait so in this scenario the problem is the Rhino vs WS matchup, which pits a 35 pt tank against a 120pt tank.

And that makes Tactical Marines bad.

Okay.

Tac marines have been worthless since 5th. If you didn't mech them up. IG just leafblowered them off the table. It would help tacs immensely if other lists couldn't mech up or take heavy weapons, but alas they can.

Just how much of the game would you consider useless? Everything but the items in the top list in the game?

Bharring wrote:
Just how much of the game would you consider useless? Everything but the items in the top list in the game?

At this point, pretty much. That's the way the game plays, anyway. It's a bit hard to tell, because nothing the BA have is even in the top 25%.