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.

 Tenzilla wrote:
So your problem with bolter and tac marines is that you cant butcher other marines with a bolter the way that bolter butcher lesser troops?

how are lasguns in anyway better then bolters? or 2 guardsmen better then a space marine?

You are not making fair comparisons here....the necron warrior has one advantage to a space marine...where the space marine is superior in every other way....and you pay for it....

I absolutely am making fair comparisons.

"Lesser" troops often have more effective support systems around them which prevent the boltguns from getting within range. Boltguns can not harm said support systems, and so the net result is that boltguns are worthless in those matchups. My marines are never going to boltgun the guardsmen to death before their heavy weapons have laid waste to my list.

Lasguns aren't better, but the price per wound fielded is better. Guardsmen are better at soaking scatterlaser fire and guardsmen in cover are better at soaking everything that doesn't ignore cover. And cover is free, last time I checked.

The necron warrior has but one advantage, yes, but that advantage makes it worth fielding over a tac marine. The tac marine is superior in ways that don't matter. I can kill a LR or even an IK with Necron warriors. Tac marines have zero chance. That's the only advantage that matters in 7th. Not grenades. Not WS. Not Init. Not ATSKNF. Shooting. That is what the game is now.

I disagree. I think a necron warrior is in many ways better than a tac marine. Twice as durable, their guns can wound anything, same range, characters buff their durability, good transport options for their role, base LD10, and their RP lets guys who should be dead swing in the combat they died in.

In what way is a space marine superior?

Martel732 wrote:


I absolutely am making fair comparisons.

"Lesser" troops often have more effective support systems around them which prevent the boltguns from getting within range. Boltguns can not harm said support systems, and so the net result is that boltguns are worthless in those matchups. My marines are never going to boltgun the guardsmen to death before their heavy weapons have laid waste to my list.

Absolutely not fair comparisons. You are comparing a unit of tac marines.....to what I assume is an entire gun line...


Where are your support systems? My cheaper wounds wound 17% easier and save 50% less...


Take a drop pod....take a librarian, a land raider allies whatever......you have support options. point for point Sm are superior to most other troops that is the bottom line...if you have trouble fielding them with positive results that is not because they are underpowered...

Where are your support systems? My cheaper wounds wound 17% easier and save 50% less...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

AncientSkarbrand wrote:
I disagree. I think a necron warrior is in many ways better than a tac marine. Twice as durable, their guns can wound anything, same range, characters buff their durability, good transport options for their role, base LD10, and their RP lets guys who should be dead swing in the combat they died in.

In what way is a space marine superior?

Not twice as durable......Ld 10 can be chalked up to ATSKNF...buff are outside the scope of troops, as well as transports...the one advantage is the ability to hurt nearly anything.

TBH I feel (and I am quite biased on this point, but still) that the best thing that could happen to Tactical Marines would be upping the ease of getting into melee, because that way one would actually get to use the relatively superior melee prowess that one's paying for.

Marine support systems for the most part are awful. There is the crutch thst is the drop pod and then bikes and cents. Everything built off a rhino hull sucks because s6 high rof is a thing.

Furthermore your analyses aren't factoring in points cost or cover. Its fine. Many players have to be shown why tacs suck, they cant be told.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
TBH I feel (and I am quite biased on this point, but still) that the best thing that could happen to Tactical Marines would be upping the ease of getting into melee, because that way one would actually get to use the relatively superior melee prowess that one's paying for.

But tacs are bad in melee.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The efficacy of marines is completely predicated on a handful of tricks, formations, and a fw psyker. Take those away and you have blood angels. Arguably the second worst list in the game.

If the grandiose claims about tacs were true, blood angels wouldnt be nigh unplayable.

Martel732 wrote:
Marine support systems for the most part are awful. There is the crutch thst is the drop pod and then bikes and cents. Everything built off a rhino hull sucks because s6 high rof is a thing.

Furthermore your analyses aren't factoring in points cost or cover. Its fine. Many players have to be shown why tacs suck, they cant be told.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
TBH I feel (and I am quite biased on this point, but still) that the best thing that could happen to Tactical Marines would be upping the ease of getting into melee, because that way one would actually get to use the relatively superior melee prowess that one's paying for.

But tacs are bad in melee.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
The efficacy of marines is completely predicated on a handful of tricks, formations, and a fw psyker. Take those away and you have blood angels. Arguably the second worst list in the game.

If the grandiose claims about tacs were true, blood angels wouldnt be nigh unplayable.

Again I never said tacs were competetive. OR balanced. I said point for point compared to other troop choices...they are superior, you are the one who is not taking point into consideration....you are saying guardsmen are better.....because of the long range firepower....which is hardly the case with plain guards men...perhaps you dont know what the stat line of a marine vs a guardsman is? 4 is better than 3....3+ is better than 5+ AP5 is better than Ap -......Hands down.....and that is why marines are more expensive.....Next we may be giving terminators 3 or 4 wounds because they cost so many points and the ease of access to AP 2 weapons??

You are acting like tacs are the bees knees. They are in practice awful. Guardsmen have the huge advantage of not pretending to be something they are not.

130 points of guards men...PCS 2 IS 25 total fellas....
140 points of Tac marines...

Outside of rapidfire range...mathematically IG are lucky to kill 1 marine....

Marines will kill on average 3-4 guardsmen a turn..

Sounds like the marines are the better of the 2...less than half the bodies doing 4 times the damage...

Why can you not see how it boils down to the individual unit and their stats?

Units are not created to interact the same with every other unit in the game...you have to look at the smaller picture. Unit by unit basis, not Tac squad vs. stompa IT doesnt work that way....

I understand your point completely that they are underwhelming in the face of other units...but you cannot dismiss the reasons they are what they are..

 Tenzilla wrote:
130 points of guards men...PCS 2 IS 25 total fellas....
140 points of Tac marines...

Outside of rapidfire range...mathematically IG are lucky to kill 1 marine....

Marines will kill on average 3-4 guardsmen a turn..

Sounds like the marines are the better of the 2...less than half the bodies doing 4 times the damage...

Why can you not see how it boils down to the individual unit and their stats?

Units are not created to interact the same with every other unit in the game...you have to look at the smaller picture. Unit by unit basis, not Tac squad vs. stompa IT doesnt work that way....

I understand your point completely that they are underwhelming in the face of other units...but you cannot dismiss the reasons they are what they are..

I'm looking at the big picture vs all possible matchups, not as guardsmen vs marines. Marines are ironically at a sweet spot against guardsmen. Against many other foes, however, the guardsmen are far more point efficient.

" IT doesnt work that way.... "

It absolutely does work that way in an actual game. That's the problem. Tac squads get ignored because they can't cause significant damage to units I care about. When I play IG, I don't care about my infantry anyway, because I know they will die. They're priced to die. That makes them predictable and actually easier to use.

I'm dismissing them because I'd rather pay 5 pts/model to die than 14 pts/mode to die.

I mean come on, tac squads aren't even good at killing IG heavy weapon teams because they are always bubblewrapped, always have cover fromt the guardmen in front of them and the marines can't physically reach double tap range because of all the guardmen in the way.

And those Lasguns get in range of your "squishy" stuff more easily?

TFC. Droppod. Tiggy. Conclave. Skyhammer.

IG isn't the only faction with support options. AV12 front armor may beat AV11, but AV11 side armor and 35 pts are very strong factors too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shuriken Catapults, Avenger versions, Splinter Rifles, Lasguns, shooty gaunts, autoguns. All as bad or worse at popping transports as boltguns.

Only Necrons and Tau do better.

"And those Lasguns get in range of your "squishy" stuff more easily? "

No, they are just paying fewer points to accomplish nothing. Tac marines are paying a lot of points for the illusion of efficacy, while having virtually none in the current reality of 7th ed. Naked guard squads are much better at soaking any assaults that get through than tac marines. Of course, more assaults get through against standard marine lists because the firepower of a traditional marine list is terrible in 7th ed.

In a game of scatbikes and WKs, I wouldn't count on lasguns generating a single wound anymore. They are just a cheaper tax than tac squads.

"TFC. Droppod. Tiggy. Conclave. Skyhammer. "

Funny I don't see any of those except drop pod for BA. If tac squads were all that, BA should be fine. Right? Right?!

 Tenzilla wrote:
Like i said...designed to kill, I dont try to use my lasguns to kill MCs....IF a bolter is underpowered what is a slugga/lasgun/splinter rifle etc etc

Sluggas are cheap and a pistol (thus useful in melee)
Lasguns are cheap
Splinter rifles ignore the armor of many T3 units, and they're fantastic at hurting high toughness units. Against marines, they're on par with bolters, and that's probably when they're at their least effective. I am quite happy with my splinter weapons.

To continue, pulse rifles are longer ranged, can threaten light vehicles pretty well, and come on cheaper-than-marine-or-else-twin-linked platforms.
Gauss rifles are threatening to a wider variety of vehicles and some MCs (though not reliable against the latter)
Dire Avenger Shuriken Catapults can be fired the same turn you assault and have a chance to pseudo-rend.
Kroot weapons can potentially do precision shots that pseudo-rend.
Shootas use Ork Ballistics Skill.

I don't generally agree with Martel, but he's not wrong about bolters being unimpressive. They're worse in every way to pulse and gauss rifles. They have extremely niche advantages over avenger catapults (which are better in most regards). They do outperform a small number of basic infantry weapons, but the models with those weapons are generally quite a bit cheaper, which would be less of an issue if bolters were always helpful (see below).

They also prevent you from assaulting and don't do a thing against the vehicle your plasma/meltagun and krak grenade are shooting at, so it's easy for them to either get in your way (preventing assaults) or be useless (unable to hurt vehicles).

Personally, I'd rather like to see bolters become 12" assault 2 and 24" heavy 3. It would give you a small boost in firepower if you gave up your mobility (thus making them something of a threat to, say, incoming orks). It would also let you shoot two shots and still assault thus bringing more of the marine's advantages that he's paying for to bear. Currently, a marine that shoots his bolter is giving up the ability to hide in close combat afterwards. With an assault bolter, you still aren't doing a ton of damage with just your shooting, but you have the option of assaulting the target unit to benefit from your higher strength and initiative and any melee weapons you put on your sargeant. Assault 2 plus a charge basically means that you're getting 4 strength 4 attacks in a single turn with a normal marine, which is actually pretty alright. Especially since it lets you avoid being shot at on the following turn (provided melee continues).

Naked min Tac marines: 70pts
Naked min DAvenger unit: 65pts
Naked min Guardian unit: 90pts
Naked min Necron Warrior unit: 120? Pts?

Of course the Avenger Shuriken Catapult is stronger than the Boltgun. They trade t4 3+ s4 krak frag and the ability to take special and/or heavy weapoms for BF and to upgrade from the Boltgun to that weapon. It certainly should be better.

Of course the Gauss is better, sometimes. A few less points for the same survivability (exactly the same for most weapons, a little better for some, and a lot worse for others), no access to special/heavy weapons, no grenades, and substantially worse CC ability. It certainly shouldn't be worse!

Of course the pulse rifle is better. They're Tau. Fire Warriors. Their two strengths are firepower at range, and ranged firepower. Its all they are.

Splinter Rifle is a different beast. There is a gakton of different T3 models out there, with all kinds of saves. Regardless of saves, as they have the same AP as Boltguns, they do worse v any T3 target than boltguns. The same to T4. But better vs anything T5+. They sure do seem better, in large part because nobody fields elitest T3 models (watch Warrior/Venom spam vs Swordwind sometime - its hilarious!). Because they get their asses kicked by Tac Marines. Tac Marines may not be top of the stack, but they are certainly above so much else that is also not top of the stack. The strength of Splinter is because everyone takes things that Boltguns suck against. Hardened targets. Which are either high T, which splinter rocks, or mid/high AV, that Boltguns can't touch.

There are standard issue weapons that are better than Boltguns, but only a few of them, and they generally pay for them. The problem is that everyone fields hard targets, against which most small arms are ineffective. The problem isn't unique to Boltguns.

All that crap except the 3+ save that other people are giving up for better guns is functionally useless for tacs in 7th ed. S4, WS, greandes, bolt pistol, and ATSKNF are basically worthless on a battlefield where I'm being cut to pieces before I can get to assault. Or I'm forced to assault WKs.

". Tac Marines may not be top of the stack, but they are certainly above so much else that is also not top of the stack"

A nice sentiment, but functionally irrelevant.

" The problem isn't unique to Boltguns"

Except Gauss, bladestorm, and splinter give those weapons efficacy against this strategy. Marine players are left with many models that are purely a tax.

" Because they get their asses kicked by Tac Marines"

I don't think that's the reason.

The bolter is definatly the "standard" that other weapons are weighed against. Be it fire warrior rifles, necron gauss, splinter rifles, shuriken catapults whatever racial gun "they" get is always a "flavour" away from "bolt gun effectiveness" usually with a "topping" to add to the flavour to make them better is some respects.

This has definately made the bolt gun less useful.

Personally if they made bolt guns ifnore cover that would be enough. And maybe gave tacticals +1A as a combat doctrine

I really think that the game needs further granulation in order to give the boltgun and marines in general a proper mathematical niche. 40k has reached the limit of what can be done with D6 and a stat line that ranges from 2-5 typically. The only thing keeping marines off the scrap heap are things that people hate, and certainly none of the canonical marine units.

If Shuriken Catapults (Avenger or otherwise), Splinter Rifles, Gauss Blasters were really that amazing, they'd be a lot more common.

If they were a lot more common, their counters - Boltguns and Heavy Bolters - would be a lot better.

At the end of the day, Tac Marines may not be competitive, but they can do an amazing job of countering most other troops. Especially troops with the aforementioned "Boltgun +1" weapons.

Bharring wrote:
If Shuriken Catapults (Avenger or otherwise), Splinter Rifles, Gauss Blasters were really that amazing, they'd be a lot more common.

If they were a lot more common, their counters - Boltguns and Heavy Bolters - would be a lot better.

At the end of the day, Tac Marines may not be competitive, but they can do an amazing job of countering most other troops. Especially troops with the aforementioned "Boltgun +1" weapons.

You used the word tac marine and amazing in the same sentence. Now I know you are talking gibberish.

Again, if tac marines were so good, BA would be doing great. We can even give them FNP! /snark

I never claimed that bolters +1 were AMAZING, the units with those weapons are just harder to turn into a pure tax.

Sometimes I really don't get you, Martel.

I claim that Marines aren't competitive, but they are better than many other things. You point out that this is incorrect because BA aren't top dog by just fielding tacs. How does that follow? I am *explicitly* not claiming Tacs are OP.

Also, please read a sentence that contains words before assuming everything that is said is gibberish, just because two words are in the sentence. By the same token, wouldn't you necessarily regard your own posts as gibberish?

"I am *explicitly* not claiming Tacs are OP. "

But you are providing scenarios for their usefulness that just don't occur on real tables. Tac marines are one of the worst taxes in the game, imo.

"Also, please read a sentence that contains words before assuming everything that is said is gibberish"

That was sarcasm. Although the idea of tac marines being amazing at anything is pretty laughable.

" How does that follow?"

Not directly, but basically every unit the BA (not grav bikers) can field is a failure on some level. This is apparent due to their position in the codex pecking order. Tac marines are one of those units.

If their usefulness "doesn't occur on real tables", how do you think things lower in the pecking order feel?

A 5man Tac Marine squad with a Lascannon is much cheaper and much better at AT potshots in the back than 10 Guardians with a Brightlance. So why are Guardians a better tax? And no, the Guardians are *not* more survivable per point vs the vast majority of firepower.

Just because Guardsmen come in at 5ppm naked, and Dire Avengers can come in squads of 5, doesn't mean everyone can pay 25 points for Troops aside from Marines.

Marines are expensive. If you want a min tax unit, there are scouts (or other codexes). If you want them to do something, they certainly can do things better than most troops per points.

Shoot TEQs? A Plas squad outperforms Necron Warriors, Kalabites, Guardians, and Wyches easily. DAs do a little better per pt.
Shoot GEQs? Almost any Tac squad outperforms Guardians, Wyches, and Dire Avengers. Give them a flamethrower or even the crappy Heavy Bolter, and they're outperforming Necron Warriors and Kalabites easily.
Popping vehicles? Laughably better than DAs, Guardians, Kalabites, and Wyches. Depending on kit and target, can also be much better than Necron Warriors.
Assault? Beat the pants off almost any non-Assault unit in the game. Doesn't 3 Marines wipe 10+ DA, Guardians, Kalabites, or Guardsmen with ease, if they can make it in?
Survive? Well, Marines lose to Guardsmen per point. When shot with s6+. But when taking small arms? Or even with Scatter Lasers, Marines lose fewer points per shot than DAs, Guardians, Kalabites, Wyches,*Orks* if not in cover. That 3+ actually does a lot. The T4 does too, against small arms. An S4 shot kills exactly *twice* as many DAs or Fire Warriors as it does Marines. Marines really are much more survivable, especially when not everything is s6+ and ap3- at the same time. Necron Warriors and Guardsmen might be more survivable to the big guns, but in both cases that's their schtic.

So, if you want to actually use Marines, they may not be competitive, but they can still outperform most other troops in the game.

If you just want to minimize your troops, though, why use Marines at all. You could go Scouts (55pts min tax vs 51 for CWE or 54 for Tau), but really you're an IK player without the models.

Marines are one of very many troops that aren't competitive. But they beat almost everything else on that list. And having all the things you're best at killing also not be competitive certainly doesn't make you more competitive.

"why use Marines at all."

Why indeed. To get Skyhammer and gravstars, of course.

"But they beat almost everything else on that list. "

Only when properly equipped. And only when that equipment is tailored to the situation. A situation you don't know about ahead of time, usually. And that equipment costs additional points.

Equipping tac marines is like a shell game that you usually can't win. I've leaned toward melta, but that's certainly not a universally good choice.

I'm not sure that a melta tac squad is "much better" than a squad of Necron warriors because of the AP 1 nerf.

You left off MCs. I assume this was an oversight, but splinter and bladestorm are quite nice against MCs, and don't require expensive upgrade weapons.

" But when taking small arms? "

What are these small arms you speak of? Who uses them anymore?

"So why are Guardians a better tax?"

I'd never use foot guardians, but I'd say pseudo rending is a pretty good answer.

And you forgot the most important comparison: scatterbikes. The troop by which all others are judged.

Yeah. Shuriken, Pulse, and Splinter both outperform Bolt when it comes to MCs. Gauss too, but only for T8+.

Another way of looking at it:
When shooting a Dreadknight, a Boltgun has, even en masse, a nearly zero chance of doing anything. A Shuriken round has twice the odds, but are still boned.
Conversely, in CC, the weilder of the shuriken has a nearly zero chance of doing anything. The Boltgun user has a three times nearly zero chance (assuming no Furious Charge, or any CC weapons.

Neither are a good solution, even if one is better than the other.

Now Splinter weapons *are* great against MCs. That's the one place they excel.

(Marines don't need to be "properly equipped" to beat most of those. Give a Malta gun to Tacs and they still slaughter Wyches. Give a Plasma to Tacs, and they still do damage to GEQs. Give a Flamer to Tacs and they can still whoop almost any vehicle that wanders too close. Better numbers by picking the right tool, but tend to be better vs secondary targets with the wrong tool than most other units.)

Ever play Kill Team Martel?

How do Tacs perform?

Yoyoyo wrote:
Ever play Kill Team Martel?

How do Tacs perform?

Nope. I can't imagine they are very good at that, either, though.

Scatterbikes dominate Kill Team.

In terms of troops that is.

If Scatterbikes are the scale upon which we measure, sure Tacs are bad, but why focus on them instead of the piles of other troops that are so much worse, especially against Scatterbikes?

(Not that Scatterbikes are the right place to balance at.)

And aside from Scatterbikes?

I get what you're saying, but that's going to affect every troop in the game, not just Tacs.

Bharring wrote:
If Scatterbikes are the scale upon which we measure, sure Tacs are bad, but why focus on them instead of the piles of other troops that are so much worse, especially against Scatterbikes?

(Not that Scatterbikes are the right place to balance at.)

I focus on them because that's what I go up against. A lot.

I meant why focus on buffing Tacs as opposed to buffing units that lose to Tacs and lose harder to scatterbikes than Tacs.