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.

Yoyoyo wrote:
And aside from Scatterbikes?

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

There's more to it though. If we expand the picture a bit, the Eldar troops unlock Wave Serpents. What do marines unlock? Tanks easily hull pointed out by scatter bikes. Granted, vanilla marines can get FREE transports. This leaves SW and BA tacs in the cold.

So the Wave Serpent the DAs unlocked is twice as hard for the Scatter Bikes to kill as a Rhino, but costs 3-4 times as much.

The Devilfish is twice as hard on the front, just as hard on the side, but just as hard on the side. For more than double.

The Raider is easier for the Bikes to kill, but still more expensive.

The Chimera is twice as hard to kill on the front, half again as easy to kill on the side. Costs a bunch more than a Rhino, too.

"Tacs are worse cause the Rhino is crap" forgets that the Rhino is 35pts.

Bharring wrote:
So the Wave Serpent the DAs unlocked is twice as hard for the Scatter Bikes to kill as a Rhino, but costs 3-4 times as much.

The Devilfish is twice as hard on the front, just as hard on the side, but just as hard on the side. For more than double.

The Raider is easier for the Bikes to kill, but still more expensive.

The Chimera is twice as hard to kill on the front, half again as easy to kill on the side. Costs a bunch more than a Rhino, too.

"Tacs are worse cause the Rhino is crap" forgets that the Rhino is 35pts.

But the WS is actually quite hard for marines to kill. Ideally, an Eldar list wouldn't bother with DA, guardians, or WS. Pure scatterbikes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I don't tacs buffed, because there is no mathematical niche for them. I'd prefer if they were just gone at this point. Move bikes out of fast attack and make them troops for astartes marines. Bikes as troops works for Eldar, right?

Guess what the following can do to a Rhino:
Guardians
Dire Avengers
Kalabites
Wyches
Guardsmen
?

Absolutely nothing.

Sure, naked Tacs have only a small chance of popping a Serpent outside CC, but that's still loads better than most troops shooting at a Rhino.

Bharring wrote:
Guess what the following can do to a Rhino:
Guardians
Dire Avengers
Kalabites
Wyches
Guardsmen
?

Absolutely nothing.

Sure, naked Tacs have only a small chance of popping a Serpent outside CC, but that's still loads better than most troops shooting at a Rhino.

They're still not even close to worth their points in an actual game. Again, DA and guardians are totally replaced by scatbikes. Scatbikes lay waste to even IK. Which is actually pretty amusing if it weren't so sad.

I'd certainly settle for just getting rid of tacs and replacing them with bikers at this point. Grav biker troops are certainly fair compared to scatbikes.

So wouldn't DAs and Guardians need a buff before Marines then, if they're worse than Tacs?

(Assuming we wanted to buff Marines to Scatter Bike levels)

Bharring wrote:
So wouldn't DAs and Guardians need a buff before Marines then, if they're worse than Tacs?

(Assuming we wanted to buff Marines to Scatter Bike levels)

I'm still not super sold they are actually worse than tacs in practice. The Eldar codex already has access to scatterbikes, so they should be last on the list for buffs. And I repeat that I'm not advocating for buffs for tactical marines other than maybe a points drop. A side effect of tac marines being terrible is that the crappiness is propagated down to assault marines and devastator marines. All squads that are basically garbage in 7th ed. None of the best marine units are based off the base marine anymore for a good reason.

By that token, IoM factions have access to Skyhammer. So do Xeno and Chaos factions (CtA isn't so bad for deep strikers).

That's a terrible answer.

Bharring wrote:
By that token, IoM factions have access to Skyhammer. So do Xeno and Chaos factions (CtA isn't so bad for deep strikers).

That's a terrible answer.

If you say so. I'm admittedly very, very bitter about the Eldar codex and the thought of buffing anything else in that book makes my stomach turn. The Eldar already have the two best units in the game. Everything else is almost academic after that.

The long list of advantages you claim tacs have don't ever seem to manifest in actual games for some reason, either. Funny that.

You have your explanations, and I have games going back to 1994. Tacs were good in 3rd and 4th. Useless in all other editions for various and sundry reasons.

Tell that to Wyches? Or Carbine Fire Warriors?

Bharring wrote:
Tell that to Wyches? Or Carbine Fire Warriors?

No one uses those units, so it's a moot point. Being useful against non-units isn't a strength. A unit has to be useful against things people actually use.

No, but maybe Terminators?

What makes Wyches non units, but not Tacs?

 Lord Corellia wrote:
No, but maybe Terminators?

What about terminators? They are one of the few marine units actually WORSE than tac marines.

My advice. Consider "fluff" marines and "tabletop" marines as seperate enteties for the purposes of evaluation. The former is as they're supposed to be in that universe. The latter is what they're reduced to in order to make a practically playable tabletop game:

And for the purposes of the game, that's a good thing.1 marine is quoted to be the equal of a hundred human soldiers. So imagine if their stats represented that. 5000 guardsmen would be needed to fight 50 marines. Not too appealing, and probably unfun.

I've often thought about what their stats would be. Somethign like this:
WS5 BS5 S5 T5 W2 I4 A2 LD9 Save 2+ on a D20! Bolters would be S5 Rapid fire bullet hoses

Bharring wrote:
What makes Wyches non units, but not Tacs?

I suppose the sheer number of marine players that still trot out tactical squads/GH. Lack of better choices for the marines. With the 5th ed BA codex, I never used tac squads, so they became a non-unit for me. When given a real alternative, I never use tac squads.

Martel732 wrote:

 Lord Corellia wrote:
No, but maybe Terminators?

What about terminators? They are one of the few marine units actually WORSE than tac marines.

They could maybe do with T5 and 2 wounds. Mostly though, their damage output is too high and their weapons are mismatched (gun with pretty good range and an expensive cc weapon)

 Lord Corellia wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Lord Corellia wrote:
No, but maybe Terminators?

What about terminators? They are one of the few marine units actually WORSE than tac marines.

They could maybe do with T5 and 2 wounds. Mostly though, their damage output is too high and their weapons are mismatched (gun with pretty good range and an expensive cc weapon)

Did you mean damage output was too low? Their durability sucks for the points as well.

I'm still sticking with the idea that this problem can't be fixed without additional granularity and a lot more play testing.

Martel732 wrote:
Did you mean damage output was too low? Their durability sucks for the points as well.

I'm still sticking with the idea that this problem can't be fixed without additional granularity and a lot more play testing.

D'oh, yeah I meant "isn't too high" lol. Part of the problem is that somehow GW figure a stormbolter should be 5 pts. Then there's the fact that everyone has a power fist. I think someone worked it out either here or in another thread that they basically pay 10pts for that, and it's overkill to have 5 in a squad. Not only that, it makes them all swing last meaning they'll always be hit.

Yeah, terminators have a lot of problems.

 thegreatchimp wrote:
My advice. Consider "fluff" marines and "tabletop" marines as seperate enteties for the purposes of evaluation. The former is as they're supposed to be in that universe. The latter is what they're reduced to in order to make a practically playable tabletop game:

And for the purposes of the game, that's a good thing.1 marine is quoted to be the equal of a hundred human soldiers. So imagine if their stats represented that. 5000 guardsmen would be needed to fight 50 marines. Not too appealing, and probably unfun.

I've often thought about what their stats would be. Somethign like this:
WS5 BS5 S5 T5 W2 I4 A2 LD9 Save 2+ on a D20! Bolters would be S5 Rapid fire bullet hoses

Agreed. I spent a lot of work trying to make them fit in, but in order to make Avatars and Gretchin fit in the same game while keeping it fluffy, the D6 system breaks incredibly fast.

So we'll have a game where the Avatar is surprisingly likely (not likely, but surprisingly non-unlikely) to be beaten by Conscripts in melee, because that game functions.

...Well, functions somewhat, anyway.

I recommend the RPGs for those who want to immerse themselves in some more granularity and stats that match the background.

I think there can be an argument for changing the stats for the basic Marine. These are my two cents... T5 and 2W would be a good way to go, but I think it should be due to their equipment rather than their bodies. My proposal is to have Powered armor increase the toughness by 1 and grant an extra wound in the process. So sisters of battle would also benefit from this same rule. Scouts would be T4 and 1W. You could then change the bolt weapon rules a little to reflect their superior killing power. Still S4 AP5, but each failed save against them would grant 2 wounds (due to the round exploding in the target) or maybe two saves are taken against bolt weapons... Treat the Marines as T4 for double strength weapons (so the armor does not improve their survivability there, just against weaker weapons) and the situation is resolved. Chaos Marines can instant kill Imperial Marines and vice versa. I would also add that Chainswords should be AP 5, and that a SM smacking someone with their bolter or fist should be AP 6. Charge 30-40 points per Marine, and have fluffier Marines.... That may have come out wrong... Then again, I think there are many changes to the SM codex that would make them more entertaining- then again I liked the 4th edition codex's create your own chapter stuff, which is where I would take it if it were me... Just saying... Now you guys can tel me I'm an idiot...

I was reading through and I noticed that someone claimed that the Imperial Guard had better troops than the Marines.

Just a reminder but three sections of Guardsmen (30 soldiers, 150 points) will be massacred by 10 Tacticals (10 Marines, 140 points) in every damn situation. The Marines will suffer at worst 50% casualties.

Congratulations, you just invalidated your own arguement.

I think that atleast Terminators should be T5 and W2, not so sure about the normal marines though..

 master of ordinance wrote:
I was reading through and I noticed that someone claimed that the Imperial Guard had better troops than the Marines.

Just a reminder but three sections of Guardsmen (30 soldiers, 150 points) will be massacred by 10 Tacticals (10 Marines, 140 points) in every damn situation. The Marines will suffer at worst 50% casualties.

Congratulations, you just invalidated your own arguement.

Have you at all read what Martel is saying or are you still projecting?

 master of ordinance wrote:
I was reading through and I noticed that someone claimed that the Imperial Guard had better troops than the Marines.

Just a reminder but three sections of Guardsmen (30 soldiers, 150 points) will be massacred by 10 Tacticals (10 Marines, 140 points) in every damn situation. The Marines will suffer at worst 50% casualties.

Congratulations, you just invalidated your own arguement.

If you have to throw a squad in the way of some TWC, would you rather throw away 50 pts or 140 pts? 50 pts or 95 pts?

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I was reading through and I noticed that someone claimed that the Imperial Guard had better troops than the Marines.

Just a reminder but three sections of Guardsmen (30 soldiers, 150 points) will be massacred by 10 Tacticals (10 Marines, 140 points) in every damn situation. The Marines will suffer at worst 50% casualties.

Congratulations, you just invalidated your own arguement.

If you have to throw a squad in the way of some TWC, would you rather throw away 50 pts or 140 pts? 50 pts or 95 pts?

This also doesn't take into account that 30 Guard firing 90 Lasgun shots are probably going to kill a ton of those marines by sheer volume before they even get to assault. And against shooting, Guard should be utilizing cover.

So, eh.

To humor everyone.

Assume nobody wants to assault, but get into Rapid Fire easily.

Lasguns kill (1/2)(1/3)(1/3) marines per shot. 1/18.
Boltguns kill (2/3)(2/3)(1) Guardsmen per shot. 4/9.

So, with Guardsmen shooting first. 30 vs 10.
30x2x(1/18) = 3+1/3 dead Marines.

Shooting second, though 6+2/3 kill:
(20/3)x2x(4/9) = 160/27. 6 dead Guardsmen.

Marines lose that firefight, assuming the IG player fails no Morale (SM failing morale isn't a big thing here). Not a route, but a win.

If Marines instead decide to assault, they kill 3 by shooting, then take 1 more casualty in Overwatch. They make it in at 27 to 5+2/3 (needing less than 6" on 2d6). Then:

(17/3)x2x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) = (34/3)(8/27) = 272/81 = about 3+1/3 dead Guardsmen.

23+2/3 Guard strike back doing:
(71/3)x1x(1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = (71/54) dead Marines.

Marines win combat by 2. If Guardmen somehow make every check for the rest of the game, its close, but odds are tiny (testing on -2 is likely to fail, but the 6+ times Guard will need to test it all but guarantees they will fail).

So Guard win by a little if they shoot first in Rapid Fire range and Marines refuse to assault.

Marines win if they aren't stupid.

And that assumes IG have the tactical advantage. Let's try Marines having it (same range means it could go either way):

Marines shoot first. 10vs30.
10x2x(4/9) is 80/9 dead. 8+8/9.

Guard shoot back.
(190/9)x2x(1/18) = 380/162 = about 2+1/3.

It'll take a while for Marines to finish the Guard if they decide never to assault, but they win eventually by a large margin. Assuming IG never break in shooting, at which point SM win easily.

Looking at all this, there are situations where the IG win, but Marines are usually the winner in most situations, point for point.

When comparing troops head to head.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why is it cheaper to sacrifice a, say 10-man 90pt min squad than a 5man 70pt squad? More for either, fully kitted, of course.

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I was reading through and I noticed that someone claimed that the Imperial Guard had better troops than the Marines.

Just a reminder but three sections of Guardsmen (30 soldiers, 150 points) will be massacred by 10 Tacticals (10 Marines, 140 points) in every damn situation. The Marines will suffer at worst 50% casualties.

Congratulations, you just invalidated your own arguement.

If you have to throw a squad in the way of some TWC, would you rather throw away 50 pts or 140 pts? 50 pts or 95 pts?

If you are using your Tacticals as 10 man throw aways then you are using them in the wrong way.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I was reading through and I noticed that someone claimed that the Imperial Guard had better troops than the Marines.

Just a reminder but three sections of Guardsmen (30 soldiers, 150 points) will be massacred by 10 Tacticals (10 Marines, 140 points) in every damn situation. The Marines will suffer at worst 50% casualties.

Congratulations, you just invalidated your own arguement.

If you have to throw a squad in the way of some TWC, would you rather throw away 50 pts or 140 pts? 50 pts or 95 pts?

If you are using your Tacticals as 10 man throw aways then you are using them in the wrong way.

Okay, then. 5 man with plasma gun, combi-plas. The point is that no amount of tac marines can beat TWC or Wraiths. The same goes for guardsmen. So again, who do you want to be run over? Cheap ass guardsmen or expensive tac marines?