Tactical marines still a liability in a list or not?

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.

**Unit1126PLL**

ITT:
"Tacticals are fine."
"NO!"
"Here are some reasons tacticals are fine..."
"NO WORST UNIT EVER"
"Well when used intelligently they can pull a lot of weight..."
"OMG WHY EVEN PLAY MARINES ANYMORE THEY ARE GARBAGE"

**Mandragola**

Alcibiades wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

"This thing is good, this other thing is bad" is something that people like to say to feel smart without realizing that it's actually a mark of intellectual laziness. And not just in games.

I have said that scouts are worse than tacticals in razorbacks, due to their weaker armour and having only the sergeant's combi-weapon. That's not the same as saying they are worse in all situations - only that they aren't as good as tacticals at tacticals' job.

The three troops choices all do different things. If you want snipers or defence against deep strikers, buy scouts.

However, it's legitimate to view one or other of the three as overall better. That might leave a gap, but that can be made up elsewhere.

Building a list is always a balance between picking the units that are flat out best overall, and a list that has all the capabilities required to win games. So an army that has bad anti-tank units may still take some of them, because they have to kill tanks, despite them being bad units.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mandragola wrote:
Malifice wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They've got literally nothing over Devastators besides OS, and it isn't hard to shift 5 Marines.

In my 2000 point Sallies list I have 3 x 5 man Tac squads (2 x Missile launchers, 1 x Multi melta, Stormbolters on the Sgt) and 1 x 5 man Dev squad (2 x Lascannon, 2 x Hvy Bolter, Cherub).

The former generally deploy in Assbacks (1 x assback per squad). The later camp on a backfield objective with a Lt nearby and a twin Las + Missile dreadnaught.

Each of those squads (3 x Tac, 1 x Dev, the Lt and the Dread) get chapter tactics (1 x re-roll to hit, and 1 x re-roll to wound) each time they shoot or fight. The re-roll is saved for the ML/MM on the Tac squads (which gets resolved first). Tthe 5-10 bolter shots then go elsewhere.

I also send a Stormraven and Stormtalon up in the enemies face. The Raven contains a Centurion Assault squad (hurricane bolters, melta and flamer) plus a Captain, Apothecary and Lt.

In between the 3 x Ass-backs, Dreadnaught, the Dev squad, the Storm raven, the Centurions and the Stormtalon I find my opponents largely ignore the Tac squads (who I spread out on objectives, plinking away with missile launchers and multimeltas). With 2+ saves in cover and T4 they're surprisingly hard to shift if they do get targetted, and the ML can keep on keeping on.

I find the Tac squads not only score me the lions share of VP for most games I play, but also easily get back their points (270 odd, total) pretty much each game I play.

This seems to be a good way to use tactical squads. Not spsnding much on them at all and using salamanders CT. The lieutenant is a cheap hq tax with good synergy. You get your 3cps cheaply and effectively.

The trick to keeping marine troops (or probably any troops) alive is providing tough, threatening stuff to draw fire. The storm raven etc. does that. That leaves just infantry weapons to target the tacticals, and it isn't good at digging them out of cover.

Of course, exactly the same strategy works for intercessors as well. They don't get transports, but I find they tend not to take heavy casualties at the start, if in cover and at range. And with any CT other than salamanders I think I'd rather have the intercessors. For instance, my IF intercessors would actually be fairly good at removing those salamanders from cover, with their ap and ignorance of cover.

And once again Devastators make better use of the Salamanders rile because they get more potential rerolls, which means actually killing targets.

And no it is not hard to shift 5 Marines on cover. I don't buy Scouts their camo anymore for a damn good reason.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alcibiades wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

"This thing is good, this other thing is bad" is something that people like to say to feel smart without realizing that it's actually a mark of intellectual laziness. And not just in games.

Accusing others of intellectual laziness is actual intellectual laziness. I provided reasons.

Plus internal balance has never been good in this game. If your point is so true, please talk about how awesome, for example, 6th-7th edition Possessed Marines are. Clearly we are all missing something if they aren't actually bad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
ITT:
"Tacticals are fine."
"NO!"
"Here are some reasons tacticals are fine..."
"NO WORST UNIT EVER"
"Well when used intelligently they can pull a lot of weight..."
"OMG WHY EVEN PLAY MARINES ANYMORE THEY ARE GARBAGE"

Oh look, the L2P argument. Clearly the tournament winners were never using Tactical Marines intelligently enough. Not like you guys, the few people that defend the unit. Even though I provided reasons that people don't use, why they shouldn't be used, etc in a long winded post that was largely ignored for gak anecdotes. Not statistics, because that would be too hard.

PEDM, remember?

Like, do you hear yourself?

**Insectum7**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.

**Martel732**

Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

Experiences mean nothing in the face of mass data from 7th.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Martel732 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

Experiences mean nothing in the face of mass data from 7th.

Martel they're literally ignoring data in this thread.

**Martel732**

Par for the course on Dakka, really.

"This one time, my tac marine plasma guy totally finished off a bloodthrister!"

Of course, that was after the full barrage of 7th ed grav cannons hit it, but that tac marine sure was effective!

I also love the other thread when I was accused of claiming that a single conscript averages a marine kill. Major math lulz.

**andysonic1**

As a chaos player, there is no reason to take marines while cult marines exist.

**Dionysodorus**

Tactical Marines are pretty grossly over-costed. Like, what would it take to get you to bring a squad consisting of a Sergeant and 4 Marines, all with nothing but bolters, pistols, and grenades? Is this worth even 50 points? Maybe with Chapter Tactics. I mean, 51 points buys you 5 Battle Sisters with 8 bolters' worth of shooting. I'm not sure that losing 38% firepower is worth picking up a marginal advantage in CC and 33% more durability against S4 small arms fire.

Obviously they have weapon options, which you're always going to take, but that's because their weapon options are under-costed. The only real role for a tac squad is to be Troops while providing ablative wounds for a special/heavy weapon. The job of a basic Marine is to die so that the plasma gunner may live. I think that, ideally, a naked Marine would be significantly cheaper while the squad's weapon options become a little more expensive, so that a standard squad with weapons is a little cheaper than now and a squad without special weapons is substantially cheaper than now.

**Xenomancers**

I view the roll of troops as being fodder. Any damage they do is just bonus. Usually I take the bigger bonus.

Tactical marines fodder bonus is - can shoot 2 plasma guns and 3 bolters before they die.

Intersessors bonus is - might live an additional turn in bad conditions. Shooting at something all game with 30 inch range and 15 inch rapid fire. Might hurt something in close combat.

Scouts bonus is - are always in the right place at the right time. When they die - it hurts less because they are cheap.

**Mandragola**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Mandragola wrote:
Malifice wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They've got literally nothing over Devastators besides OS, and it isn't hard to shift 5 Marines.

In my 2000 point Sallies list I have 3 x 5 man Tac squads (2 x Missile launchers, 1 x Multi melta, Stormbolters on the Sgt) and 1 x 5 man Dev squad (2 x Lascannon, 2 x Hvy Bolter, Cherub).

The former generally deploy in Assbacks (1 x assback per squad). The later camp on a backfield objective with a Lt nearby and a twin Las + Missile dreadnaught.

Each of those squads (3 x Tac, 1 x Dev, the Lt and the Dread) get chapter tactics (1 x re-roll to hit, and 1 x re-roll to wound) each time they shoot or fight. The re-roll is saved for the ML/MM on the Tac squads (which gets resolved first). Tthe 5-10 bolter shots then go elsewhere.

I also send a Stormraven and Stormtalon up in the enemies face. The Raven contains a Centurion Assault squad (hurricane bolters, melta and flamer) plus a Captain, Apothecary and Lt.

In between the 3 x Ass-backs, Dreadnaught, the Dev squad, the Storm raven, the Centurions and the Stormtalon I find my opponents largely ignore the Tac squads (who I spread out on objectives, plinking away with missile launchers and multimeltas). With 2+ saves in cover and T4 they're surprisingly hard to shift if they do get targetted, and the ML can keep on keeping on.

I find the Tac squads not only score me the lions share of VP for most games I play, but also easily get back their points (270 odd, total) pretty much each game I play.

This seems to be a good way to use tactical squads. Not spsnding much on them at all and using salamanders CT. The lieutenant is a cheap hq tax with good synergy. You get your 3cps cheaply and effectively.

The trick to keeping marine troops (or probably any troops) alive is providing tough, threatening stuff to draw fire. The storm raven etc. does that. That leaves just infantry weapons to target the tacticals, and it isn't good at digging them out of cover.

Of course, exactly the same strategy works for intercessors as well. They don't get transports, but I find they tend not to take heavy casualties at the start, if in cover and at range. And with any CT other than salamanders I think I'd rather have the intercessors. For instance, my IF intercessors would actually be fairly good at removing those salamanders from cover, with their ap and ignorance of cover.

And once again Devastators make better use of the Salamanders rile because they get more potential rerolls, which means actually killing targets.

And no it is not hard to shift 5 Marines on cover. I don't buy Scouts their camo anymore for a damn good reason.

Camo cloaks are probably overpriced. They only make scouts as tough as normal marines when they're in cover, still softer in cc or the open, so for them to cost considerably more than tactical marines is clearly wrong.

It's wrong to say that devastators are a flat out better option than tacticals. They clearly have advantages, but so do the tacticals.

Most obviously, tactical marines are troops. As Malifice says, he gets 3 troop choices, 15 wounds and 3 lascannons for 270 points. That isn't very much to pay, actually. He gets CPs for them.

Redundancy is important. Tactical squads require a fair bit of firepower to remove. Not vast amounts, but non-trivial amounts. It's different if you have to kill 4 guys with bolters before lascannons start to die, compared to if you shoot at a devastator squad and heavy weapons start to die straight away.

And Malifice also uses a devastator squad. He's not using them instead anyway - he's using them as well.

That said, I rarely use tactical marines myself. I have used them, for instance when I only had the 10 intercessors from the starter set, when I put 5 of them in my storm eagle to drop off if needed.

**Insectum7**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.

For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.

**Desubot**

Mandragola wrote:

Camo cloaks are probably overpriced. They only make scouts as tough as normal marines when they're in cover, still softer in cc or the open, so for them to cost considerably more than tactical marines is clearly wrong.

Just a small thing but camo cloaks bump em up by 2 to a 2+ im pretty sure.

unless their scout armor got nerfed into a 5+

**sossen**

Mandragola wrote:
Redundancy is important. Tactical squads require a fair bit of firepower to remove. Not vast amounts, but non-trivial amounts. It's different if you have to kill 4 guys with bolters before lascannons start to die, compared to if you shoot at a devastator squad and heavy weapons start to die straight away.

I think it's important to note that a devastator squad with one lascannon costs as much as a tactical squad of the same size with a lascannon. You are choosing between different advantages for the two - a devastator squad gets a free +1 to hit for one model every shooting phase and the option of bringing a cherub - imo that's better than a part of a CP and obsec.

**Martel732**

Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.

For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.

It's the only data we really have. Everything else is anecdotal. Also, there have been a couple cases of internet arguments where I've met up at cons and it turns out they were playing something wrong which changed everything. That's probably not the case here, but I CAN tell you that terrain is a HUGE variable for which there is NO consensus. I have faced IG lists where 6 artillery tanks were untargetable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, for the people pimping obj sec, realize that a huge chunk of my competition is not letting my units within 3" of four of the six objectives. Orks can do it, Nids can do it, IG does it all day long.

**U02dah4**

Martel732 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

Experiences mean nothing in the face of mass data from 7th.

Data from 7th is irrelevant the rules habe changed significantly which means all units need reevaluating in light of 8th ed only.

**Martel732**

We were discussing the history of tac marines, so it was relevant.

As they currently stand, they far, far less efficient than geqs. In fact, I think all the marines troops are. Hence, why I say they are all bad. The prevalence of the overcharge plasma trick hurts marines disproportionately compared to ig and orks for sure.

**U02dah4**

Also as IG player we dont start on 3 of the 4 objectives we have to get to them so if you get in range first...

**Slayer-Fan123**

Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.

For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.

You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.

**Martel732**

U02dah4 wrote:
Also as IG player we dont start on 3 of the 4 objectives we have to get to them so if you get in range first...

Those units get blasted off the table by artillery. I've lived this well over a dozen times, now. The IG literally doesn't care what else is in my list. They are focusing on blasting me off objectives and surrounding it with their zombie-like hordes that never die. And they always win that exchange, because marines are expensive. I am denied access to their artillery with my CC units and DS units, which leaves me with 48" guns and maybe 36. This fact makes vanilla more palatable, I admit, as any BA CC unit you bring against IG are points you just flushed down the toilet. However, if the IG can get say, 4 untargetable tanks, they will win the attrition war, since you can't protect any marine unit with CC anymore.

It's almost like the IG players understand the weakness of marines and are very good at exploiting them, while denying my ability exploit their "weaknesses".

**Slayer-Fan123**

Desubot wrote:
Mandragola wrote:

Camo cloaks are probably overpriced. They only make scouts as tough as normal marines when they're in cover, still softer in cc or the open, so for them to cost considerably more than tactical marines is clearly wrong.

Just a small thing but camo cloaks bump em up by 2 to a 2+ im pretty sure.

unless their scout armor got nerfed into a 5+

Yeah, but it makes them 14 points. It's worth a point, minimum and maximum.

**Martel732**

Camo cloaks are only viable for snipers. And 14 pt snipers? LOL, no thx.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Martel732 wrote:
We were discussing the history of tac marines, so it was relevant.

As they currently stand, they far, far less efficient than geqs. In fact, I think all the marines troops are. Hence, why I say they are all bad. The prevalence of the overcharge plasma trick hurts marines disproportionately compared to ig and orks for sure.

Scouts and now Intercessors are excellent so we are in disagreement here.

**Martel732**

No, they're not. After 30+ games, I think the marine troops are basically trash. And get laughed at by the Xenos/IG. Maybe it's trickle down from other BA problems. It's getting to the point where I almost don't care.

Overloaded plasma prevalence makes intercessors a massive gamble.

Scouts get foiled by the CC rules in my view.

**Melissia**

Martel, this thread isn't about seventh edition. If you want to argue about seventh edition, go start a thread about seventh edition.

Desubot wrote:
Mandragola wrote:

Camo cloaks are probably overpriced. They only make scouts as tough as normal marines when they're in cover, still softer in cc or the open, so for them to cost considerably more than tactical marines is clearly wrong.

Just a small thing but camo cloaks bump em up by 2 to a 2+ im pretty sure.

Tactical marines are 2+ in cover for 13ppm. This 2+ becomes a 3+ in close combat.

Scouts are 3+ in cover for 11ppm. This 3+ becomes a 4+ in close combat.

Scouts with camo are 2+ in cover for 14ppm. This 2+ becomes a 4+ in close combat.

Thus the post you were referring to.

**Desubot**

Melissia wrote:
Martel, this thread isn't about seventh edition. If you want to argue about seventh edition, go start a thread about seventh edition.

Desubot wrote:
Mandragola wrote:

Camo cloaks are probably overpriced. They only make scouts as tough as normal marines when they're in cover, still softer in cc or the open, so for them to cost considerably more than tactical marines is clearly wrong.

Just a small thing but camo cloaks bump em up by 2 to a 2+ im pretty sure.
Tactical marines are 2+ in cover for 13ppm. This 2+ becomes a 3+ in close combat.

Scouts are 3+ in cover for 11ppm. This 3+ becomes a 4+ in close combat.

Scouts with camo are 2+ in cover for 14ppm. This 2+ becomes a 4+ in close combat.

Thus the post you were referring to.

Oh derp right i forgot to think about normal marines in cover

**Melissia**

Yeah, a lot of people do.

**Insectum7**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Azuza001 wrote:
I don't understand this "always better in all instances" mentality. Tacticals have better armor and more flexible weapons options. Scouts have special deployment options and a few special weapons options. Why can't they both be used?

Because a good player and list won't have room for Tactical Marines. Remember how it took FREE units to get anyone to use them or did everyone conveniently forget that?

Nice to see you make such gross assumptions about everyone elses experiences.

It's the correct assumption when you look at tournament lists.

For a guy that espouses data so much, you must realize that tournaments represent a tiny fraction of players, recorded tournaments even less, and that tournament play is often using different circumstances and rules than people play elsewhere. It's the only data you have to cling to, I get it, but it ain't the whole story.

You mean the circumstances where people are bringing their best lists possible and that there's occasional house rules to try and make bad units less bad when people still aren't taking them? You mean those different circumstances? Because if the circumstances you're talking about are the ones where people do dumb things for fun, that's useless for discussion entirely.

Yeah, the same tournaments with their own non-stadard rules, time limits, and often terrible terrain set ups.

**Martel732**

Yet, gw does not give terrain parameters so it's completely an opinion about any given terrain setup.